Are you ready for $4.00 gasoline?

Add any escalation in Middle East tensions and much higher gasoline prices are possible

As comes summer so to does an increase in American driving, as gasoline is reformulated into summer blends. Combined these two events push gasoline prices higher in a regular seasonal event. Consequently, USAToday reports that gas prices should increase about $.60 cents nationally by May, topping the $4.00 per gallon mark.

However, add an Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, for instance, and gasoline prices could surge much higher.

According to USAToday, gasoline prices have already risen $.19 in in the last month thanks to market fears regarding the potential of Middle East supply disruptions — despite assurances from Saudi Arabia that oil prices will not rise above $100 per barrel.

So, if you’ve been contemplating a hybrid purchase, now might be a good time. $4.00 gasoline will provide a return on that hybrid premium even sooner, and based on the last few years of energy and Middle East politics, this probably won’t be the last spike in the next few years.

Not sure which hybrid cars provide the best or quickest return on that hybrid investment? Check out our latest Buying Hybrid Cars articles for the latest information.

Is this real American, Big 3 leadership?

Is the Big 3 really any better than Big oil?

We build what Americans want. That’s the mantra US automakers tout regarding their over-dependence upon gas-guzzling pickup trucks time and time again. So, what about the other 50 percent of America? LOL! We really are a divided country, but in so many convoluted ways.

Anyway, I’ve been thinking a lot about the Big 3 recently, especially since coming across a JD Power study regarding the importance of perception and how it affects US auto consumers — we’re pretty manipulable, even to our disadvantage. Then came the Super Bowl commercials, particularly Clint Eastwood’s Chrysler commercial and also GM’s Chevy Silverado apocalypse commercial.

All of it has me wondering, when it comes to being pro-American, are the Big 3 really any better than Big oil?

I found myself wondering that again after reading Pols miss Chrysler ad’s true message, an opinion column in the Detroit News. Was the bailout good for America? Even that’s almost a silly question, if we’re being honest, but even that question misses the real point of the Chrysler ad, and that is, what have we learned? And is all this political spin regarding the bailout good for America? Are we really moving forward or will we repeat our mistakes?

The whole bailout is really pretty funny stuff. For instance, it was President George Bush — a Republican –  that initiated the whole auto bailout by pumping enough money into the Big 3 to give the Obama administration time to deal with this crisis — a classy move in my opinion and a necessary one. Likewise, I bet Republicans are more pro-Big 3 vehicle buying than are Democrats. Ohhhh, the irony.

From there; however, things get overly political and even more nonsensical.

For instance, Obama probably would have had no chance to save the Big 3 if not for Bush’s actions. So Obama has to give huge props to Bush, or he’s being disingenuous. The Big 3 would have been out of money and 17 billion in bills due without Bush’s actions. Bankruptcy court would have been the only option, and it would have happened before Obama took office. Similarly, despite UAW rhetoric, Republicans like Mitt Romney weren’t trying to destroy the US auto industry and Detroit, but they were trying to minimize the power of the UAW — even destroy it. But as, Danial Howes in his Detroit News piece points out, significant blame for the Big 3’s downfall falls in the UAW’s lap, yet I’ve heard little talk from the UAW ever accepting any responsibility.

Likewise, Obama, didn’t blame the UAW much either. He can’t. It’s a key political base, and that’s more important than the truth as well. Thus, he focused on corporate greed and gave bondholders, for instance, the short end of the stick while protecting the UAW as much as possible — a move that car czar Steve Rattner has admitted was a a bit of mistake in hindsight. Nevertheless, to be certain, the corporate side of GM, the Wall Street side of the General, did deserve great blame, more blame than did the UAW.

But in great crimes, key accomplices are often equally culpable.

Inevitably, the reconstruction of the US auto industry was going to hurt no matter the approach — either Obama’s approach or a Romney-ian approach — and many people did get hurt, and the fall out still hasn’t been fully felt and tens of billions of dollars have been lost forever.

