Is global warming the MAIN reason to oppose ethanol

O.K., global warming isn't the main reason to oppose ethanol, however, global warming is the main reason to oppose ethanol as the solution to both foreign oil dependency and global warming gases. How can we put all our eggs in the alternative fuels basket when the same scientists warning the world about global warming also claim that today's global warming is going to lead to extreme weather, such as mini-ice ages, extreme droughts, massive hurricanes, flooding, etc, etc.? All of these conditions could wipe out the entire grain belt of the U.S. - our energy supply (not to mention our food supply) - for a year, for a decade, for a millennium.

While there is nothing wrong with pursuing alternative fuels, they cannot be pursued at the expense of efficiency.

Today, hybrid cars offer the greatest tool for efficiency. In addition, hybrids can utilize any alternative fuel developed. Most important, however, creating lighter vehicles with plug-in hybrid technology could easily increase fuel efficiency by more than 50%, even as much as 75% if carbon fibers, instead of steel, were used to build automobiles.

In the short term, alternative fuels are a distraction - an excuse - enabling automakers to continue to build more and more inefficient vehicles. 'Yes, it's a 12 mpg Hummer, but it uses flex-fuel' is neither the answer to energy dependence nor to global warming.

Foreign oil dependency: Security versus profits

So, we know that America's current electric grid could handle the power demands of converting conventional automobiles into plug-in hybrid vehicles. We know that such a move would reduce pollution. We know that using advanced carbon-fibers could produce 50 percent lighter vehicles that are stronger than today's vehicles. We know that adding plug-in hybrid technology to such vehicles would produce super strong, super fuel efficient automobiles capable of ending foreign oil dependency and drastically reducing all forms of pollution.

The only thing we don't know is, are such vehicles profitable to automakers? While it is a sad commentary on society that health and security are bean-counted against profitability, that is today's reality.

Still, wouldn't funding an automotive revolution via advanced technology be a worthy investment for government via less military protection of oil, for automakers via retooling their entire operations in state of the art technology geared for the future, and for consumers via increased fuel savings and security?

Why not spawn the next great revolution in human history?

Capitalism, Competition, Free Markets & Hybrid Tax Credits

Today, the Pentagon is one of the biggest proponents of energy independence. Why? Quite frankly, the cost of protecting America's oil habit is very expensive, and it is possibly the greatest threat to American National Security. Most citizens are even starting to understand the problems foreign oil dependency has and is creating. As a result, Congress created a new tax credit to help Americans purchase clean, foreign-oil-dependency fighting automobiles, such as hybrid cars.

The plan worked so well, that Toyota met its quota in less than a year, long before GM has even sold ONE full hybrid vehicle. Consequently, sales of Toyota hybrids have slowed in recent months. Sure, high gas prices have dulled people's interest in fuel economy, but it seems obvious that reduced tax credits are also an important part of the skid.

In America, where the virtues of capitalism, competition and free markets are loudly promoted in corporations and Congress, shouldn't such ideals also be used to fight for energy independence? If Toyota could sell another 60,000 hybrid vehicles right now, utilizing GM's unused credits before GM even offers a full hybrid, shouldn't they have that right?

Isn't protecting National Security more important than protecting Detroit's failures? Is America afraid to end oil dependency too quickly? Is the status quo really more important than National Security? Why are we punishing Toyota for doing too much to help America fight foreign oil dependency?

Why are there even quotas on the tax credits? There are no quotas on the tax incentives given to small business owners that buy the worst gas-guzzlers, yet there is NO incentive for small business owners to buy fuel efficient vehicles.

I guess that only makes sense to members of Congress.

While GM's Rick Wagoner can complain about unfair trade advantages and currency manipulation in places like Japan, Toyota has every right to complain about protectionist legislation coming out of the U.S. Congress.

If GM were forced to compete for those credits in a free market, you can bet they would have gotten more hybrids on the road much faster. Instead, Congress has essentially given them a safety net NOT to act faster.

Great job Congress! I mean its only our National Security at stake!

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?

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.

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?

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.

Democrats appear ready to focus on alternative fuels as answer to foreign oil dependency

As I stated earlier today, when it comes to foreign oil dependency, don't expect any real change from Democrats. Rep. John Dingell, whom will become chairmen of House Energy and Commerce Committee in January, has been a strong proponent against increased CAFE standards and he appears to see E85 and alternative fuels as the main solution to foreign oil dependency. (more)

Hopefully, Democrats will extend a few crumbs towards hybrid cars and plug-in hybrid cars, but that might offend the UAW too much, so don't expect any new tax credits for hybrids.

This is the big change America voted for? Excuse me for not being overly excited. When push comes to shove, politicians are just politicians and Democrats aren't really much better than Republicans.

It all comes down to the people. Politicians don't lead revolutions, people do, and voting for Democrats is no revolution.

Some interesting quotes

"In recent years, attempts to increase fuel economy standards have been met with broad bipartisan opposition and we're hopeful that that opposition continues," said Charles Territo, a spokesman for the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers.

"Energy policy and fuel economy standards for the past 20 years have been a bipartisan failure," said David Friedman, research director for the Union of Concerned Scientists' Clean Vehicles Program. "The next year will tell us a lot about how serious people are."

Stop the Madness: Hybrid Vehicles Not E85!!!!!!!

Last year ethanol producers received subsidies and tax incentives worth more than $5 billion dollars, and those subsidies will probably be much higher next year. Yet, even with those subsidies ethanol isn't cost effective unless gas prices are close to $3.00 per gallon.

So, is ethanol worth the price?

Supporters of ethanol claim that all this investment in ethanol for automobiles will eventually lead to better ways of producing ethanol, such as cellulosic ethanol.

I say it will simply lead to more flex-fuel Hummers and little decrease in foreign oil dependency. I say E85 is a feel-good way of accomplishing nothing, something both Democrats and Republicans love - talk, talk, talk, but do nothing.

Without raising the fuel efficiency of America's automobiles - significantly - America's demand for energy will continue to grow exponentially and it will outpace any reduction in foreign oil dependency produced by ethanol.

More important, even GM is now realizing the that the future of automobiles is probably electric. If this is true, then E85 simply becomes a distraction, even a boondoggle to those ends, at least for American automakers and the American economy.

Today, hybrid cars can increase fuel efficiency by 20 to 30 percent, which is a good start. Add advanced gasoline engines or clean diesel engines and fuel efficiency could be doubled - that's with just TODAY's technology.

But the real advantage of hybrids will be lithium batteries, and the ability to utilize electric power. Within 5 years it is quite possible that you could buy a $30,000 hybrid vehicle that might never have to be filled with fuel if you drive less than 40 miles per day, all it would need is a small electric charge at night.

Within 10 years a small fuel cell stack could be added to these plug-in hybrids and the majority of drivers might never need any other fuel than just a little occasional electricity. More important, all of this could happen much quicker if more incentives were provided for hybrid technology and lithium-ion technology.

Why not give those ethanol subsidies to consumers to purchase these vehicles? Ultimately, a change in consumer behavior is the quickest path to foreign oil dependence and a cleaner environment.

Yet, ethanol is the favored buzzword, the favored recipient of tax incentives and government subsidies.

In the past Honda has already claimed it believes electric cars are integral to the future, and Toyota's hybrid efforts make them a player in electric cars as well. Even GM says the future is electric. Consequently, it is imperative that American automakers lead the way into this automotive revolution, rather than sticking to flex-fuel Hummers and Mustangs.

America's focus should be that in 10 years every American vehicle produced is either fuel-free or that fuel is simply a backup. The technology will be there within 10 years. The Japanese will be there. Will America?

Still, I'm all for ethanol, cellulosic ethanol, as a fuel to produce electricity, just not as an automobile fuel. Ultimately, transporting ethanol simply makes no sense in a liquid form, but in an electric form it makes great sense.

Consequently, E85 could become a distraction, even a boondoggle if it takes the clean energy and foreign oil dependency spotlight, and early talk from many Democrats seems headed in that direction.

The future is now. If we don't dare to dream, we just might wake up to a nightmare. New automotive technology, not alternative fuels, should be the priority for America, and the majority of our tax incentives and subsidies should be given to consumers to buy this new technology.

GM set to go hybrid, then all electric?

So, GM is canceling their hydrogen fuel cell program? Well, not exactly, but it appears GM is finally beginning to understand that the world doesn't have to wait for hydrogen fuel cells before getting serious about fuel economy and pollution.

"What started as a fuel cell project is now an electric vehicle project," GM's Bob Lutz told the Automotive News recently.

"A series hybrid could run primarily on electricity from lithium-ion batteries, with an engine as backup to replenish batteries, Lutz says. The backup engine could be a diesel or gasoline internal combustion engine. Backup energy also could come from a fuel cell."

Of course, Toyota has claimed this same idea for a number of years, although their approach is a bit different. Even fuel cell makers have been calling for plug-in hybrid vehicles because they make a smaller, cheaper fuel cell stack much more cost effective to add to a vehicle.

Still, the costs of the batteries, fuel cell stacks, etc for either an all-electric fuel cell vehicle, or a plug-in hybrid fuel cell vehicle, will probably be very high for several years and maybe even a decade or longer. Which is why current hybrid technology is so important.

If not for current hybrids, GM wouldn't even be having this conversation. If not for current hybrids, plug-in hybrids wouldn't even be a buzzword in the auto industry. If not for current hybrids, there wouldn't be enough upside to develop lithium-ion batteries for automobiles.

Today's hybrid vehicles, with today's hybrid technology, are an investment in lithium ion batteries and in fuel cells, in addition to being a way to begin to reduce foreign oil dependency and global warming emissions. With today's hybrid vehicles we can begin changing the world TODAY.

It's about time GM has gotten with the program. Let's just hope this revelation isn't just hot air! America, the world, needs GM to do the right thing now more than ever.

Toyota's huge hybrid vehicle mistake?

When it comes to hybrid vehicles, Toyota is the undisputed king. The Toyota Prius is by far the world's best selling hybrid, and Toyota offers the largest lineup of hybrids of any automaker.

Still, I think Toyota might have played its hybrid hand a bit better, or maybe there is a kink in Toyota's hybrid vehicle chain?

With low gas prices, sales of pick-up trucks are picking up, and GM and Ford are leading the way. This is one vehicle segment that American automakers understand well, and it is the most important vehicle segment for American automakers.

Consequently, Toyota's recent advertising campaign for its trucks has really surprised me, but not in a good way. Apparently, Toyota trucks are so tough that neither the Loch Ness Monster nor even a meteorite could damage one.

Please! Is Toyota serious? Is this how Toyota is going to challenge Ford and GM trucks?

Toyota, I believe, has to take a completely different approach, and I think a hybrid truck would have been the perfect buzz creator. For instance, imagine how easy it would be to attack the Chevy Silverado hybrid with a Toyota full hybrid truck - the emissions and fuel economy comparisons would be a joke.

Sure, hybrid trucks aren't going to outsell conventional trucks. Still, focusing on Toyota's hybrid trucks could bring a lot of buzz to all Toyota trucks, just as the Prius has driven much positive PR to all Toyota vehicles.

So, why isn't Toyota acting? Instead of a hybrid truck, Toyota has resorted to cheezy commercials?

Is Toyota's hybrid powertrain insufficient for some truck duties, such as towing a boat or camper? Is this a kink in Toyota's hybrid powertrain? Will GM's dual mode hybrid powertrain handle these tasks better?

Many might believe that truck drivers are nothing but a bunch of good ole boys - don't believe in global warming, don't tell them what to drive. While some might fit this profile, I bet a bunch of 'em fully believe in the dangers of foreign oil dependency and would be very open to hybrid trucks.

Toyota could have framed a new debate around hybrid trucks, Americanism and foreign oil dependency. Moreover, I'd bet they could have sold as many hybrid trucks as hybrid Highlanders, and considering the importance of the truck segment, wouldn't a hybrid truck have been worth a try?

Foreign oil dependency makes America stronger!

Do you think foreign oil dependency makes America stronger? In today's world, isn't that a stupid question?

Yet, it seems many Americans either believe that cheap foreign oil is good for America or that it poses little threat to America's National Security. Otherwise, how can the continued purchasing of gas-guzzlers be justified? How can the lack of hybrid vehicles from 2 out of 3 of Detroit's automakers be explained?

I often criticize GM for its lack of leadership in fighting foreign oil dependency. Does my criticism stem from my perpetual hate of anything GM? Absolutely not. It stems from the immense power GM has to take a leadership role in fighting oil dependency coupled with GM's refusal to do so.

Ultimately, I would gladly buy a GM hybrid vehicle - as long as it was a full hybrid vehicle. Unfortunately, GM just doesn't have any full hybrid vehicles available yet.

Why?

Well, just a few years ago important GM executives, such as Bob Lutz, publicly ridiculed hybrid vehicles and those automakers investing in them, which is particularly offensive since billions of taxpayer dollars were given to Detroit to develop similar vehicles back in the 90s.

Sure, GM has been claiming the future will be fuel cell vehicles, but they've been saying this for decades and they might be saying it a few more decades before it is a reality. Still, everything that can be done to fight oil dependency today, needs to be done today.

Quite simply, today, the hybrid vehicle is the best course of action in the war on oil dependency. The hybrid powertrain by itself is already efficient and will become even far more efficient. More important, however, the hybrid powertrain enables the integration of clean diesel, flex-fuel, electricity, hydrogen and fuel cells into the same powertrain.

Today's technology, such as a clean diesel hybrid, could produce vehicles that are 50 percent more efficient than today's vehicles. What are we waiting for? Too expensive? No way! There are enough subsidies already being wasted on big oil and other pork barrel legislation to provide the tax incentives needed for consumers to make clean diesel hybrids cost effective.

But, clean diesel hybrids are just one slice of the potential hybrid pie. In areas where ethanol makes sense, flex-fuel hybrids could be built. Add plug-in technology to both diesel hybrids and flex-fuel hybrids and you might only have to fill up on trips greater than 40 miles.

Imagine only filling your vehicle up a couple of times per year.

In the Southwest, such plug-in hybrids could make solar power far more cost-effective, enabling homeowners the ability to power their homes and their automobiles. Imagine never paying an electricity bill nor to fuel your automobiles. How's that for fighting global warming?

Of course these vehicles could also eventually develop into hydrogen powered hybrid vehicles, or fuel cell hybrid vehicles, but foreign oil dependency could be ended without either of these innovations. We don't have to wait for the holy grail, fuel cells. We just have to start demanding action right now.

To be fair, it's not as if GM is evil and Toyota is a saint. Neither automaker is doing enough. Nonetheless, considering the trends of the last few decades, such as previous oil embargoes, Katrina, global warming, and 9/11 isn't it finally time to say enough is enough?

And I say, it's especially time for GM, the most important automaker in America and one of the most important American companies, not to just act, but to take the lead. GM has the kind of loyal following to buy these war-effort vehicles and the political power to force the government to assist with subsidies and tax incentives for these war-effort vehicles.

Instead of using that billion dollar GM marketing budget to market gas-guzzlers, market the fight against the war on foreign oil dependency and global warming. It's our GM hybrid vehicle, it's our national security.

I don't think there is a company that could do more for America than GM if GM began to look at foreign oil dependency and global warming as a war, a war that GM was leading the battle against at ALL costs - even bankruptcy. That is simply a battle that GM would not and could not lose today.

Bob Lutz has admitted that GM could have taken a FRACTION of their YEARLY marketing budget to develop a hybrid to rival the Toyota Prius. Yet, they willfully continue to chose to spend that money marketing gas-guzzling - even AFTER 9/11. Stop!

Before 9/11 most Americans had their heads buried in the sand regarding the consequences of America's addiction to oil. Sometimes when something is so good, it's just better not to ask questions. After 9/11, however, there is no excuse not to act. Now America needs GM to do the right thing more than ever.

If 9/11, Katrina, Iraq and all the threats about global warming are not enough to get America to realize it is time to change, what will it take? Would the deaths of 10,000 or 100,000 citizens be enough? Do we need a third world war, or the loss of a major city, such as New York? Would that finally be enough?

Then again foreign oil dependency has nothing to do with 9/11, Iraq or global warming, right? Foreign oil dependency makes America stronger!

Over $5 billion in 2006 to subsidize ethanol as hybrid tax credits run out

"A recent study conducted by the Swiss-based group called Global Subsidies Initiative revealed the total cost of the tax breaks and subsidies that go into U.S. production of ethanol to be in the whopping range of $5.1 to $6.8 billion for 2006." (more)

While I'd rather use my tax dollars to subsidize American industries, such as ethanol producers, rather than foreign oil companies, I'd rather subsidize hybrid cars and other clean vehicle technologies more than ethanol. Give GM and Ford $5 billion per year to perfect hybrid cars, plug-in hybrid vehicles, fuel cell hybrid vehicles and electric vehicles.

If lighter materials and smarter automobile designs were coupled with next generation batteries, fuel cells and hybrid technology, the U.S. could easily end foreign oil dependency. Sure it would be expensive, but not too expensive if we simply made better use of current tax subsidies - Not by adding new ones.

GM's I-car Campaign set to challenge Toyota on hybrid vehicles?

According to unofficial sources cited by the Detroit News, GM is ramping up to challenge Toyota's lead in hybrid vehicles. So, are they serious?

Last year, Toyota sold more than 235,000 hybrid vehicles. GM, on the other hand, has yet to sell one single full hybrid. Sure GM offers a few mild hybrids, but mild hybrids are not going to challenge Toyota's hybrid vehicle sales lead.

Still, GM might have a secret weapon, the I-car.

The I-car isn't just a hybrid vehicle, but a plug-in hybrid vehicle. If Toyota were to develop a cost-competitive plug-in hybrid vehicle before Toyota, I think it could be a game changer. While some hybrid critics have argued that plug-in hybrids are even more of a niche product than current hybrids, poll after poll has demonstrated that Americans are very intrigued by plug-in hybrid technology.

Still, it won't be easy. Toyota hasn't been particularly bullish regarding plug-in hybrids thus far because of costs and battery issues. So, does GM have a secret weapon? Is their past experience with electric vehicles going to finally pay off? Is GM demonstrating even more vision than Toyota regarding the potential of hybrids?

Simply building plug-ins won't be enough, however. If current hybrids are too expensive for most consumers, imagine adding $6000.00 to the price tag. Americans aren't going to buy. Sure, the technology will probably pay for itself over the life of the vehicle, but that isn't the way American consumers think.

Consequently, the success of the I-car program will come down to cost. Can GM convince the Feds to not only offer tax incentives for hybrid technology, but also extra incentives for plug-in technology? Obviously, the government is probably much more interested in adding new incentives that could help an American automaker, unlike the government's lack of interest in helping Toyota hybrid buyers.

Such incentives might make a plug-in hybrid cost-effective, especially an American-made plug-in hybrid. Many Americans want to do something about foreign oil dependency, but many Americans refuse to buy a hybrid from Toyota or Honda. Unlike Toyota and Honda, GM has real power to really rally this customer segment around not only supporting GM and American workers, but fighting foreign oil dependency, pollution and global warming.

Can GM play this hand correctly, or will they just fold amidst a temporary drop in gasoline prices?

Even better than GM going green, are the choices that would open up to American consumers interested in green options. A hybrid battle between GM and Toyota would force every automaker to get very serious about clean technologies, and this competition for green supremacy would make hybrid technology not only better, but cheaper.

Before the end of this year, GM is supposed to announce this new strategy. Let's hope GM isn't just serious, but ready to launch this program as soon as possible. This could change everything for GM, and for America.

Make me a believer, GM, make me a believer!

Most Americans concerned about foreign oil dependency, but...

According to a new survey most Americans are concerned about foreign oil dependency, and 87% believe the government can do something about the problem. Even more interesting, 41% believe it is "realistic to expect the government to maintain a steady supply of oil at a reasonable price."

Geez. Is there really any wonder that America is so dependent upon foreign oil? Talk about taking NO responsibility!!

What exactly do Americans want the government to do? The only thing that is going to reduce foreign oil dependency is using less oil. Sure, the government could ban SUVs, raise fuel economy requirements and offer tax incentives for hybrid cars and other clean technologies and fuels.

Inevitably; however, American citizens have to take some responsibility.

We're the ones driving gas-guzzlers. We're the ones who drive a block to the store to pick up a gallon of milk. We're the ones demanding bigger, heavier and faster vehicles - all of which decrease fuel efficiency. We're the ones driving Hummers with bumper stickers that say 'No blood, for oil'.

Sure the government can do more, it can force Americans to stop acting so irresponsibly.

It's our country, the Silverado hybrid vehicle!

Have you seen the new "Our country, our truck" GM Chevy ads? Images of Katrina, Vietnam and 9/11 selling the new 30 mpg Chevy Silverado hybrid, reinforcing the message that GM has finally gotten serious about foreign oil dependency. While GM has been a laggard on hybrid vehicles, the new Silverado hybrids demonstrates GM's new commitment to America's National Security.

At least, that is what the ad should have been about. Instead, GM is using images of 9/11 - an act largely produced by America's foreign oil dependency - to promote a gas guzzler and the apparent pride of foreign oil dependency.

--) Complete Story

Flex-fuel lies, foreign oil dependency and hybrid vehicle tax credits: Rate Congress

"A public advocacy group on Thursday said Ford Motor Co. has avoided as much as $135 million in fines by marketing vehicles that are supposed to run on the gas-ethanol mix E85 that don't work and accused the company of running misleading ads." (more)

Moreover, aside from the obvious, the fact is that for years the majority of flex-fuel vehicles sold by both Ford and GM have not ever filled up with E-85. Yet, each company has avoided millions and and millions in fines by selling these vehicles.

"Public Citizen and other environmental advocacy groups have long complained that automakers get credits to meet federal fuel economy regulations by building flexible-fuel vehicles that are hardly ever filled with E85, since it's available at just 900 of the country's 170,000 pumps."

So, Congress gives small business owners huge tax incentives to buy the worst gas-guzzlers, provides huge tax incentives to oil companies, enables the big three to avoid 100's of millions of dollars in fines for violating fuel economy regulations - increasing our foreign oil dependency, and limits tax credits for Toyota hybrid vehicles because they are too successful.

That sure sounds like the right path towards achieving energy independence.

Even the President says hybrids are possibly the most important way to change consumer behavior. Yet, Congress hasn't passed proposed legislation to provide small business tax incentives for buying hybrid cars or other fuel efficient vehicles, nor has Congress passed proposed legislation to extend hybrid vehicle tax credits.

Good work, ladies and gentlemen!

We live in a country that blames the President for quite a lot these days. Fair enough. Let's extend at least as much blame to the current - do nothing, partisanship is more important - Congress.

Flex fuel lies, foreign oil dependency and hybrid vehicle tax credits - Congress is failing America.

Are you red, white and green?

Do you want to change America's energy paradigm? Do you believe in energy conservation? Do you want to end foreign oil dependency? Do you want to raise fuel economy standards? Do you want fight global warming? Do you want to buy a hybrid car or other fuel efficient vehicle?

You are not alone. It is estimated that 45.3 million Americans would answer yes to most of the questions above and they are not all tree-hugging hippies. In fact the majority of the Red, White and Greens are non-partisan moderates, but there are also significant numbers of liberals and conservatives - these issues are more important than party politics.

Civil Society Institute President and Founder Pam Solo said: "Red, white and green is the new patriotism for this complex era in which energy, the environment and national security are all bound up together. What we see here are a new set of values that equate love of country with energy independence and protecting the environment from global warming. These survey findings show that there is a huge group of Americans who are very clear about their strong embrace of environmental values and the elected officials who reflect those values. The existence of red, white and green voters could have huge implications for the 2006 and 2008 elections." (more)

Let's get some more red, white and green representatives in political office!

Lower gas prices reducing consumer interest in Prius?

According to Cars.com there has been less consumer interest in the Toyota Prius hybrid since gas prices started dropping. According to Cars.com consumer searches for the Prius have dropped by 37.8%. Cars.com claims this is part of a general drop in consumer interest for fuel efficient vehicles, whereas interest in gas guzzlers has increased.

I've long claimed that consumer interest in hybrid cars would be affected by gas prices. Still, gas prices, almost assuredly, will go back up and so too will interest in hybrids. Still, part of this drop in fuel efficient interest, especially for the Prius, might also have had something to do with reduced tax credits for Toyota hybrid vehicles.

Nonetheless, let's face it, the problems associated with foreign oil dependency, and oil dependence in general, aren't ever going away. Those whom choose to ignore this fact will pay the consequences. Hybrids might not make perfect sense today for everyone, but they will in a few years.

Plus, maybe a downturn in interest will create a buyers market for those interested in the Prius, especially a used Prius.

(Source: Car & Driver)

Hybrid Vehicles: A California Fad?

The article Red Hot in AutoWeek states, "Hybrids are still hot stuff - registrations rose 34.8 percent in the first seven months of the year to 144,377 units, according to R.L. Polk & Co. But most of the heat is generated in the Golden State."

A number of reasons are cited to explain California's interest in hybrids, such as traffic, pollution and car pool lane access. In summary, it is noted that California often leads trends that eventually reach the rest of the country; however, some of those trends burn out as fads.

So, what about hybrid vehicles - fad or trend?

I guess if high gas prices are just a fad and concern about foreign oil dependency is just a fad, as well as if concern about global warming is just a fad, then it is possible that California's love affair with hybrid cars is also just a fad.

Russia puts Western oil 'supplies at risk'? Join the hybrid revolution.

"A former government adviser has warned it is "only a matter of time" before BP or Shell faces a bid from a Russian state-owned group such as Gazprom which could threaten western oil supplies. Professor Peter Odell, an energy economist, says ExxonMobil is also vulnerable to a Chinese takeover as the large UK and American stock-listed oil groups lose their influence in global markets." (more)

If it isn't OPEC seeking a bottom cap of $55.00 per barrel, it's China and Russia and state-owned oil companies threatening the price of gasoline.

Fortunately, Congress has passed tax incentives for hybrids that protect GM and Ford, rather than incentives that seek to achieve change as quickly as possible. Unfortunately, protectionism isn't what GM needs, it needs a good kick in the ass. GM's biggest problem these days, apparently, is a lack of Hummers according to Bob Lutz, not tax incentives for hybrids.

Hummers are far more important than foreign oil dependency.

Besides, what would ending foreign oil dependency accomplish anyway? A less complicated Middle East? Putting an important part of the American economy back in the hands of Americans?

Obviously, achieving oil dependency wouldn't be easy, it would require the kind of technological revolution which would create new jobs, new industries and new markets. What a waste!

The technology behind hybrid cars offers such a revolution. Hybrid technology can make any vehicle 20 - 30 percent more fuel efficient, today, whether that vehicle is fueled by gasoline, diesel, ethanol or even hydrogen. New software and new batteries will double the fuel efficiency of today's hybrids in just a few years. Then plug-in hybrids could also increase hybrid performance while creating an ideal platform for the introduction of small fuel cells into the automobile.

Unfortunately, hybrid production doesn't result in the huge profit margins many automakers covet - hybrid vehicles only make the world a better place. And Hummers, it seems, are much cooler than making a better world.

Gasoline and oil costs might drop in the short term, but the long term is filled with too many risks not to act as quickly as possible.

GM's naive, monopolistic and capitalistic fuel cell vehicle plans?

"Hydrogen fuel cell-powered vehicles could hit showrooms as early as 2011 and the technology will revitalize General Motors, GM Vice Chairman Bob Lutz said as he delivered a hydrogen concept car to be test driven by Camp Pendleton Marines over the next few months." (more)

Hmmm. So, why will fuel cells revitalize GM more than any other automaker?

For decades GM has successfully lobbied the government not to increase fuel economy standards because such a move would interfere with GM's fuel cell development. For decades, GM has told the government, zero emission fuel cell vehicles were just around the corner. Now, once again, GM's fuel cell vehicles are just around the corner - at least according to GM execs.

Should we believe them this time, or has GM cried fuel cell one too many times?

Every major automaker on the face of the planet is working on fuel cell vehicles, and most of these automakers, as well as most automotive experts, claim that cost-effective fuel cell vehicles are still more than a decade away, at least. Other experts claim it will take at least two decades or more. Some experts claim it might never happen.

I think it'll happen and here's why.