But that is no longer the point. Have we learned anything? That’s what Howes suggests was Clint’s — Chrysler’s –  real point. More important, can WE come together?

Obviously, our politicians cannot. What about the auto industry?

Recent analysis by a number of economists, for instance, has found that the real estate bubble and all its fraudulent and greedy derivatives were not enough to account for the financial meltdown. High energy prices, it is becoming more and more accepted, were also an important contributor.

That brings up GM’s Chevy Silverado apocalypse ad, a commercial Ford found so offensive they sent a cease and desist letter to GM before the commercial was aired, claiming that GM’s commercial was void of truth in advertising. Essentially, Ford claimed they could use the same Polk data as GM and also claim that the F-Series is the longest lasting pickup truck.

Yet, we all know this isn’t about truth in advertising, it is about profits. Ford understands this game. It’s about perception, and like a good politician, Ford should have hit back with its own smear campaign — at least that was the old Detroit way of doing things, but should it be today? At the end of the day pickup trucks are the bread and butter of the US auto industry.

Unfortunately, pickup trucks certainly couldn’t save the US auto industry as gas prices started skyrocketing before the US recession. While consumers were lining up, paying premiums for hybrid cars at Toyota dealerships, consumers avoided Big 3 dealerships like the plague, and the Big 3 bled money hand over foot, dropping billions by the month — even though internal studies by at least one Detroit automaker had forecast the possibility of such a gas spike, but the beancounters decided it wasn’t worth preparing for — the government would never let the industry collapse anyway. How could they?

And they were right.

So, how did the Big 3 get in this spot in the first place? By building what Americans wanted? Or by building what drove the most short term profit because that was the only chance to keep their bloated, short term thinking and fuel inefficient approach to the future afloat? I mean instead of having an adaptable UAW workforce, the industry instead offered job’s banks. Instead of helping the guy out in the next production line backed up by demand, the guy or gal in the line with less work, took a nap, watched TV, or maybe went out to the parking lot to smoke a joint.

What kind of competitive business could ever imagine a scenario where a job’s bank would be the key to profitable success? Only one with the old UAW as a key partner. Is the new UAW better? I hope so.

Likewise, instead of embracing innovation, corporate boards embraced the status quo as long is provided the most short term profit. Short term greed is rarely the key to long term success.

But back to oil companies versus the Big 3

The other day I read a report about the unintended consequences of the last rise in fuel economy requirements — the 90’s SUV craze. Interestingly, states like California, for instance, tried to stop the SUV craze dead in its tracks early on, but the auto industry was able to wage a successful PR campaign built around the American ideals of freedom of choice, and safety.

SUV safety? In the 90’s?

If you were going to die in an accident in the 90’s, it was probably going to be in a rolled over SUV, yet the Big 3 inundated the market with ads about safety and freedom, while paying off the families of rollover death after rollover death in exchange for non-public, closed settlements. The perception of safety, not the reality, was all that mattered because it was extremely profitable.

Of course, it also drove US foreign oil dependence higher and made the Big 3 ever more dependent upon the light duty truck segment.

Even in the 90’s, after the Big 3 were given billions to develop technologies like hybrid cars, leading to NiMH patent rights, the Big 3 gave up the projects as soon as the money was gone, selling NiMH rights, for instance, to an oil company. What a great taxpayer expenditure.

But could you blame the Big 3? Why worry about hybrid cars when gas-guzzling SUVs were selling so great? Besides, the Big 3 were selling what Americans wanted, and if Americans weren’t concerned about US energy security, why should the most important industry in America try to be a noble corporate steward? Their only responsibility is to shareholders, not America. And the UAW went right along because the couches in the job’s banks were quite comfortable.

Today, many Americans hate on Big oil, except for the importance the industry has had on their pension funds and 401k’s of course. Or the way industry has helped keep gasoline prices low compared to the rest of the industrialized world for decades. For that we just bury our heads in the sand and blissfully plead ignorance.