Recently, fuel cell developers have started to dig the idea of plug-in fuel cell hybrid vehicles. For years now, Toyota has claimed that its hybrid vehicles were the beginning of their fuel cell vehicle platform. Even GM engineers have admitted that their fuel cell vehicles will also be fuel cell hybrid vehicles. This is because fuel cell vehicles will almost certainly require an electric drive, and hybrids offer that electric drive.

Yet, hybrid cars are too expensive for GM, but we are to believe that in a couple of years GM's fuel cell hybrid vehicles will not be? I'd like to see the numbers behind that kind of bean-counting!!

In fact, the idea of plug-in fuel cell hybrid vehicles might call into question the entire idea of the 'hydrogen highway' - and the foundation of GM's fuel cell vehicle program.

O.K. current hybrid vehicles are not the answer to the world's problems. I'll willfully admit that as FACT. Still, next generation hybrids, such as those powered by lithium batteries will almost certainly, easily, achieve over 100 mpg, and plug-in capabilities could extend this efficiency even further.

More important, plug-in hybrid vehicles could receive additional power from small fuel cells. Utilizing a small fuel cell would be far more cost-effective than using a large fuel cell - at least in the short term. Consequently, this could be the quickest way of both ending foreign oil dependency and investing in fuel cells, but the upside doesn't end there.

If you can have a fuel cell in your car, why not in your home? Such a fuel cell could be powered by natural gas, or, in many areas of the U.S., by solar power.

Imagine all of California's homes and vehicles powered by solar-powered fuel cells with excess energy stored in advanced lithium-ion batteries? Would places like California really even need a hydrogen highway?

Why not dare to dream? Why does GM only envision the future as just a subtle offshoot of today's world, of today's energy paradigm? In reality, does America really need a new multi-billion dollar hydrogen highway? Maybe GM does, but America might not.

I'm sure the monopolistic, capitalistic, corporate-lobby-controlled politicians can easily be sold on this idea, but we THE PEOPLE, should demand more. The hydrogen highway might be great for corporate America, but is it really so great for the people of America?

Hybrids are "basis" for fuel cells

"The hybrid is the basis," said Robert Stempel, chairman and CEO of Energy Conversion Devices Inc., which develops batteries used in hybrid cars. "It gets the electric drive on the vehicle. Once you have the electric drive there, then you really don't care if you have the gasoline engine or diesel or fuel cells. The key is that electric drive." (more)

So, why haven't American automakers been more bullish on hybrid vehicles? If hybrids help create the necessary powertrain for fuel cell vehicles, doesn't hybrid production ultimately help reduce the costs for fuel cell production? Moreover, other fuel cell makers have argued that plug-in fuel cell hybrid vehicles could also speed fuel cell development by enabling smaller - thus cheaper - fuel cells to help power the vehicle.

Are American automakers really going to compete in the world auto market by focusing on alternative fuels?

I say technology is the only answer, and it seems American automakers are already missing the boat. C'mon GM and Ford, it's OUR future! Give us foreign-oil dependency, fuel cell investing American-made hybrid vehicles and ask those jackasses in Washington to help foot the bill.

Does cheap gas reduce the threat of foreign oil dependency?

Gas prices are dropping, and they are dropping fast. By Thanksgiving, barring any hurricanes, wars, etc., gas prices could hit $2.00 across the Nation.

So, does foreign oil dependency even matter anymore?

I say no. It won't matter enough to the average American, at least not enough to act.

Yet the oil issue will never go away. Even though oil experts claim we have only tapped 18% of the world's oil reserves, it seems we will never tap those supplies fast enough to keep up with demand. Oil companies, it seems, have mastered the art of supply and demand.

Forget E85. Forget hybrid cars.

If gas hits $2.00 per gallon, those alternatives simply make no economic sense to most Americans. Sure, maybe Democrats could take the House, Senate and Presidency and raise taxes significantly enough to subsidize E85 and hybrids, but such a move would end their leadership tenure almost instantly - the average American wants cheap gas and few taxes.

Once again, Big Oil and OPEC will have the last laugh, at least until the next spike.

After 9/11, Katrina, and Iraq, little has really changed. As soon as gas hits $2.00 per gallon, the words 'foreign oil dependency' will again mean nothing to the majority of Americans.

How can this be prevented?

Who cares? Clinton and his hybrid vehicle

I'm sorry. I don't really care about Bill Clinton and his new Mercury Mariner hybrid (more). I say, it's long over due. I say the Clintons, and EVERY single member of Congress, should have been driving a hybrid vehicle for several years now. Instead, a few members drive flex-fuel vehicles - that rarely see a drop of E85. That is not a worthy statement.

Too many members of Congress and many other politicians make bold statements about the price of gasoline, foreign oil dependency and the environment - yet, they drive gas-guzzlers. These people cannot only afford hybrid vehicles, they have the greatest responsibility to drive them.

Congress: Plug-in hybrids or extended tax credits for hybrids?

O.K., even oil man, President Bush, says we gotta end our foreign oil dependency, and I think the majority of Americans agree. Consequently, the big talk lately has focused on plug-in hybrid vehicles, and even the largest utility in California is now promoting plug-in technology (more).

I say, 'hold on'.

Plug-in hybrids are an excellent direction to push automotive technology towards, and getting the government involved is both wise and necessary. However, the current tax credit for hybrid vehicles is a far more important issue - for now.

Right now, the market for hybrid cars is dominated by the Toyota Prius. Yet, the Prius and every other Toyota are going to soon see smaller tax credits, quickly followed by no tax credits.

This is how Toyota is rewarded for doing the right thing? This is how consumers are rewarded for doing the right thing? But, back to plug-ins.

Plug-in hybrid technology just isn't cost-effective - at least not mentally - for most Americans. While the technology might pay for itself in the long run, Americans think about today, maybe tomorrow, not 7 years from now.

Plug-in hybrid technology just isn't there yet. Current hybrid vehicles are a hard enough sell for most with tax credits, but without.....?

That doesn't mean we shouldn't strive for plug-ins. We absolutely should strive for plug-in hybrid vehicles, and nothing pushes automobiles towards plug-in technology faster than current hybrid vehicles. The more current hybrids that sell, the faster plug-in hybrids will hit the market.

Plug-in hybrids are a great idea, a great idea that might never see the light of day if tax credits for hybrid vehicles are not extended.

Almost certainly, millions of small business owners have received far more tax incentives for buying gas-guzzling SUVs, so I think the government can afford tax incentives for foreign oil dependency fighting hybrid cars - even if they are Japanese.

Join our campaign for extending the tax credits on hybrid cars.

Hybrids, Flex-fuel guzzling and biodiesel

Well, who knows if we'll need hybrid cars for much longer. Since Chevron has apparently discovered a huge oil reserve, maybe we can go back to $1.00 gas! Of course, then we'll simply increase our demand, and eventually end up back in the same place.

Besides, I say technology can revolutionize the American auto industry, which is only going to survive if we take the automobile into the next generation, and that means the end of gasoline.

But the revolution extends beyond the auto industry.

One of my primary interests in plug-in hybrid vehicles is not just the end of foreign oil dependency, or cleaner energy, but the effect that plug-in technology could have on the solar industry. Imagine clean and green solar energy powering your house and vehicles, while paying for itself in less than 20 years? In the interim, monthly energy expenses will still probably be less than without solar power.

Now that's revolutionary. Besides, alternative fuels have limited potential.

"Even if all of the corn and soy being grown in the U.S. right now were used to make biodiesel in its 100% vegetable oil form, it would only satisfy about 15% of the current demand for diesel fuel," says Geeta Agashe, director of the Petroleum and Energy practice for Kline's research division. (more)

Anyway, don't we have better uses for food crops and all the water we'd need to make these fuels?

Let's face it, a 10 mpg flex fuel vehicle really isn't really going green by going yellow.

Ultimately, technology is the only way forward for America. That means hybrid vehicles and solar power.

Utility company backs plug-in hybrid vehicles

So, now California's largest utility company is getting on the plug-in hybrid bandwagon (more)? And why not? It's just more business for the utility companies, right? Maybe, maybe not.

An even more important issue for many; however, is whether electricity is cleaner than gasoline?

On the face of it, maybe not, but that isn't the real point. The point is, today, hybrid cars are more efficient than conventional vehicles due to technologies such as regenerative breaking which creates electricity stored in batteries. This electricity can be used to fully power some hybrids at lower speeds, such as in the daily slow-and-go commutes of the average urbanite.

And that's where plug-in technology comes in.

Effective plug-in hybrid vehicles will need new battery technology, such as lithium-ion technology. Lithium batteries could increase the efficiency capabilities of hybrids, enabling them to act almost as electric vehicles. Still, if battery power isn't sufficient, gasoline is always available as a backup.

But let's get back to the clean energy debate. Next generation hybrid technology and software, coupled with next generation batteries, means that hybrids can generate even more of their own electricity. Consequently, the vehicle doesn't have to plug-in for all of its fuel - just to top off the batteries. Eventually, this model could even incorporate a small fuel cell, which would make the vehicle even far more efficient.

Already, labs such as Argonne, have studied the clean energy debate and their studies indicate that plug-in hybrids - ALL THINGS CONSIDERED - are cleaner than gasoline powered vehicles. Moreover, over time plug-in hybrids will achieve greater and greater efficiency.

Oh yeah, and we could end foreign oil dependency. Even if plug-in hybrids were ONLY as clean as gasoline vehicles, wouldn't ending foreign oil dependency still make them worth it?

$2.00 Gas: The Calm Before the Storm?

There is a very good chance that by Thanksgiving, gas prices could land near $2.50. If things go real well, we might even see $2.00 gas. (more)

Is this a good thing? Ironically, I say it's a better thing for oil companies, than for consumers - at least in the long run.

Over the last several decades, whenever gas prices recede, gas consumption increases. Will this time be any different? As gas prices drop, so to will interest in hybrid cars, in ethanol, in clean diesel, etc. - so to will America's interest in ending foreign oil dependency.

Let's face it, most Americans are living paycheck-to-paycheck. Can we really blame them for taking the cheaper path?

Of course, is it really cheaper? Even cheap gasoline prices in America still lead to huge profits in the hands of governments that not only HATE America, but that fund terrorism against America. Then there is the cost of enforcement. How much does our military presence in the Gulf cost - even when we aren't fighting wars in Iraq? Wouldn't a foreign-oil dependency-ending technological revolution be cheaper than this enforcement?

Of course, there is nothing like the status quo!

Thus, will Detroit finally step up to the plate and, regardless of gasoline prices, strive for the end of foreign oil dependency?

Unfortunately, I doubt it. Like many Americans, Detroit is going to do whatever is most profitable - at least in the short term.

Still, $2.00 gas won't last. There will be hurricanes in the Gulf again - maybe not this year, maybe not next year, but soon. China and India will keep exponentially increasing their oil demand, and Middle East tensions will get much worse before they truly improve.

The world now believes that oil is one of America's biggest Achille's Heals. While alternative fuels such as ethanol can help, only advanced automotive technologies can save America in the long run.

Will America have the wisdom and the vision to prepare for the future, or will we fall into our fat, lazy, apathetic and complacent ways? The next surge in gasoline prices might not just destroy the American auto industry, but the American economy as well.

As consumers, as citizens, we must make sure that we keep pressure on automakers and on government officials. Inevitably, few issues in our lives will have greater impact on our lives than foreign oil dependency. We can either let this addiction turn into a bigger crisis, or we can turn it into a revolutionary opportunity.

Which side are you on?

Foreign oil dependency and cheaper gas prices

If gas prices drop significantly, will Americans continue to care about the impact of foreign oil dependency? Unfortunately, I think that cheap gas will only lead to more gas-guzzlers, even if a direct link is firmly and clearly established to terrorism against the U.S. (Not that it already hasn't been established). Or, has America changed?

Isn't it ironic? GOP tells Detroit 'Drop Dead'

I like Daniel Howes of the Detroit News, but I think he wrote an absolutely ridiculous article, Top GOP leaders sending message to Big 3: Drop dead.

"But meet with Detroit's automakers? Nah, why should the president care whether U.S.-owned automakers, burdened by fierce foreign competition and cumulative decisions that threaten to swamp them, are fighting for their collective lives? Instead, key Republicans and the White House are reprising President Ford's message to New York back in the mid-'70s: "Drop dead."

Wow! So, was it Democrats that have protected Detroit's fuel inefficiency for decades? Was it Democrats that forever blocked increased fuel economy standards? Was it Democrats that protected SUVs for decades?

Give me a break, Daniel. If not for Republicans preventing the Carter administration from ending the SUV craze, before it even started, Detroit would already be a very different place.

Detroit should have realized that cheap gas couldn't last forever - that warning bell has been ringing, quite loudly, for decades. Sure the auto industry is important for America, but not at the expense of our National Security. America is literally spending trillions of dollars to maintain cheap oil.

Screw the unions, screw trade barriers. It all comes down to product. Ultimately, GM and Ford blew it. The first hybrid cars should have been American, without question. No country has more to gain by increasing fuel efficiency. More important, if fuel cells are the holy grail for Detroit, then hybrids make fuel cells happen sooner.

I say Detroit should drop dead until it starts acting like an American company - you know - a company that fights for freedom, not increased foreign oil dependency.

Plug-in hybrid vehicles are ideal for fuel cell development

For years I have been promoting hybrids, not just to reduce foreign oil dependency or to clean the environment, but to push the evolution of the automobile. As it turns out, plug-in hybrid vehicles might just be the perfect platform for the utilization of fuel cells. (More)

The connection between the Prius and the Hummer

There is no connection between the Toyota Prius and the Hummer. Thus, when I saw the headline, Prius: As Obnoxious as a Hummer?, I almost ignored reading the article, but, inevitably, I couldn't resist, especially after I read the article, Prius Responsibility.

The author notes, "As a dyed-in-the-wool enthusiast, I find superficial excess repulsive in whatever form it takes. Yes, I think heavy-duty trucks and SUVs are a garish display of vehicular excess unless they're towing, hauling, or otherwise justifying their gluttonous existence. But it wasn't until the second-generation Toyota Prius became the darling of the Hollywood left and the Brie & Merlot quasi-literati crowd that similar feelings of disdain for this posterchild of parsimony began to well up inside me."