But why are we so eager to embrace the Big 3? To overlook its greed-driven, monumental failures?

Sure the Big 3 create jobs, so too does Big oil — as well as a massive amount of wealth that is pumped into the US economy. However, the hypocrisy of building ‘American-made’ vehicles that are dependent upon foreign oil is a little too greasy for me to stomach, especially when some transplants offer domestic production at even greater levels than some of the Big 3. But they aren’t UAW run.

I know. Who cares? it’s all about who builds the longest lasting 16 mpg pickup truck. Didn’t you watch the Super Bowl, duh!?! Because take away those foreign oil guzzling, middle east war provoking gas guzzlers and it doesn’t matter whether a Republican or Democrat is President. The Big 3 are dead. Immediately. And the US economy crushed.

So, what have learned since the bailout? Have we really changed?

Can we — all of us — come together in a way where we don’t just share our responsibility in this mess we’ve all helped create, regardless of the political, self-serving and profitable spin? Can we work together for a better future that focuses less on blame and more on solutions? Because the blame part is the easy part, and it’s the part politicians are most adept at using, because like automakers, politicians know it isn’t reality that matters, just perception.

More important, can automakers, such as Chrysler, be better leaders, better corporate stewards? Because, really, Americans don’t owe the Big 3 anything. Rather it’s the Big 3 and the UAW that owe America. For once, for instance, it would be nice if Ford and GM didn’t worry so much about gas-guzzler domination, but rather how they can lead America to energy independence and economic security. It’s time for the Big 3 to stop blaming consumers, to stop blaming politicians — even though they all deserve blame — and to start taking real American leadership.

For example, what’s the Big 3’s plan for US energy independence? What’s their blueprint for a more secure and economically strong America? Because if their future is still just a future based solely on profits, particularly profits driven by foreign-oil dependent gas guzzlers, and being too big to fail, then the Big 3 are no better than the oil companies America loves to hate.

You’ve successfully talked the talked Chrysler, now show me something. Or Ford. Or GM. You owe us. You owe America.

Is fracking inherently so much more dangerous than foreign oil dependence?

The new world order of energy?

If you attended the recent Deloitte & Touche oil and gas conference in Houston, you were left with one realization, according to Bob Lutz of BMW, Chrysler, Ford, and GM fame: US energy independence is now a potential reality. Thanks to an oil and natural gas boom, something even Lutz didn’t believe in until listening to the experts at the conference, OPEC independence could be achieved “in a period of a few years”.

Similarly, Lutz still believes man-caused global warming is just as much a myth as peak oil has become.

Nevertheless, despite a lack of CO2 or peak oil worries, Lutz still believes electrification is inevitable, and it won’t need to be supported by the government, at least not long term.

So says a recent piece that Lutz wrote for Forbes that also claims that there is still no real and serious US energy policy, even comparing CAFE requirements to fighting obesity by forcing retailers to only manufacture smaller clothes.

Nevertheless, even to someone like Lutz, whom today believes that global warming and peak oil are myths, electrification still makes sense long term and should be supported today. Now, maybe that’s partially due to Lutz’s stake in the Chevy Volt, which Lutz has claimed will lead the plug-in revolution, but I think it still an important point.

Long term, electrification will be cheaper than combustion engines. Thus, that should be a critical piece of any energy policy.

But it’s not there yet, and it will take decades to replace fossil fuel dependence — especially if coal is to also be replaced. That realization should also be a critical piece of any energy policy. Therefore, today, it’s about the best path to take on the long and winding road to electrification, particularly renewable electrification.

Unfortunately, I’d bet that just as Republicans have been obstinate about the potential of batteries, so to will Democrats be obstinate about the potential of fracking, when its obvious both need to part of a quality, effective plan. As a result, instead of putting forth a realistic plan to achieve US energy independence and to electrify the future as expediently, efficiently and cost-effectively as possible, we’ll instead remain stuck in the status quo.

Plug-in Prius too rationale for electrification hype

OPUD: Over-promising and under-delivering the battery-powered future

I find it terribly unsettling how often fans of electrification ridicule Toyota. They don’t even use lithium in their conventional hybrid cars, they claim. As if all the lithium powered mild hybrids, full hybrids, plug-in hybrids and electric cars on the market today are dwarfing Toyota’s NiMH-powered sale’s advantage. In fact, if not for Toyota’s NiMH hybrids, there would have been far less cause for other automakers to try to leapfrog Toyota’s Prius with plug-ins like the Volt or the Leaf — which are more halo than sale’s products today.

Likewise, it is often claimed that Toyota’s upcoming plug-in hybrids don’t offer enough electric range, even though it’s beyond obvious that the key to plug-in success isn’t really about range today, it’s about cost.

Even more ironic, it seems quite obvious that the lithium revolution in the automotive space itself has become dependent upon Toyota, at least if it’s going to happen anytime soon.

In just next the few years, Toyota should be selling more than 1 million hybrid cars per year, and by around 2020 or so that number could be as high as 2 million or more hybrid vehicles. That will require extensive battery supply chains — an endeavor in which Toyota already has immense experience thanks to NiMH — and it will almost certainly require lithium. Interestingly, Toyota has already also secured large amounts of lithium supplies.

But Toyota has been focused on the wrong the lithium battery technologies, so say the critics, especially since car guru Bob Lutz — co-father of the Chevy Volt — started saying that years ago. Of course, Lutz also claimed GM’s BAS and dual mode hybrids would also be superior to the Prius.

Anyway, so some other automaker has perfected the right lithium battery technology? After hearing this argument for years now I still haven’t seen any proof in sales. When is this lithium sale’s revolution coming, driven by what vehicle?

It’s going to take years to scale up production, it doesn’t happen overnight, right? OK, but aren’t battery technologies going tochange over those years as well, affecting supply chains, production forecasts, etc.?

Moreover, I bet if you pooled all the automotive battery experts and analysts in the world about the right battery technology for the electrification revolution, they’d tell you such a battery doesn’t exist today. Even if it potentially exists, it’s so far from cost-effectively mass producible that it could easily be decades before there is any chance it could dominate the auto industry. Lest anyone forget, the bulk of today’s lithium battery technologies have now been around for more than 30 years.

Still, lithium battery technologies are moving ever closer to being able to challenge segments of the automotive market, but that is a far cry from claiming that lithium is on the verge of dominating the auto industry.

Nevertheless, once Toyota can produce a lithium powered Prius for the same price and reliability as a NiMH powered Prius, then there is nowhere for Prius prices to go but down, and Prius and hybrid production to go but up. That also means better prices for Toyota’s plug-in hybrids and their electric vehicles — and for the rest of the auto industry.

Ultimately, the lithium revolution isn’t going to be about just one auto maker dominating the battery industry — that argument is only waged in terms of halo products. It’s PR, not sales, driven. It’s going to take the whole industry’s acceptance of batteries to achieve the kind of scale to match internal combustion engine production and scale, for instance. That’s going to take time and it’s going to take more than plug-in vehicles, especially in the short-to-midterm.

Take away the $7500 plug-in tax credit and most lithium vehicles are pretty much dead in the water. Even with the $7500 tax credit, last year’s sales demonstrate the market for plug-ins is still very small until prices drop and range increases — significantly.

Therefore, instead of mocking Toyota for focusing on sales instead of posturing, I think it more productive to contemplate ways to incentivize Toyota to build lithium hybrid cars, especially ones assembled domestically. Imagine Toyota manufacturing 1 million lithium-powered hybrids in the US every year, while also helping to nurture and to support new and local supply chains for electrification-related parts that benefits all US automotive production.

That might truly fire up the lithium revolution.