Wow! While I understand what the writer is saying, and while I also share some of his disdain, I also know many Prius drivers that vote Republican and drive a Prius because of National Security beliefs.

Sometimes generalizations and stereotypes are just that, generalizations and stereotypes.

Finally, the author concludes, "So at the end of the day, do I hate Priuses or their drivers? Not necessarily. Just drop the "Look at me! I'm saving the environment! Aren't I great?" attitude and that your car is superior when there are other models out there that are as fuel-efficient or better."

Here the author again makes an assumption that Prius buyers only buy the Prius because of 'looks'.

How ridiculous! First, Toyota designed the Prius in such a manner because of aerodynamics and that design leads to better fuel efficiency. It also leads to better cargo space. Second, when it comes to urban driving - stop-and-go driving - it is simply hard to compete with the Prius, even for the Honda Civic hybrid. So, what other vehicles out there do as well or better in urban driving conditions in terms of pollution and fuel efficiency - please? Third, the Prius has simply been road tested like no other hybrid and when buying an emerging technology, it isn't unusual for early adopters to stick with the most popular brand.

Sure there are some annoying Prius drivers out there, but there are a lot of cool Prius drivers out there as well. Let's not forget, critics constantly tell us that you can't save money buying hybrid cars, such as the Prius. Consequently, those Prius drivers have paid EXTRA money to try to make a better world, to try to fight pollution, to try to end foreign oil dependency.

That deserves at least a little respect.

What do you think of a lobbying group for hybrid vehicles?

A new lobbying group, Hybrid Owners of America, put together by the Newton, Mass.-based Civil Society Institute, is now advocating for new incentives for hybrid cars. (more) So, any thoughts out there? I HATE lobbyists. While I believe in advocating for more incentives for the buyers of hybrid vehicles and other fuel efficient technologies, I believe it should happen at the grassroots level. Lobbyists are the reason we have such a problem with foreign oil dependency in the first place. Sure, you might have to fight fire with fire sometimes, so I'll try to remain objective. Still, I'd rather align myself with citizens, not lobbyists.

E85 versus hybrid cars, AGAIN!

I have not been a big fan of E85 or Flex-fuel vehicles. If you are a consumer that has such a vehicle, and regularly fills up with E85, I applaud you. However, I DO NOT applaud either GM or Ford for flex fuel technology. For many years this technology was simply used to violate CAFE, and I seriously doubt that a line of Flex Fuel Hummers or Tahoes is really going to help the world.

If GM was installing this inexpensive technology in all vehicles, especially their small cars, I'd be a little more supportive. Nonetheless, the potential of ethanol driven from cellulose is definitely worth further investigation.

Still, I do not believe ethanol offers anywhere near a complete solution to America's oil and/or fuel problems.

For decades, the idea of a war for clean water has been gaining steam and even the Pentagon has alluded to such a possibility. Further, a new report by the WWF environmental organization, for example, warns that many First World cities are already facing serious water shortages and the problem is only expected to get worse -much worse - and significant blame belongs to agriculture. (more)

In the very near future, clean water could be worth more than oil, yet vast amounts of water will be required to irrigate and process our ethanol crops. And, what about the pollution from chemical fertilizers and other pesticides that will run off into our ever more important aquifers, lakes and rivers? Is it really worth it?

Certainly, ethanol is an interesting resource to explore, but if automotive companies only focus on fuel, rather than significantly better designed and significantly more fuel efficient vehicles, such as hybrid cars, ethanol addiction could easily lead to as many problems as foreign oil dependency.

The Automobile: A case study in American stupidity?

The other day I was at a restaurant. As I looked through the menu, I knew I already knew what I really wanted, fish tacos and garlic fries. Ultimately, however, I ended up with a cup of soup and a salad. Since I knew that I was going to have a couple of beers – I was at a microbrewery for crying-out-loud – I thought I should at least eat healthy.

Yet, in America, we don’t seem to ask the question of cost-to-benefit very often, especially when it comes to automobiles. The only question that seems to matter is 'Do I look cool?'

As Americans, far too often, we do what we want in the whim of the moment and deal with the consequences later – if at all.

Consequently, I couldn’t help but laugh when I read some of Rick Wagoner’s comments at the auto industry's Management Briefing Seminars in Traverse City. For example Wagoner stated, “Some of the things that we all believe are necessary to ensure the continued strength of the (manufacturing) sector, which I think is just vital ... we just don't see the leadership,” stated Wagoner regarding the White House and Congress.

Leadership!? Give me a break, Mr. Wagoner. When the country was attacked by terrorists supported by America’s foreign oil dependency, when hurricanes destroyed oil refineries and demonstrated America’s overly stretched oil addiction, what was GM’s leadership? (Completed in Comments)

Plug-in hybrid cars not ready for prime time?

I love the idea of plug-in hybrid cars, but I've long believed that plug-in hybrid cars are not ready for prime time. California's current electrical grid, for example, simply could not tolerate millions of cars plugging in at this time. Then there are environmental concerns and high costs.

In reality, even standard hybrid cars aren't yet ready for prime time, but they are close. Until there is a $15,000 hybrid vehicle, mass market consumption of hybrids will be extremely limited. Still, the technology behind hybrid vehicles - both standard and plug-in - is poised for great advancements and both hybrids will not only become more powerful and fuel efficient, but cheaper. In fact, the potential of the next generation of hybrids demonstrates that fuel cell vehicles might not even be quite so necessary. While that doesn't mean we should discontinue fuel cell vehicle research, it does mean we should do everything we can to create the most environment friendly, fuel efficient automobiles as quickly as possible. Hybrids and plug-in hybrids offer too much potential to turn back now. More important, as I recently argued, give consumers the choice to choose their fuel - whether that fuel is gasoline, electricity or ethanol

For an interesting article on the realities of plug-in hybrid cars, check out this CNN article, Plug-in hybrids: Not ready for primetime.

Hybrid Cars, Technology & American Consumers: The Foreign Oil Dependency Crisis or Opportunity?

Responding to some bloggers this morning I came to the conclusion that U.S. foreign oil dependency has become, if not the, at least one of the major defining moments in U.S. history. With much of American geopolitics being determined by oil, and one of America's most important job sectors dependent upon oil, foreign oil dependency has become a tremendous and dangerous crisis, but a crisis that poses huge opportunities.

Still, foreign oil dependency will only become an opportunity if seized upon by the American consumer. (Full Story)

Toyota hybrid vehicle tax credits running out

Thanks to a protective and short-sighted U.S. Congress, tax credits for Toyota hybrids are running out. While the President and some members of Congress have suggested extending this credit, Congress doesn't seem very interested at this point. Check out the NYTimes article, U.S. Hybrids Get More Miles Per Congress on this issue. Why isn't Congress acting? Congress constantly harps about high gas prices and the threat of foreign oil dependency, yet they do so little - other than TALK, TALK, TALK. I say fighting oil addiction is more important than protecting the U.S. auto industry if they can't or won't compete. Let's extend the tax credits for hybrid cars! (MORE)

Hybrid technology proves a bill to increase fuel economy is possible

There is a move in the Senate to raise the average fuel economy to 35 mpg from 25 mpg by 2017. (more)

Surprise, surprise Detroit doesn't want to be forced to make more fuel efficient vehicles, but they want the oil industry to be forced to use ethanol. Shouldn't Detroit focus more on its core business - making cars, especially more fuel efficient cars?

Of course ethanol should be explored, but the science behind ethanol is still very conflicted, yet one thing seems clear: If GM just makes more and more Hummers, Tahoes, and Escalades ethanol really isn't going to help reduce foreign oil dependency that much.

Anyway, the technology to achieve this new fuel economy threshold already exists today and with advancements in hybrid technology, it is conceivable that even today's worst gas-guzzlers could achieve this new limit with such hybrid technology.

Ultimately, the entire issue is cost, or profit. While I understand that businesses have to make a profit, when that profit can only be made at the expense of the safety of the people, is their product worthwhile?

When numerous ex CIA officials and National Security experts agree that foreign oil dependency is possibly the greatest issue facing U.S. national security can we continue to tolerate excuse after excuse from automakers?

How many more 9/11s do we need? How many more 100s of billions of dollars do we need to spend protecting our right to cheap oil?

Be part of the solution Detroit, not part of the problem.

Hybrid Cars: It's the technology stupid

"Don't tell me about the technologies tell me how you will use them to reduce global warming pollution," said Roland Hwang, Berkeley-based vehicle program director for the Natural Resources Defense Council. "That's what's missing here." (LATimes) This was Mr. Hwang's response to Toyota's hybrid technology update yesterday.

Actually, Mr. Hwang, it is all about the technology.

While activists, such as Mr. Hwang, can believe that global warming pollution is the world's greatest problem, global warming is not going to sell cars today. First, the inconvenient truth about global warming is that the science is not nearly as clear as Al Gore would have the world believe (more).

Second, even if global warming is real, hybrid cars are going to accomplish little in the next few years. Tens of millions of hybrids will be required to even make a dent in CO2 emissions, so let's get real Mr. Hwang.

Ultimately, only innovation, particularly technological innovation, can help fight a problem like global warming, and Toyota is pushing the limits far more than any other auto company in this battle. One hybrid battery breakthrough could change the automobile landscape forever - that's why hybrid technology is so important.

For example, lithium-ion batteries could result in 100 mpg hybrid cars, such as the next generation Prius that Toyota is testing. Conservation won't lead to this development, but further hybrid technology development will.

Furthermore, hybrid development will continue to push automotive innovation via competition. In fact, many Americans are doomed to lose their jobs if Detroit doesn't make innovation job one. Inevitably, that competition to innovate will lead to the technologies that can end CO2 emissions.

In reality, the Toyota Prius has done little to ease CO2 emissions today; however, without the Prius we'd still be talking about fuel cell vehicles still decades away from reality. We certainly wouldn't be talking about GM hybrid vehicles soon entering the market without the Prius.

The importance of hybrids is not about global warming nor foreign oil dependency. Today, the importance of hybrids is purely about technology. Today's hybrid technology won't end foreign oil dependency or CO2 emissions, but investing in today's hybrids will lead to the technology that can resolve these issues.

When it comes to today's hybrid vehicles, it's ALL about the technology.

Fuel cells, ethanol and hydrogen: GM's bag of excuses?

For decades, GM has lobbied Congress and the White House not to increase fuel economy standards. In fact, it is rumored that even Rick Wagoner has lobbied the White House, stating that increased fuel economy would hinder fuel cell development.

Now that it's obvious that fuel cells are still decades away, GM has switched to ethanol - not just as an alternative fuel, but as a bridge to hydrogen. "Even some of the initial steps in the processing of the biomass -- whether to make it hydrogen or ethanol -- will be one and the same, so it is an important step toward an alternative pathway for energy," he said. "And it allows us to use our existing internal combustion engines as we transition to hydrogen in the future." (AutomotiveNews)

And they don't have to stop making gas-guzzlers. The more ethanol GM uses, the more they are helping farmers, right?

Back to Reality

Scientist after scientist - many of whom are working on ethanol - claim that even cellulosic ethanol will not help America much if we don't create more fuel efficient vehicles. Yet, it seems that GM comes up with excuse after excuse not to become significantly more fuel efficient.

Perhaps ethanol can help create a path to hydrogen, but hybrid cars can also use ethanol and hydrogen. Moreover, since GM's current fuel cell vehicles are fuel cell hybrid vehicles, the more hybrids we build today, the faster we can build tomorrow's fuel cell hybrid vehicles.

Oh yeah, and in the interim we can at least end foreign oil dependency.

So why doesn't GM care about foreign oil dependency? What can't GM help make America stronger?

GM needs to stop making excuses and start taking the realities of the new world more seriously. Millions of Americans will support GM to the very end, yet millions more would support GM if they acted like they truly cared about the environment and about America's foreign oil dependency.

Take on the Toyota Prius, GM, and you could attract millions of new customers. Follow the current path and you'll lose many of us forever.

Hybrid cars: The Decline of America

For decades, American automakers have been extremely less efficient than Japanese automakers. The Japanese make more efficient vehicles than Detroit and they make them more efficiently than Detroit. While recent reports show that American automakers are doing better, they still haven't caught up to the Japanese. Thus, it really isn't surprising that the push into hybrid cars is being led by Japan, as the Japanese constantly strive for efficiency.

Still, it is America - world's biggest oil addict- that should be leading the world's development of hybrid vehicles, instead we lead the world in the development of gas-guzzlers.

Today, every major corporation in America is using computers and software to make their businesses more efficient, and now the Japanese are pushing the efficiency of automobiles with computers and software - key components of hybrid technology.

Yet, where is America?

There was a time when America was a place for innovation, not today. We've slipped in space, students have slipped in science and engineering, and automakers have slipped in technology and innovation.

America has slowly lost its sense of purpose, its vision, its honor. What does America stand for today? Freedom to be stupid? Freedom to be selfish?

How can anyone look at the world today and say that America's foreign oil dependency is a good thing? In today's world, America's oil addiction and freedom have become contradictory terms. America has become a contradiction.

America is a great country, full of potential, but we're slipping fast. Without honor, without innovation, without a sense of purpose, what's left?

E85 and Hybrid Cars: Hollywood, Democrats and Republicans

I just finished replying to a CNN Commentary by Robert Redford on Kicking the Oil Habit. Lately, the idea of kicking the oil habit has become a hot topic, but there is growing partisan spin using this platform for political gain. I find this unacceptable. Ultimately, both parties have enabled America's oil addiction, and most Americans have happily helped. Lately the favorite buzzword of many politicians has become E85 or ethanol. Yet, far too many scientists note that ethanol will never end America's oil addiction, nor even foreign oil dependency, if we don't move towards significantly more fuel efficient vehicles, such as hybrid cars. Yet, it seems that not only are politicians misguided, but even cultural leaders, such as Robert Redford, whom are too focused on partisanship, rather than real leadership and solutions for such a serious issue. (Full Story)

Ethanol isn't enough, but ethanol hybrids could be just right

Over the last several months there has been a tremendous amount of hype around ethanol. In fact, GM's GoYellow campaign seems to imply that every American could drive a flex-fuel Hummer and America could still end foreign oil dependency. Yet, scientists don't agree, and they say corn-based ethanol will have little effect on foreign oil consumption.