In terms of electrification, Toyota is still far ahead of the pack when it comes to the metric that matters most: sales. And based on forecasts through the next decade provided by the major automakers themselves, Toyota’s production plans aren’t only more aggressive than the rest of the industry, but they appear more realistic.

In the past Ford has over-promised its hybrid program, just as GM over-promised its BAS and dual mode hybrids, and one might soon make the argument that the General also over-promised, but under-delivered the Chevy Volt — at least in terms of interim potential.

Toyota, on the other hand, has largely nailed its hybrid forecasts through the years. Perhaps instead of ridiculing Toyota for delivering on its promises, we should instead ask why other automakers seem to habitually use OPUD as the key to their fuel efficient efforts.

Volt 2.0: How would you re-Volt GM's key plug-in?

Built for change, but how much change?

Early in Chevy Volt production, many things were possible. For instance, GM suggested a non-plug-in Volt, a Volt that utilized super-capacitors rather than batteries, as well as a Volt that replaced its electric range extending engine with a range extending fuel cell. Likewise, different amounts of electric range have also been contemplated.

And according to recent outside analysis of the Volt, much room for change was intentionally built into the Volt platform, such as room for new advanced electronics — possibly a path to increased electric range for less money.

So, how would you change Volt 2.0?

There was a time when Frank Weber, one of the Volt’s original lead engineers, claimed that Volt electric range would always be 40 miles. Of course, Mr. Weber was later transferred and subsequently left GM altogether. Still, EV range seems a key focal point.

While GM might stick to 40 miles of range as its baseline, perhaps a new battery management system could ensure that the Volt achieves 40 miles of electric range, even in extremely hot or cold weather. Or maybe, 40 miles of EV range can eventually be squeezed out of a smaller and cheaper battery pack, thanks to advanced electronics.

Then again, should GM even stick to 40 miles?

Would reducing range to 20 miles, or increasing it to 50 miles, lift sales significantly? For instance, if a consumer averages 10 miles each one way trip and has the ability to charge between trips, such as at work, why 40 miles of range?  Not only is such a consumer paying for far more battery than needed, but all that battery also weighs down fuel economy during those longer weekend trips that necessitated gasoline range extending functionality in the first place.

Therefore, might not range flexibility be the key to the Volt’s long term success?

Couple that range flexibility with a non-plug-in version and the Volt begins to take on the Prius family at all levels. I know GM has the Cruze and the Volt helps sell the Cruze, but I believe that hybrid cars like the Prius have only just scratched the surface of their potential, and eventually, the Prius will outsell cars like the Cruze and the Corolla, at least in the US. Consequently, a non-plug-in Volt could be a great way to scale up GM’s battery production and Volt family sales.

Besides, since at least 50 – 60 percent of US consumers don’t have the option of off-street parking, GM, at least I believe, will eventually need to offer choices with greater fuel efficient possibilities — 50 mpgs+ in city fuel economy — but those options can’t be limited to those with plugs when so many have no ability to regularly and easily recharge.

Of course, maybe the Volt doesn’t need any major powertrain changes. Instead, maybe the only way to make the Volt more successful is a major battery breakthrough that reduces price significantly. Until then, maybe it’s all about cosmetic changes, new telematics, or a host of new amenities.

How would you upgrade the Chevy Volt 2.0?

C hybrid sold out in Japan after just one month

Japanese demand for the new, smaller Prius backed up 6 months+ already

Next month was supposed to be one of the most exciting launches in the US hybrid segment ever. Finally an impressive hybrid offering for under $19,000.

Unfortunately, in the first month of Japanese Prius C sales, Toyota sold almost an entire year’s worth of intended supplies.

When the C, known as the Aqua in Japan, was launched in Japan, Toyota was hoping to sell 12,000 vehicles per month. Instead, more than 120,000 orders have been placed in little more than a month. Consequently, anyone buying a Prius C in Japan today will have to wait until at least July for delivery.

So, how will this impact US sales?

Toyota hasn’t yet set a sale’s plan for C sales in the US, according to AutoWeek, but with such a huge backlog in Japan, it seems inevitable that US supplies will be impacted. Fortunately, Toyota has already increased 2012 C hybrid production plans from 240,000 to 320,000 vehicles. Yet, even if Japanese demand drops to just that 12,000 sales per month expectation for the rest of the year, there still won’t be many supplies left for the US and other markets, at least not without another serious uptick in production plans.

Then the question becomes, does Toyota have the capabilities to significantly increase C production without limiting the production of other Toyota hybrid cars?

Source: AutoWeek

Can the hybrid version appeal where TDI has not?

Can hybrid technology lift VW’s US sales?

Back in college an old girlfriend drove a Volkswagen Jetta. I loved it, although I was glad I had the privilege of just driving it, not owning it. That Jetta seemed to need more servicing than normal, and it was always expensive. Still, it was fun to drive. Then again, when you don’t own a car, any car seems fun to drive.

And that driving experience has made VW one of the biggest selling automakers in the world, despite an inability to truly resonate in the US. However, can the Jetta hybrid succeed where other VWs, especially the TDI’s, have failed?

While enthusiasts typically love VW’s TDI technology, the German automaker has been unable to convince mainstream Americans of the virtues of its turbo-charged, highly efficient, clean diesel technology. Maybe it was the crappy commercials, I don’t know, but we don’t Spreken Sie das auto here in the States.

Regardless, VW is going to add a hybrid version to the Jetta later this year, but will it fare any better than the TDI?

I haven’t yet tested the Jetta hybrid, but it’s focus on a combination of fuel economy and turbo-charged power, I find intriguing. VW expects the Jetta hybrid to hit about 45 mpg combined, while offering up a hybrid-shocking 177 hp. Hence, the Jetta TDI will be a sporty hybrid, in the truest sense of the phrase. Yes, that does seem a bit of an oxymoron, but at 45 mpg, it’s OK to have your cake and eat it too.

Even better, according to an early MotorTrend driving review, the new Jetta hybrid sounds like a winner.

Except for one thing.

Unfortunately, VW is only expecting about 5 percent of Jetta buyers to take the hybrid option, even though MotorTrend seems to suggest this is the best Jetta, except for the TDI — they are enthusiasts over at MT!

5 percent? In terms of US Jetta sales, that ain’t squat. In fact, what’s the point? PR? The halo effect? Coax ‘em in with the lure of efficient TDIs and hybrids and let them leave in a watered down, but cheaper, gasoline version?

I guess when top execs from the VW family publicly ridicule hybrid cars and plug-ins, regularly — even hatefully — one shouldn’t expect too much.

While it seems the new Jetta hybrid will be an exciting, new entrant into the hybrid segment, VW’s sale’s expectations suggest a high hybrid price with little chance for US success.

2020: More e-bikes in China than cars in US

100 million electric vehicles strong and growing fast

Back as the Internet bubble was beginning to froth, I remember some very smart people making the argument that no one was ever going to challenge Microsoft without government intervention. The government didn’t need to create competition, I argued, the marketplace would take care of the problem and the Internet would lead the way.

Like the Internet, electrification is also an inevitable game changer, but just as Microsoft misjudged the Internet revolution, so too might major automakers and the government miscalculate the plug-in revolution.

In fact, China might have already biked its way into total plug-in domination.

Companies with the size and power of a Microsoft almost inevitably become complacent. The Big 3 certainly have had their share of such arrogance, although the recent recession did temper this losing attitude to some extent. Even Toyota fell into the same elitist trap, only to be reinvigorated by the entrepreneurial spirit of Elon Musk and Tesla.

Yet, even Musk might have misjudged the electric revolution.

As Americans, we arrogantly assume the rest of the world is inevitably going to become more like us. Why? We’re a pretty dysfunctional bunch. We have so much, yet we use it so unwisely. We excel most at consumption and waste — even when it comes to our plug-in vehicles.