Of course, ethanol supporters suggest other forms of biomass, such as cellulosic ethanol - which still requires undeveloped technologies - could possibly achieve a 30% drop in gasoline consumption by 2030. "There are many people who believe that biomass has the power to replace our appetite for gasoline," said Kimberly Gray, professor of civil and environmental engineering at Northwestern University. "But that will only occur with significant improvements in energy efficiency and smart growth." (more)

In reality, despite GM's marketing deception, corn offers very little hope for America's fuel needs, especially if GM only produces Tahoes and Hummers. America needs smaller vehicles, and it needs millions and millions of hybrid cars. While smaller flex-fuel hybrid cars won't end gasoline consumption anytime soon, they could end foreign oil dependency - something flex-fuel gas guzzlers will NEVER accomplish.

Japan versus Detroit: Who acts more American?

Automobiles versus fuel?

When automakers have faced Congress over the last week, there has been a striking contrast in style. Toyota, for example, has focused on incentives for building more fuel efficient automobiles, such as hybrid cars. Detroit, on the other hand, has focused on new fuels, such as ethanol, for their gas-guzzlers.

While ethanol holds great promise as an alternative fuel, the automotive technology to utilize ethanol is already complete. What isn't complete are new vehicles, such as flex-fuel hybrids, for example, which could make inefficient burning ethanol much more efficient. Fortunately, Ford has at least proposed such a vehicle.

Still, shouldn't GM focus on being a better automaker? If they want to be an energy company, maybe its time to sell the auto business? For decades GM has used fuel cell vehicles as an excuse not to compete with Japanese efficiency, now they are using ethanol. At a time when foreign oil dependency is causing so many problems for America, why is it that Japanese companies are doing so much more to alleviate the problem? You make cars, Detroit, not energy. (Sources: AutomotiveNews)

CNBC's Hydrogen Hybrid Video

Are you interested in the future of hybrid cars? Well, one potential path is hydrogen hybrids. These are not fuel cell hybrids that are fueled by hydrogen. There are no fuel cells in these hybrids. Hydrogen hybrids could help reduce foreign oil dependency, clean the environment, and build the fueling network for future fuel cell hybrid vehicles. (Watch)

GM, The Great American Company?

GM is going to cap the price of gasoline at $1.99 for those in California or Florida whom buy certain vehicles, such as the Chevy Tahoe, for 12 months. The cap is expected to save buyers around $100.00 per month, or $1,200 per year. Hmmm. So, if GM offered a hybrid Tahoe instead, you could easily cover the extra hybrid costs in just a couple of years via gasoline savings - five at the most? In addition, we could significantly disrupt America's dependence on foreign oil and dramatically improve air pollution? But who gives a crap about those issues!!!! (Source: AutomotiveNews)

Congress and Detroit: The Dangers of E85

It will take years before ethanol, especially E85, makes a noticeable dent in America's gasoline consumption. Still, in a decade, if 10% of gasoline consumption were reduced in favor of ethanol, would it matter?

Perhaps not as much as first thought. First, in 10 years demand for fuel is going to go up. Second, without subsidies ethanol offers little in terms of free market competition, it simply isn't cheaper than gasoline. Sure, it does reduce foreign oil dependency, but how much and is that enough?

(Finished in Comments)

Professional grade gas-guzzling: This is American?

O.K. I'm just going to vent for a few minutes. See, I'm offended that retired autoworkers would appeal to Americans and question how American are American-made Toyota, etc vehicles.

Are these folks really worried about America, or just their own pocketbooks?

How American is it that GM's best selling vehicles require ever-increasing foreign oil dependency? How American is it that GM's fuel efficient vehicles are largely produced OUTSIDE of America?

So, gas-guzzling is the only way to keep America strong? (Full Story in Comments)

Foreign Oil Dependency: It all comes down to clean vehicle tax incentives

High gasoline prices are only the most obvious, negative result of America's foreign oil dependency. The worldwide geopolitical crisis that America is facing in an effort to maintain its dependency on oil is the real, but less visible, problem.

Now that CAFE is essentially dead, or at least rendered useless, the only thing that can make a difference are tax incentives. Congress must give consumers strong tax incentives to buy hybrid cars or to use bio-diesel, for example.

If automakers don't want to develop such technologies - they don't have to - but let consumers reward those that can and will.

It is simply ridiculous that vehicles, such as the Hummer, can receive a $25,000 small business tax deduction - a tax incentive far greater than any hybrid receives. When the Hummer achieves 35 mpg, then it might deserve such a deduction.

It's time for Americans to make a stand and demand that we stop giving so many incentives to oil companies and the likes, and that we give those incentives to consumers that reduce their oil use, or that move beyond oil.

American automakers have thus far failed America, oil companies have failed America, and if Congress doesn't pass a strong set of tax incentives for consumers, not corporations, to buy clean technologies, they will continue their failure of America.

Let's not let it happen. (More)

GM boss says only building hybrids for image

GM's boss Rick Wagoner doesn't believe in hybrid cars and is quoted as saying that GM is only building hybrids for 'image reasons'. Mr. Wagoner also noted that addressing CAFE will not help reduce America's foreign oil dependency. "We continue to think it's a misguided policy with literally nothing to show for 30 years, and built around the false premise that one can regulate energy policy changes without having anyone make any changes or sacrifices," he said. (AutomotiveNews) Why should we expect anything less from a marketing company that builds cars? Maybe we should sacrifice GM's gas guzzlers, since they seem unwilling to accept any responsibility for growing foreign oil dependency?

Level Field Institute isn't Level Headed

Starting today the Level Field Institute, founded by American automakers, retired automakers, and dealers are going to attack claims that foreign automakers provide American jobs.

I say stop complaining about foreign cars and start lobbying Detroit to build cars that foreign car buyers want. Not everyone in America wants a gas-guzzler or a truck and many are offended by how little effort and concern, over the decades, that Detroit has put into fuel efficiency.

Fuel cell, blah, blah, blah.

Moreover, it's terribly ironic and hypocritical for the American auto industry to expect Americans to protect American jobs when it also means increasing foreign oil dependency.

I have long believed that American companies, not Japanese, should have marketed the first hybrid cars. I can hear Bob Lutz now, "Hybrids don't make business sense!"

Well, then, why are you now building them, Mr. Lutz? Not to mention that Americans provided $1 billion tax dollars for the Big 3 to build them in the 90s. For Mr. Lutz, it makes much more sense to spend billions every year marketing the American virtues of guzzling foreign oil rather than investing in fuel efficiency. Now that's American leadership!

The Big 3 should have one cause today, ending foreign oil dependency. Yet, today, GM and Ford success, even survivability, is still hinged upon the success of today's worst gas guzzlers.

Stop blaming Americans for buying foreign cars and start making America a safer and cleaner country. If GM and Ford had cars that equaled the capabilities of the Prius, they would sell better than the Prius.

I know, I know, they just aren't profitable, foreign oil dependency is so much more cost effective.

GM and Ford Claim Hybrid Car Pool Lane Discrimination

Sometimes I think it is best just to keep quiet. This is one of those situations for Ford and GM. "Ford Motor Co. and General Motors Corp., seeking to boost sales, want the federal government to force New York and California to let solo drivers of their hybrid vehicles join those of Honda and Toyota cars in highway carpool lanes." (JSONLINE)

While I like the Ford Escape hybrid, it doesn't achieve the kind of mileage that the Honda Civic hybrid or the Toyota Prius hybrid achieves. More important, the Toyota Highlander hybrid also doesn't not qualify for HOV lane access in these states - so there is no discrimination. The point of New York and California HOV legislation was to promote the very best fuel efficiency.

Both of these American companies should be leading the fight against foreign oil dependency, instead they survive only by increasing America's dependency.

Gas guzzling: Tax incentives versus CAFE

Gas guzzling kills

I love discussing the connection between gas-guzzling, wars in Iraq, 9/11 and other forms of terrorism.

"There is no connection between Iraq, 9/11 and gas guzzling," so many often say.

Really? So, why do we care so much about the Middle East, but not other areas of the world? Why did we stop Saddam in the first Persian Gulf War? Was it about human rights? If so, why didn't - and why don't we - care about the slaughter of millions in Sudan, or Rwanda?

Do we really care that much about people from Qatar?

One only need listen to Bin Laden's own words to understand that there is a clear connection between America's need, or greed, for foreign oil and 9/11.

But back to the point. Whether it is the cost of gasoline, fear of foreign oil dependency, or a desire to protect the environment, many realize that America's oil addiction cannot continue.

So, which is a better tool to fight this dependency, CAFE or tax incentives?

I say put the power in the hands of the people. Congress and corporations have had decades to make a difference and the only thing they've accomplished is perpetually increased foreign oil dependency.

I say let Ford and GM do whatever they want. Put the power in the hands of the people!!

Instead of increasing CAFE, take that high CAFE number and give a huge tax incentive to EVERY customer that buys a vehicle that meets that CAFE number. That's the best way to promote technologies, such as hybrid cars.

Increase CAFE and automakers will just find some kind of loophole to do nothing.

If you want to buy a gas guzzler, no problem, but you'll pay high gas prices and receive no tax credit. Buy a Prius, buy an Escape hybrid, even a Tahoe hybrid and you get a HUGE tax credit - as long as it meets that high CAFE number - plus you'll you use less gas.

Tax incentives for Hummers? Please!!!!!! This must end, as must any other corporate welfare and loopholes for automakers, as must tax incentives for oil companies.

Give this money to the people and let the corporations fight for customers. By, of and for the PEOPLE, not the corporations!!!!

Fickle consumers underscore need for hybrid technology

Most Consumers Still Demand Performance and/or Size

Hybrid technology is just emerging and still evolving, but already there are mild hybrids, full hybrids, one-mode hybrids, two-mode hybrids, gasoline hybrids, diesel hybrids, hydrogen hybrids, plug-in hybrids, flex-fuel hybrids, etc.

Another class of hybrids, performance hybrids, have often been the source of much media ridicule because they are as much about performance as fuel efficiency. Such hybrids include the Lexus RX400h and the Honda Accord hybrid. Additionally, other hybrids, such as the Toyota Highlander hybrid, could have been made to be more fuel efficient, but Toyota figured Highlander drivers, and many SUV drivers, still favored a certain level of performance more than fuel efficiency. Much evidence seems to show that Toyota is right.

According to a CNN/Kelly Blue Book study, almost 25% of consumers are willing to give up performance and size for better fuel economy; however, 25% refuse to give up anything for better fuel economy. The other 50% will give up a little size, or a little performance, etc.

Along those same lines, an AutoWeek article notes, Loyalists won't quit big SUVs; hauling power, improved fuel economy help move vehicles . "Arguably, Americans insist on SUVs. It's unique to their lifestyle and utility."

Additionally, while Congress is going to finally address CAFE, it now appears that the new regulations will still protect Detroit's SUV domain. It is just too obvious in Congress that Detroit probably cannot survive if CAFE is pushed too high.

Unfortunately, performance and size are simply more important to most Americans than is fuel efficiency. Nonetheless, ever rising oil prices, ever more realizations of the connection between foreign oil, terrorism and American hate, will slowly force more and more Americans to take fuel efficiency seriously.

The technology behind hybrid cars enables automakers to continue to provide performance and size to Americans, while also significantly reducing foreign oil dependency. This isn't something that should be done, it is something that must be done. While Congress will probably be weak on CAFE, they should be overly aggressive in offering tax incentives to promote hybrid technology.

Join our Campaign to Make Congress Act On Hybrid Tax Incentives.

Time to Declare War on Foreign Oil Dependency?

I think America is at War, a war that most Americans refuse to acknowledge, and the fight for independence from foreign oil dependency is shaping up to be the most important war America has ever fought.

Former CIA Director R. James Woolsey has become a huge advocate for ending America's foreign oil dependency, and he is very outspoken about the dangers of America's oil addiction.

"If you want to see who's paying for all that [extremism and terrorism], next time you pull in to fill up, turn the rearview mirror a little bit so you can look at yourself for a minute as you get out with your credit card," Woolsey said during a meeting with reporters and editors of the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review.

Yet, Americans don't really think about that - to our direct connection to extremism and terrorism - instead we think about how expensive is $3.00 oil. Sadly, $3.00 oil is nothing compared to what could happen.

Aside from the problems in Iran, Nigeria, Venezuela, aside from hurricanes, aside from rapidly growing oil demand in China and India, an attack on Saudi oil refineries could have an even greater impact on gasoline prices.

How bad?

Today oil is at $70.00 per barrel, but if Saudi oil refineries were damaged - not destroyed - oil could easily climb to over $150.00 per barrel. Add intensified problems with Iran, or another major hurricane and who knows how high oil prices could climb.

What would a year of $7.00 gasoline do for the American economy? How high would $7.00 gas push the cost of groceries and other commodities? How would $7.00 gas help your commute?

What We Can Do

Fighting this war isn't a battle between ethanol versus biodiesel, or clean diesel cars versus hybrid cars. All of these technologies and alternative fuels MUST be utilized. Conservation MUST be utilized.

While politicians can blame one another, and citizens can blame politicians, automakers and the drivers of gas-guzzlers, blame will not win the war. While many in Congress blame other members, or the President, how many members regularly drive a hybrid car, fill up with ethanol or biodiesel, or maybe even walk a little more? Not very many according to recent reports. What about citizens?

Ultimately, little can be done in the short term to fix gas prices or to reduce foreign oil dependency. Today, average citizens must try to conserve, buy hybrid cars, use ethanol where available, or give bio-diesel a try. Moreover, we have to think about the future. We must make Congress and the President create more tax incentives for clean automobiles and clean fuels, not for Hummers and for oil companies.

Finally, we need to let automakers and politicians know that if they can't, or won't, help us fight this war, we'll find alternatives to them.

Join our campaign to make Congress Act.

Are Detroit vehicles irrelevant?

Next month President Bush is going to meet with the Big 3 about energy and the environment, pensions and health care, and currency problems with Japan. Unfortunately, building more "relevant" vehicles probably isn't going to come up.

When Bush told Detroit to build more "relevant" vehicles, auto executives were not too happy. In their minds, huge gas-guzzling vehicles are relevant, which must explain why almost every flex-fuel vehicle - those that can run on ethanol-mixed fuels - are extreme gas guzzlers.