Certainly, others want to consume more, even waste more, but they still have different expectations. Likewise, the Chinese auto market might never go through an SUV craze such as America experienced back in the 90’s. In fact, they might never buy the big is better American automotive mantra. In places like China, big is often a pain in the butt, even if you can afford it.

A plug-in electric bike, or e-bike, on the other hand, fits China’s transportation background, and it’s simply more functional and far cheaper than a car, especially one of American size.

That doesn’t mean the Chinese, and other emerging markets, won’t want cars. They probably will, but they’ll have no problem adapting to much smaller and lighter vehicles than most Americans, even Europeans, would consider. In fact, China can create a new mold for transportation — one that might be more bike-like than car-like, and one that fits the limits of electrification much better than the American, out-of-date, model.

Just as tapping into the Internet doesn’t make a business a winner, as the Internet bubble so eloquently proved, neither does simply chasing electrification. It’s the applications and the business models that will define winners and losers. And dominating electrification will mean leaving last century’s transportation model behind.

Even that realization, however, might not matter because with 100 million electric bikes purchased in just the last decade — in a segment growing far faster than autos — China might have already won the plug-in vehicle revolution.

GM's eAssist makes sense according to Intellichoice

Toyota dominates list of 2012 Best Values

You know the line. Hybrids just don’t add up. The hybrid premium isn’t made up for decades, long after the car has expired. Blah, blah, blah. Yet, over and over numerous forms of analysis regarding such trivial issues as cost of ownership find a lot of hybrid cars do make sense, financial sense.

The Intellichoice Best Values in 2012, for instance, concluded that 5 of the best 24 values were hybrid-only vehicles.

The Honda Insight picked up the best compact passenger vehicle. The Toyota Prius V took best crossover/wagon, while the regular Prius earned the best passenger car nod. Likewise, Toyota’s Lexus CT 200h won the best premium compact passenger car. And, finally, the Buick LaCrosse eAssist topped the best premium passenger car list.

Hybrid cars aren’t just for making green statements. Many hybrids are also a smart buy for people that invest in the future.

Source: MotorTrend

The larger V couldn't lift Prius sales much in January

A 20 percent improvement should feel better than this

One might assume that a 20 percent improvement in Toyota’s hybrid sales, led by an 8.6 percent gain in Prius sales, is a great hybrid sale’s story compared to last year. It certainly squashes the idea that hybrid sales are declining, especially considering that the Prius C and the plug-in Prius are still on deck for later this year. 2012 only gets better from here, at least in terms of Toyota’s hybrid cars.

But I still would have expected bigger numbers.

To start, Toyota offered more hybrid models this January compared to 2011, led by the larger Prius V, and also the Lexus CT 200h. Yet, the V was only able to provide an 8.6 percent increase in Prius sales?

Moreover, Camry sales were up more than 50 percent. Camry hybrid sales, on the other hand, only jumped a little, despite a significant increase in fuel economy, and a nice price reduction. This is by far the best Camry hybrid, but consumers haven’t seemed to notice.

Certainly, it’s possible that both Camry hybrid and V — maybe even Prius — supplies are still a bit limited. Numerous reports suggest that Toyota still hasn’t fully recovered from the earthquake/tsunami supply disruptions of last Spring. So, it might take a few months to get a better read on the potential of Camry and V hybrids.

Likewise, in recent days — although my TV watching is erratic — there seems to have been a big jump in Prius V commercials, and I’ve also seen a few Camry hybrid commercials. Therefore, its arguable that Toyota is still ramping up for a bigger hybrid sale’s push heading into the Spring, particularly since Toyota is anticipating a 60 percent rise in hybrid sales this year. Of course, much of that 60 percent jump will be driven by the C and the plug-in Prius.

Nevertheless, minimally, the Camry hybrid deserves more consideration from Camry buyers.