Without tax incentives and even with incentives, ethanol isn't always cheaper than gasoline, so flex-fuel vehicles aren't helping the consumer by offering cheaper fuel costs.

O.K., so is Detroit building flex-fuel vehicles to fight foreign oil dependency?

That doesn't make sense either. If you want to fight foreign oil dependency, then why not offer flex-fuel capabilities in all vehicles? Why just offer flex-fuel capabilities only in vehicles that might fail CAFE?

Today, their are just 600 ethanol pumps covering ALL of America, compared to about 180,000 gasoline pumps. Just a little over a year ago - when GM churned out most of it's flex-fuel vehicles - there were only about 300 pumps. This is why GM never told anyone about the flex-fuel capabilities they added to many gas-guzzlers for a number of years - there was NOWHERE to fill them up and in most states there still isn't.

Now GM is trying to take credit for such actions.

In today's world, flex-fuel gas guzzlers that receive CAFE credits can only be called one thing, irrelevant. Flex-fuel gas-guzzlers neither offer the far majority of Americans cheaper fuel nor do they help fight foreign oil dependency.

While ethanol offers tremendous potential, today's gas-guzzling flex-fuel vehicles do not.

Later this year or early next year, GM will start offering hybrid cars. Once again, most of them will also be gas-guzzlers.

With the unstable nature of gasoline and oil and the limited supply of ethanol and pumps, are any of these vehicles - whether hybrid or flex-fuel - really relevant?

Jetta TDI versus the Prius: AutoWeek MPG King

AutoWeek has crowned the Volkswagen Jetta TDI - when fueled by biodiesel - as the high mileage king of the road. The Toyota Prius came in second.

Read the Full AutoWeek Story

Biodiesel versus hybrid

Anyone that regularly reads AutoWeek knows that the magazine is smitten towards performance vehicles and that many of their editorial staff have much angst towards hybrid cars. So, how reliable is AutoWeek?

In terms of testing the vehicles, there are some interesting notes.

Regarding the Prius, AW reports, "Part of the shortfall [mpg] was due to the pace we maintained. At a more hybrid-friendly 55 to 65 mph, the dazzling dashboard display showed numbers closer to 50 mpg". Thus, it appears the drivers wanted to play with the capabilities of the hybrid technology and were not seeking purely the best fuel economy.

On the other hand, regarding the TDI, "As it was, we just drove gently, stayed with the caravan and employed the manual mode on the six-speed automatic transmission when it seemed useful." Unlike the Prius, it seems the focus of the TDI test was purely to achieve the best fuel economy.

More important; however, is the whole premise of the test.

The '60's are over and cruising on the highway is no longer the American norm. According to every modern transportation study, congestion hasn't only become the norm, congestion is consistently becoming, well, more congested. In today's world and the world of tomorrow, highway driving simply isn't the standard. Even worse, highway fuel economy estimates offer the perception that America's fuel consumption isn't as bad as reality.

Other reviews of the TDI Diesel report mileage drops of well below 40 mpg when just a little urban driving is added to mostly highway miles. So what does it achieve in daily congestion? In these conditions - the conditions of the future - the Prius is the king without any question.

Nonetheless, with today's technology and limited 'green' choices, both the TDI and the Prius are excellent vehicles, especially if you can fuel the TDI with biodiesel. Moreover, if you drive mostly highway miles, then a biodiesel TDI might be your best option.

On the other hand, if you live in an urban area, then the Prius is your best choice.

Ultimately, AutoWeek does make one great point. "Imagine a Prius-like hybrid that ran on biodiesel instead of gasoline. We may not be there yet, and adapting diesels to use the cylinder-cutoff technology found in the Jeep and Honda might be a tough task, but look how far we've come already."

Still, considering America's foreign oil dependency, look how far we have yet to go.

Bin Laden, 9/11, Iraq and Gas Guzzling

"Bin Laden's remarks touched on the full range of issues that anger militant Arabs and other Muslims. Many of them see a renewal of a Christian- and Jewish-inspired Western "crusade" to dominate the Islamic world and to confiscate Muslim lands and resources - particularly oil." (MyWay)

While I don't agree that the West is trying to confiscate Muslim land and resources, I do believe that the United States' relationship with the Middle East is about one thing, oil.

America's ever-growing foreign oil consumption is largely driven by one thing, transportation. Ironically, as automotive technology advances, it never results in better overall American fuel economy. So, our dependency on foreign oil grows year after year after year.

Gas prices are now near $3.00 and there is an outrage among many Americans.

I say the worst is yet to come.

I say $3.00 gas is cheap. I say if the real cost of America's foreign oil dependency were paid at the pump, rather than credited to the deficit, we'd realize that the true cost of gas guzzling is far too high.

What if gas prices hit $5.00 or more, which is exactly what would happen if America was cut off from Saudi Arabian oil - something Bin Laden has advocated.

Yet, this is only one doomsday scenario.

Often the automotive press asks, are hybrid cars worth the cost, and usually they say no.

I ask, is ever-increasing gas guzzling worth the cost?

Would Hummers Sell Without $25,000 Tax Deduction?

You would think that sales of GM's Hummer would be almost non-existent with $3.00 gasoline, but Hummers are actually selling quite well.

So What Gives?

It's ironic how many Hummers I see that advertise some kind of service, or maybe it isn't. It seems quite obvious that many Hummer buyers are taking full advantage of the $25,000 small business tax deduction.

If not for this deduction, I assume many of these advertisers/buyers would buy something else

How can the government justify this deduction in light of terrorism, Iraq and America's growing dependence on foreign oil? How can the government cap smaller tax credits for hybrid cars and other clean technologies, yet not cap much larger deductions for the worst gas-guzzlers?

In fact, while I feel bad for GM's business story, if the only way GM can survive in today's world is via tax-subsidized gas-guzzlers, then it's time to let GM go under.

Congress can do much better. We must make Congress act. Join the Hybrid Car Revolution Campaign.

Plug-in hybrids gain a little momentum

AutoWeek claims, "Hybrid variant holds promise".

"Top politicians from President George W. Bush to Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch have thrown their weight behind a hybrid variant dubbed the 'plug-in hybrid.'

Hatch suggests a plug-in hybrid that burns ethanol could be the 'silver bullet' that frees America from dependency on foreign oil."

Still, effective plug-in hybrids are probably not cost-effective until lithium-ion batteries are far more common. Even then, according to Toyota, such capability could reduce the life of lithium-ion batteries. Obviously, this is a serious concern. Moreover, when lithium-ion batteries are made cost-effective, will hybrid cars even need plug-in capabilities?

Toyota believes its next generation Prius, a coupling of lithium-ion batteries and advanced computer technology, could achieve 94 mpg - without plugging into the grid.

Nonetheless, it's beautiful thing to imagine plugging your hybrid vehicle into a solar or wind powered house for a little extra energy.

Now that's energy independence.

Hybrid sales driven by many reasons

Interesting little article in MotorTrend today about what is driving the popularity of hybrid cars, at least in Northern Colorado. In Hybrid Popularity Driven By More Than Tax Credits, it is noted that, "car buyers may wait from five to six weeks to upwards of three months and longer for a hybrid. Tax credits and insurance discounts offered to hybrid car owners have probably spurred some buyers to the showroom, but aren't driving the strong sales of hybrid automobiles, say area car sellers."

Why is it so hard to believe that someone might buy a hybrid to help fight pollution, or to help fight foreign oil dependency, instead of just trying to save money?

Why is spending money on bling, bling so unquestioned, yet spending money on trying to do the right thing so questioned?

The LA Times: Neither liberal nor progressive

I hate the posturing of the LATimes. The paper tries so hard, at least politically, to portray themselves as liberal and progressive. Ultimately, the Los Angeles Times is just elitist.

The 'populist liberals' at the LATimes, just like the Washington Post, have chosen hybrid cars as their whipping boy, continually whining about hybrid vehicles and the car pool lane. (Read)

BOO HOO HOO.

I wonder what kind of vehicles these liberal, progressives drive anyway?

Nonetheless, I'm so tired of the hybrid car and HOV lane cry-babies. You'd think from their reaction that HOV lanes were on the verge of saving California from not just congestion, but pollution and foreign oil dependency - if not for 50,000 hybrid cars.

Give me a break. Gas in LA is almost $3.00 per gallon and it isn't even the summer yet. If there is another serious hurricane next year, or continued problems with Venezuela, Iran, Nigeria - not to mention Iraq - we could see $4, $5, even $6 gallons of gas. But I guess that's no problem for this group of liberal, progressives.

Then there is pollution. While the cloud of smog that blocks my view of the foothills in Altadena from Northeast LA has gotten better, it is still ridiculous. How many billions in extra health care costs does this cost every year to SoCal?

Hey, but it's a good thing there's two people in that Hummer driving in the HOV lane getting 12 mpg. Now that's earth-saving efficiency!!!

Damn, if we could just get hybrids out of the HOV lane and replace them with 2 passenger Yukons and Tahoes, all the world's problems would go away - now that's a liberal and progressive idea!!!!

Hybrid vehicle buyers are important leaders

Imagine a 94 mpg Prius

CNBC's Hot Topic on Morning Call was about Hybrid Cost Hype. The main question was, do hybrid cars save money over the long haul? Answer, it depends on the type of hybrid and the driver, but in many cases, no, hybrids do not save money.

So what's the point?

How about significantly reduced pollution, how about reduced foreign oil dependency?

More important, even the 'hybrid critic' on Hot Topic acknowledged that if people keep buying hybrids, they will become cheaper and they WILL save money compared to conventional vehicles for ALL drivers.

That means reduced foreign oil dependency, significantly reduced pollution, and cheaper than conventional vehicles.

Those buying hybrid cars today are leading the world towards a cleaner, safer world that everyone will be able to afford tomorrow. Check out the articles provided by Zendude's comments. A 94 mpg Prius is the future and every hybrid buyer is investing in that future, helping to make that future a reality.

Hybrid buyers are helping fund the revolution for a better planet. What are hybrid haters accomplishing?

Car pool lane breeding hybrid hate

Road rage, or the 'Prius backlash' is building against the drivers of hybrid cars, especially in the HOV lanes of California and Virginia.

"There's a mentality out there that we're a bunch of liberal hippies or we're trying to make some statement on the environment," said Travis Ruff, a real estate agent from Newbury Park who drives a Toyota Prius. "People are a lot less friendly than when I drove a Mercedes." (LATimes)

So, instead of hybrids, would it be better if HOV lanes were slowed with more car poolers? Inevitably, HOV lanes can't make gas cheaper, end foreign oil dependency, or even end global warming. In fact, HOV lanes can't even end congestion.

I have an idea, how about if carpool lane accessibility is determined not just by passengers, but by fuel efficiency as well? Say, if you drive a large SUV, achieving less than 20 mpg, then you have to have at least 4 occupants to qualify for HOV lane access - isn't that the point of these vehicles? Thus, only those vehicles achieving at least 30 mpg can enter the HOV lane with only 2 occupants?

Let's be real, what has a bigger effect on the world today, hybrid vehicles in the car pool lane, or tens of millions of gas-guzzlers achieving far under 20 mpg - even in the carpool lane?

Pollution, high gas prices, congestion, just blame hybrid vehicles.

The hybrid vehicle revolution is dead?

The Wall Street Journal reported that sales of some hybrid cars are slowing, according to Car and Driver. That magazine cited such evidence as interest free loans for the Ford Escape hybrid, as well as new financing deals for the Toyota Highlander hybrid, and cuts in production on both the Highlander hybrid and the Honda Accord hybrid.

Of course, the Toyota Prius hybrid car is burning off the lot, and the Honda Civic hybrid is also seeing strong sales.

So, what's the problem? Cost effectiveness.

Ultimately, I believe there two main types of hybrid consumers: those driven by the environment and foreign oil dependency and those driven by saving money on gas.

The Prius and the Civic hybrid fit the demands of both of these consumer segments. The rest of the hybrids don't fit the majority of consumers in either one of these segments very well.

Still, the best of hybrid technology is yet to come and even large hybrid SUVs will eventually see lower prices and higher fuel economy.

Hybrid vehicles are far from dead.

Energy Secretary Disses Hybrids?

U.S. Energy Secretary Samuel W. Bodman called on Americans to embrace ethanol, but did little to promote hybrid cars or clean diesel at the SAE conference in Detroit.

"It should be our common goal that E85 become a nationwide fueling option," Bodman said. "In the coming days, I will be asking that we do more to make consumers aware of the flex-fuel option both when they are considering a new car purchase and for existing owners of flex-fuel vehicles."(DetroitNews)

Additionally, the Secretary plugged electric cars and hydrogen fuel cells as the 'answer' to America's energy problems.

It's ironic that since GM, Ford and Toyota fuel cell vehicles will be hybrid vehicles, that the Secretary didn't promote hybrids, minimally, as a bridge to not just fuel cell vehicles, but electric vehicles as well. Plug-in hybrid vehicles, for example, can function as electric cars, while also providing gasoline, diesel, ethanol, biodiesel or even hydrogen as a supplementary or primary fuel source.

On the other hand, there is a good chance that if someone buys a flex-fuel vehicle, especially if they live on either coast - they will never fill it up with E85, since they won't be able to find any gas stations that carry ethanol.

In fact, if you are worried about the environment, or foreign oil dependency, many flex fuel vehicles cause much more harm than good. Since many flex fuel vehicles are large trucks and SUVs, flex fuel capabilities were only added to avoid penalties for missing CAFE requirements. Consequently, flex-fuel technology is often only serving as a loop hole that increases foreign oil dependency and pollution.

And the government is good at loopholes. According to some, Bush's new CAFE requirements - intended to make more fuel efficient trucks and SUVs - might lead to bigger, more fuel inefficient trucks and SUVs thanks to another loophole. (AutoWeek)

Why should we be surprised since the government already gives unlimited, $25,000 tax deductions for small business owners to buy the most pollution and foreign oil dependency causing vehicles, yet gives much smaller, capped tax incentives for hybrids?

It seems the government and the Energy Secretary are either ignorant, incompetent, or too focused on protectionist legislation designed to protect American corporations, rather than to actually make America a safer place. Apparently, only gigantic, inefficient corporations can save America.

Yes, ethanol is important, but so to is clean diesel, biodiesel, and even clean gasoline. More important, hybrid technology can make any of these fuels much more efficient, while clearing the path to fully electric cars and/or fuel cell hybrid vehicles.

Let's put the power in the hands of the people, not the corporations. Join the campaign for hybrid vehicle tax incentives.

CNW Hybrid Vehicle Efficiency Study?

Don't buy that hybrid!

Hybrid cars actually use more energy than gas guzzlers. At least, that is what CNW Marketing Research Inc. would have you believe. If every American drove a Hummer, instead of a Prius, America would use less energy overall! (P.S. - I also have some great land I'd like to sell to you.)

What nonsense.

It has been demonstrated that if every American drove a Toyota Prius hybrid car, for example, America could stop importing foreign oil.

If every American; on the other hand, drove a Hummer we would significantly increase foreign oil dependency. Yet, CNW would have Americans believe that a Hummer is actually more efficient than a hybrid.

CNW derives its Energy Cost by totaling the "energy necessary to plan, build, sell, drive and dispose of a vehicle from initial concept to scrappage. This includes such minutia as plant to dealer fuel costs, employee driving distances, electricity usage per pound of material used in each vehicle and literally hundreds of other variables."

Well, since hybrids aren't mass produced at the same level as conventional vehicles, this automatically creates extra SHORT TERM costs. If hybrids were produced in the same quantities as conventional vehicles, many of these extra costs would not exist. Moreover, over time the production of any vehicle becomes more efficient.

Additionally, the electric components of hybrids - many of which are the foundation of fuel cell vehicles - are expensive to dispose notes CNW. While this might also be true, this again is largely due to the newness of the technology. Many of these components will eventually be recycled. Anytime there is an emerging technology, different processes are required and take time to develop. Furthermore, the advancement of hybrid batteries alone will change dramatically in the next decade.

Not long ago, computer parts were not recycled, now huge businesses are being built around recycling computer components. Perhaps, computers were also a bad invention compared to the efficiency of pen and paper - a computer is less energy efficient!

Using CNW's logic, America's answer to foreign oil dependency and to pollution is simply to do nothing, as every experimental vehicle, such as hybrids or fuel cell vehicles, will always take more energy to produce in the short term. Obviously, since there are fewer hybrid suppliers, for example, chances are those hybrid supplies will have to be shipped further - taking more energy.

Using CNW's logic, invention and technological advancement are evil things. Since supply chains for new technologies seldom exist, their creation will ALWAYS, INITIALLY, be less efficient. Therefore, the status quo is always best, well, at least in the short term, but who really cares about the future?

Nonetheless, I cannot help but wonder how much CNW determined that it costs the U.S. to maintain a military presence in the Middle East every year to protect our oil habit? How much energy do all those destroyers and air craft carriers cost the 'overall efficiency' of conventional vehicles?

Did CNW also add the billions and billion of dollars of medical costs that can be directly attributed to vehicle emissions - the same emissions that hybrids SIGNIFICANTLY reduce?

I won't even get into the ultimate costs of global warming.

So get out there and buy a Hummer, it's an investment that can save America from foreign oil dependency while protecting the environment! (Now about that land.)

The Beautiful Lexus RX 400h hybrid vehicle

For those who need luxury, but want a hybrid

I'm a take-the-subway-everywhere kind of guy, and when it comes to hybrid cars I'm more inclined to the Toyota Prius, Civic hybrid, or Insight.

For me a vehicle purchase is more about transportation not some sort of status symbol. I don't take public transportation, walk to the store, or drive a hybrid to make others feel guilty. I do it because I feel guilty if I don't.

So, when my friend told me he was interested in hybrids, I strongly urged him to buy the new Civic hybrid or the Prius - he needed seating for four, so the Insight wasn't an option. Thus, I was a little surprised when he stopped by last night in his new Lexus RX 400h hybrid.

He was in a rush, but he still took me for a quick trip around my neighborhood.

I hate to admit it, but I'm a bit jealous. The Lexus 400h is a gorgeous vehicle. While still not my cup of tea, I'm proud of my friend. Inevitably, he is causing significantly less pollution and he is investing in hybrid technology. Considering he was a devout gas-guzzler not long ago, this is a huge improvement.

Are automakers destroying hybrid technology?

Yesterday, Business Week printed the article, Are hybrid sales running out of gas, which argues that other than the Toyota Prius hybrid, the sales of most other hybrid cars are slowing.

Unfortunately, I basically agree with Business Week that the costs of hybrids are an issue that is slowing hybrid sales. Hybrid vehicles do save gas, but they do not always save enough gas to justify the higher costs, especially hybrid SUVs.

Thus, only those with the wallet and the passion to fight foreign oil dependency or for the environment, can afford these vehicles.

A much larger customer segment; however, can afford vehicles such as the Prius or the Honda Civic hybrid. Still, the conventional Civic isn't a gas-guzzler, so you inevitably start comparing the Civic hybrid to the conventional Civic. For most consumers, up-front costs will eventually dominate.

The Prius, on the other hand, is unique. It is the hybrid vehicle, not a conventional vehicle with hybrid technology.

If someone wants to buy a sports car, they wouldn't typically want to buy a souped-up Chevy Malibu, they would want to buy a Corvette. Simply putting a badge on a Chevy Malibu that states 'Corvette Powered' doesn't make the Malibu a Corvette, even if they both have the same engine and performance.

Vehicles, such as the Ford Escape hybrid or the Toyota Highlander hybrid, will always have an audience, but they will never meet the sales demand of the Prius. If there were a unique hybrid SUV; however, it would dominate hybrid SUV sales.

Nonetheless, in the next year gas prices are going to go up significantly as refineries go from MTBE to ethanol additives. Additionally, in the next couple of years we will probably see multiple, significant spikes in the price of gasoline. All of these events will renew interest in ALL hybrid vehicles.

Additionally, hybrid technology is and will continue to advance. These advancements, and the potential small business tax credit for hybrid vehicles, could make hybrids, such as the Escape and Highlander, very cost-effective - perhaps even long term bargains.

Still, the only way hybrid technology will ever take off is when a number of unique hybrid vehicles are competing against each other. If automakers don't take this approach, the potential of hybrids will never be reached.

Re: Hybrids: Seven worries, seven answers

CNNMoney.com has posted the article, Hybrids: Seven worries, seven answers to cover a survey that was done by Harris Interactive, Kelley Blue Book's Web site, and KBB.com gauging the consumer concerns of hybrid cars.

Potential hybrid consumers are concerned about 1.) Expensive technology repairs, 2.) Reliability of the battery pack, 3.) Technical problems like stalling, 4.) Cost effectiveness, 5.) Performance, 6.) Resale Value and 7.) Real world mileage.

According to CNNMONEY, most of these concerns are not founded in fact; however, cost effectiveness and resale value are potential, real concerns for buyers. Also, real world gas mileage is a point worth noting.

Most of these issues were also covered by Consumer Report's Best of 2006 Auto Survey (more).

While there are legitimate concerns regarding hybrids, they are concerns, not facts. For example, Consumer Reports predicts big losses in resale value, but they admit to a worst-case scenario prediction. This may or may not hold true. If hybrids prove reliable over the long term, then resale value should be much better than CR predicts. Additionally, if gas prices continue to rise AND hybrids prove reliable, then hybrid values will only increase as gas prices increase.

Moreover, if resale value ends up better than CR estimates, then the other main concern, cost effectiveness, will also prove to be a non-issue. Again, if resale value is strong on hybrids AND gas prices continue to rise, hybrids could easily end up as an excellent long term value.

In terms of fuel economy, according to CR, hybrids are the most fuel efficient vehicles. Yes, the EPA estimates are wrong, but they are wrong on all vehicles.

Inevitably, there are legitimate hybrid concerns for buyers; however, everyone of those concerns might ultimately be proven to be unfounded and incorrect. Furthermore, for those who care about the environment or the importance of dealing with foreign oil dependency, a little risk is worth the cause.

Of course, Congress could take most of this risk away. So, join the hybrid car revolution.

Ohh those gas-guzzling lovin' stars!

The environment or bling bling?

Hybrid haters often love to portray hybrid cars as only some crazy movement perpetuated by Hollywood. While 25 stars took advantage of the opportunity to participate in the Fourth Annual "Red Carpet, Green Cars" event sponsored by Toyota and the environmental organization Global Green USA, the majority of Hollywood's stars arrived in gas-guzzlers.

"What the cameras didn't show were the Detroit-made rides stars got out of in front of the Kodak Theatre, like the 2006 Chrysler 300C luxury sedan and Jeep Commander SUV."

"The Chrysler Group shuttled stars to Hollywood's biggest event and after-parties in the vehicles." (DetroitNews)

On a night when this 'socially-driven' group picked Crash - a somewhat entertaining, but socially inept, contrived and stereotyped movie - as the Best Movie, foreign oil dependency and the environment took a back seat to stretched Cadillacs and 300Cs.

Perhaps George Clooney can make a real movie on the irony of Hollywood's self-perpetuated progressive portrayal versus their greedy, ego-centric, anti-environment and pro-War actions.

I say it's about time this brave group stops pointing their fingers at others in their attempt to save the world and take a look at the 3 fingers pointing back at themselves.

Walk the walk, don't talk the talk.

Consumer Reports and Hybrid Cars: What you need to know

What's the word on hybrids?

Consumer Report's Annual Auto Issue is one of the most important sources for unbiased ratings and reviews of automobiles. So, what can we learn from Consumer Reports when it comes to hybrid cars.?

First, we learned that the Toyota Highlander hybrid is the best SUV over $30,000 and that the Toyota Prius hybrid is the Best Green Vehicle.

Second, we learned that the Prius is the Most Satisfying vehicle according to owners. A whopping 95% of Prius owners would buy another Prius (more).

Third, we learned that hybrid vehicles have thus far proven to be extremely reliable. In fact, the Prius and the Honda Civic hybrid topped CR's rankings of Most reliable, with just 4% of owners reporting problems. In addition, the Highlander hybrid, Lexus RX400h hybrid and the Accord hybrid also did very well in reliability.

Of course, the long term reliability of hybrids is still a question, a question that can only be answered once enough hybrids have been on the road for more than a decade. Ultimately, the reliability of hybrids is extremely important as it is the factor in determining the overall value of hybrids, which brings us to our final point.

Fourth, are hybrid vehicles worth the cost?

According to Consumer Reports, only two hybrids can save you money after the first five years: the Prius and the Civic hybrid. Of course, once the capped tax credits for hybrids expire, these vehicles will then cost more than their conventional counterparts, well, maybe.

The article, Hybrids: Save gas, lose money, notes that "six hybrid gasoline/electric vehicles, will lose 2 percent to 3 percent more in value over five years of ownership than otherwise identical non-hybrid vehicles." While the Prius can save $406 after 5 years and the Civic hybrid saves $317, the rest of the hybrids lose money after five years: Ford Escape Hybrid ($1,883), Honda Accord Hybrid ($4,263), Lexus RX400h ($4,171) and Toyota Highlander Hybrid ($5,508).

Of course, as in life, few things are ever black and white.

To start, there is no "identical non-hybrid vehicle" to compare to the Prius. If the Prius were simply a hybrid Corolla, it would be called the Corolla hybrid. Quite simply, the Prius is a unique vehicle and when you consider performance, reliability and customer satisfaction, the Prius is a unique, awesome vehicle.

As for the rest of the hybrid vehicle segment, it is true that cost is an important concern. Still, for those that care, can you really put a cost on foreign oil dependency or a cleaner environment? Sometimes doing the right thing is neither the cheapest nor easiest thing to do.

Furthermore, the Consumer Reports study makes several important assumptions. For example, it assumes that your auto insurance will cost more. Overtime; however, this might not be true, especially when you consider that some insurance providers have already offered discounts to hybrid drivers.

CR also assumes extra financing costs for hybrids. Already, Ford has begun to offer incentives and better financing deals on its hybrid vehicles, so this 'cost' might not remain an extra cost.

The most important assumption affecting the costs of hybrids; however, is extra depreciation, which CR claims could range from $2,900 to 6,300 after 5 years. These are huge numbers that cannot, at this point in time, be backed by fact.

For example, if hybrid batteries generally last the life of these vehicles, which Toyota engineers claim is quite possible, then these numbers will be horribly wrong. Additionally, as more hybrids are built, hybrid battery costs will come down.

Moreover, it could turn out that replacing the battery packs of older hybrids could make hybrids twice as fuel efficient as before with new battery technology, such as lithium batteries. Not only would this reverse depreciation costs, but it would double fuel savings costs.

In 10 years, it could turn out that replacing the hybrid battery pack on an old hybrid actually results in a better hybrid than when new. Imagine the effect this would have on resale value.

Additionally, "Hybrid supporter and Prius owner James Bell, publisher of the automotive guide IntelliChoice, recently sold his two-year-old Prius for just $4,000 less than he originally paid for it -- a remarkably low rate of depreciation." (more)

So, hybrid depreciation is a complete wild card.

Furthermore, "We really like hybrids in terms of their overall performance" and environmental benefits, says Doug Love, a spokesman for Consumers Union.

In conclusion, the CR study does demonstrates that hybrid vehicles do pose some risk when it comes to long term value; however, the CR study largely assumes the worst case scenario. If hybrid batteries are very reliable and/or new battery technology could cost-effectively make old hybrids twice as fuel efficient, then hybrids could end up as long term bargains.

Slow hybrid sales push Ford incentives

Ford's hybrid slump isn't a surprise

So far this year Ford has sold about 1000 hybrid vehicles, as sales for both the Ford Escape hybrid and the Mercury Mariner hybrid have slowed. Ironically, as Ford has increased hybrid marketing, sales have simply not kept pace and this has resulted in incentives as high as $1000.00 for Ford's hybrids (more).

Why?

I remember my first Escape hybrid test drive, which left me very unimpressed. It wasn't that I didn't appreciate the vehicle - I did - I just thought the cost was simply far too expensive.

I felt the same away about the Toyota Highlander hybrid, which I also love, but the price difference between the Highlander hybrid and a conventional Highlander, is the definition of sticker shock.

That doesn't mean I wouldn't buy either of these vehicles, I would, if I had to drive SUVs, but I'm not an SUV driver. This highlights the main problem of hybrid SUVs: Who are the customers?

Fans of hybrids are driven mostly by two factors: the environment and foreign oil dependency. Most, but not all, of this customer segment is not interested in hybrid SUVs (I'm not saying hybrid SUV drivers aren't just as committed!!). While there are many others that are concerned about these same issues, they are not driven by these causes, and these people are inevitably going to be driven by cost when it comes to buying a hybrid versus a conventional vehicle.

Many of these hybrid buyers will buy a Prius without thinking about it because there isn't a conventional comparison -I don't buy the Corolla comparison. Every other hybrid, other than the Honda Insight, forces this compare and contrast mentality.

Consequently, until hybrid vehicle costs are more competitive, only unique hybrids such as the Toyota Prius will be hot sellers. There could be exceptions, such as the Toyota Camry hybrid, but that won't be the norm until hybrid battery technology advances.

Of course, all of this could change if the 3 ton SUV small business tax deduction were applied to hybrid vehicles. Let's hope the momentum for this in Congress keeps rolling.

Why gas-guzzling is great!

What's better than a gas-guzzling SUV that can go offroad?

A more powerful, even greater guzzling SUV that can't go offroad. It's pure guzzling pleasure, a message to the world that the price of gasoline means nothing, nor does common sense.

Now that's saying something!

As for global warming and foreign oil dependency, those are just treehugging conspiracies - every real American knows that.

That's why I can't wait for the new muscle cars from Ford and GM, so I can fly by those granola-eating Prius and Civic hybrid drivers. They act like they are saving the world. Give me a break, they aren't making a dent in foreign oil dependency. That's why I buy GM products, they understand America. Just look at Bob Lutz.

"There's enormous good will for the glory days of American cars, when they really were American and didn't try to be Japanese or German," says GM car czar Bob Lutz.

Gas guzzling is the essence of America. Since we're the best in the world, we can do whatever we want. Besides, if I wasn't using so much gas, those people in the Middle East wouldn't have any money and that would breed real terrorism. The truth is gas-guzzling helps fight terrorism. The richer we make those people the less they'll want to kill us.

I'm the real American. America is about choice, even if it is a stupid choice, such as buying a hybrid car.

Be a real American, buy the biggest gas-guzzler you can find! Together we can change the world!

Are luxury hybrids worth it?

Soon Lexus will be offering two luxury hybrids

What's the point of hybrid cars? To many it's all about fuel efficiency as hybrids represent an answer to foreign oil dependency or less cost on fuel. To many others, however, hybrids are simply about the environment.

Hybrids, even luxury hybrids, significantly reduce automobile emissions and that is great for the environment.

Still, some owners of the Lexus RX400h hybrid have complained about fuel efficiency. In reality; however, the RX400h offers very fair fuel economy for the performance that it provides.

Does this fuel economy justify the extra cost? Probably not. Yet, if fuel economy is your primary concern, why are you buying a luxury, performance-orientated vehicle?

The truth is, the Lexus RX400h is an "excellent" vehicle according to Consumer Reports. For the level of performance, the RX400h provides very good fuel economy. More important, the Lexus RX400h protects the environment and invests in hybrid technology. Eventually, this hybrid investment will lead to greater fuel economy in luxury hybrid vehicles.

Performance hybrids such as the Lexus RX400h and the upcoming Lexus GS450h hybrid sedan were not designed to save money at the gas pump. If you want to save money at the gas pump, then you buy a Toyota Prius or a Honda Civic hybrid.

While I'm not a huge fan of performance hybrids because foreign oil dependency is an important concern for me, I still appreciate these hybrids. Inevitably, an investment in any hybrid will lead to better, more fuel efficient hybrid technology for all hybrids, including luxury hybrid vehicles.

For luxury vehicle buyers, I give Lexus hybrids two thumbs up, way up.

Help us, Detroit....

Yesterday, I read an article that bothered me a bit. Daniel Howes, an auto reporter for the Detroit News, wrote an article, Help us, Mr. President, that really got under my collar.

Now, I like Howes as a reporter because I think he's pretty fair, especially compared to some of the other auto writers at the same paper. Still, you can't blame Howes for trying to save Detroit. What other choice does he have? In many ways, his job is probably dependent on the success of Detroit automakers.

What really angers me, I've realized, is Detroit automakers, especially GM.

Mr. Howes notes the legacy healthcare and pension costs of GM and Ford, while also complaining that Asian automakers have enjoyed unfair trade barriers. While I have sympathy for these issues, it isn't much.

Then, Howes states, "Nearly 20 GM models deliver 30 mpg or more; the first gas-electric hybrid SUV is a Ford; and Chrysler's Jeep Liberty is the U.S. industry's first diesel-powered SUV."

"Did Toyota and Honda set the standard in hybrids? Absolutely, and more models are coming. Same with Ford, GM and Chrysler. And GM and Ford have millions of ethanol-capable vehicles on the road today, a precursor to the ethanol-powered fleet that you say would free us from Oil Sheikdom."

Smoke and Mirrors

These statements are pure Detroit - deception and lies and the art of advertising.

First, in real world driving, GM doesn't have 20 models that achieve 30 mpg. Sure hybrid cars don't achieve EPA estimated fuel economy, but in reality almost every car misses their EPA numbers. In fact, the Jeep Liberty Howes mentions actually achieves 50% less than what the EPA estimates in city driving according to Consumer Reports.

Second, these faulty EPA numbers are used by GM and Ford to deceive CAFE. Consequently, many Ford and GM SUVs would not pass their CAFE requirements, if not for the EPA's inefficiency. Since this fact is well known by the government and industry alike, I'd call that U.S. protectionism - especially since SUVs have been Detroit's savior the last few decades.

Third, America's ethanol fleet, please! This one is the one that really sets me off, especially since I've seen at least 20 ads promoting how green GM now is because it has more than a million ethanol vehicles on the road.

Go Yellow? Go to hell GM! It has been a long running joke that almost everyone who drives a flex-fuel vehicle - one that can run on ethanol - doesn't even know it.

Why?

Ethanol is expensive most places it's offered, and ethanol isn't offered in very many places. Thus, a flex fuel vehicle really isn't much of a benefit to most, except Detroit automakers.

Adding flex-fuel capabilities to a large SUV only costs a few hundred dollars, but it enables vehicles that wouldn't pass CAFE to pass CAFE - EVEN THOUGH NO ONE IS USING THE FUEL. Thus, GM spends a few extra hundred deceiving the government - whom enables this deception - on vehicles it makes thousands of extra dollars in profits.

Who wouldn't take that deal? Here, you give me $500.00 and I'll give you $5000.00.

Thus, I'm supposed to be proud of GM for lies and deceit? Lies and deceit that don't reduce foreign oil consumption at all, but instead increase foreign oil consumption - this is something GM is spending millions bragging about?

Disgraceful.

How many more loopholes does the government need to give Detroit? I mean there is already a $25,000 tax deduction for the most offensive, gas-guzzling and polluting SUVs - which was only just reduced and doesn't even include depreciation deductions.

How much more does Detroit need?

Ford used to anger me as much as GM, but at least Ford has admitted the error in its ways and has taken a step in the right direction. Still, Ford needs to do much more, but I'm a huge advocate of the Escape hybrid.

If GM, on the other hand, wants my sympathy or wants my money, then GM needs to come clean. Since 9/11 GM has continued to promote it's most fuel inefficient vehicles as its marquee product. This is irresponsible and un-American.

Get with the program GM. Take some real responsibility. Admit some mistakes and talk to the people about the effort it will take to change. Tahoes, Escalades and Chargers aren't the answer. Help America - lead America - towards ending not just foreign oil dependency, but oil dependency and global warming emissions - not in some mystical future world of fuel cells, but today!

Let's Dare to Dream!

When GM shows some vision and some real leadership - first by accepting its failures and then with new products - I'll be the first in line to buy a GM.

Ultimately, GM has no one to blame but themselves, and forgiveness cannot begin without first accepting responsibility. Until then, I'll hope for bankruptcy.

Washington Post rips hybrid's HOV access

I try to not get too involved in politics. When push comes to shove, it takes a lot of money to be successfully elected to higher office, and almost as soon as a politician is elected, they are already thinking about their reelection. Thus, I think politics - on both sides of the aisle - are about money. As a result I have little faith in either party and am a registered Independent.

Nonetheless, I thought the Washington Post was a liberal paper, but I guess not when it comes to hybrid cars, the environment, or foreign oil dependency.

Since Sunday the paper has taken an agenda against hybrid cars and HOV lane access. On Sunday, the Post printed an editorial calling for the end of HOV lane access for hybrids because "As plenty of the region's commuters know, hybrid vehicles are the main culprit in the ever-worsening traffic in the region's carpool lanes."

The Post points out that 22% of vehicles in the HOV lane are hybrids, which tops the 15% of illegal users also using the HOV lanes. Yet, does the Post care about the illegal users? No, only the hybrid vehicles, which the post states " Hybrids' environmental advantages have diminished as stricter federal rules have required gas-powered cars to have cleaner engines, starting with 2004 models."

So now the Post believes that current gasoline automobiles solve all of America's problems? According to the Post there is now no reason to worry about pollution, global warming, or foreign oil dependency?

I can't help but wonder what the editors at the Post drive, but I bet its BMW, Mercedes, and Lexus. Gas-guzzling means nothing to this fine group of Americans because the cost of gasoline means nothing to people who make the kind of money editors for the Post make.

On a side note, I also wonder how many editors at the Post have children enlisted in the Military - I'd bet not many.

While I understand that hybrids might cause problems for HOV effectiveness and that is an issue worth addressing, to claim that hybrid's environmental impact is now insignificant because of new gasoline vehicles is a complete travesty - an absolute joke.

Yeah, all the gas-guzzlers idling in traffic everyday aren't really a problem anymore, at least not if they are 2004 or later models - as long as you aren't worried about the billions of barrels of oil they waste every year in traffic. And, oh yeah, in congestion even 2004 gasoline vehicles create significantly more pollution than hybrids, but who really ever drives in congestion? Don't we all drive 55 mph on the highway all the time?

So, hybrids are the problem, I mean they do make up almost 1% of all vehicle sales in America, isn't that already enough? Isn't that enough change for one lifetime? Haven't we almost solved global warming and foreign oil dependency already anyway?

I say if you care about the environment, if you care about foreign oil dependency, or if you care about obscene oil company profits, then you should toast the post. Cancel your subscription.

If everyone in America drove a hybrid, such as the Toyota Prius or the Honda Civic hybrid, foreign oil would not be needed. That's a goal worth striving for and it's far more important than HOV congestion - by far.

Yet, this isn't even an issue for the Post. How pathetic.

Maybe, just maybe, in the short term, the Post could focus on the 15% of illegal drivers in the HOV lane. How much money could be made by fining all of those drivers? Additionally, HOV traffic would be less than it was before hybrids if illegal users were punished and forced to stop using HOV lanes.

But that's not the point of the Post. Instead, let's not focus on people breaking the law, let's focus on hybrid cars - didn't you know, they are America's real problem.

Re: Buy a Hybrid, and Save a Guzzler

Dear Mr. Leonhardt,

Regarding your article "Buy a hybrid, and save a guzzler".

Wow, I didn't realize that because of CAFE buying a hybrid gives auto manufacturers the right to sell more gas guzzlers. Thus, "The hybrid, then, is just about the perfect example of what's wrong with our energy policy."

Why didn't I realize that?

Oh, is it because hybrids aren't really enabling that many more gas-guzzlers, at least not Toyota hybrids - but they could? Is that your point?

Boy, I love talking about hypothetical situations, but let's talk about facts for a second.

Toyota is by far the hybrid sales leader. Honda doesn't really sell gas-guzzlers, and GM doesn't even have any hybrids. Thus, I guess you're talking about Ford's 20,000 hybrid sales?

But wait a minute, aren't Escape hybrid buyers buying a hybrid SUV instead of a gas-guzzling SUV? So, where is this extra gas-guzzler demand coming from?

Just out of curiosity, how many gas-guzzlers have passed CAFE because of flex-fuel in the last decade, Mr. Leonard? Hundreds of thousands? Millions? Yet, you're focused on 20,000 hybrids?

How many SUVs actually achieve CAFE's 21.6 miles per gallon in real world driving? According to Consumer Reports, not too many.

So, how many millions of gas-guzzlers have benefited from inaccurate EPA numbers? Yet, the problem with the EPA is inaccurate hybrid fuel economy?

Is that why the new EPA fuel efficiency estimates are not going to be used to update CAFE?

But, let's get back to the problem, 20,000 hybrid SUVs.

So your answer is, "A substantial gas tax would be the simplest, with other taxes being cut to keep down the overall burden. Car buyers could drive whatever they wanted, as long as they were paying the full cost of their gas, and automakers would respond with creative products. If we're not capable of having a serious discussion about new taxes, the second-best option would be lavish incentives for companies to sell a fuel-efficient fleet."

Hybrids aren't fuel efficient?

Regarding your tax plan, which other taxes are going to be cut? Are we just going to leave that to the bureaucrats? I'm sure there won't be any loopholes created in that overhaul, and reducing enough taxes to offset the real cost of gasoline will be a very easy task.

Consequently, you are basically suggesting that until we can significantly change the American tax code, doing nothing is better than buying hybrid cars?

Better yet, you don't blame the EPA, automakers or the government for decades of inaction, you ridicule and belittle the buyers of hybrid cars instead?

Very few hybrid buyers think they are saving the world, Mr. Leonhardt, how dare you generalize their motives with your biased statements. Most hybrid buyers think they are sending a message that foreign oil dependency and/or pollution are important concerns, that's it.

That message isn't worth sending Mr. Leonhardt? Oh forgive us.

Anyway, hybrid car batteries could easily achieve the same kind of growth in performance and cost as what my laptop battery has achieved in the last decade. A hybrid battery that achieves twice the fuel efficiency at the same cost as today's hybrid batteries is definitely a stupid investment, huh?

Yeah, gas-guzzling until we overhaul America's tax code, that's the ticket.

Plug-in hybrid vehicles and pollution

Every time I write about plug-in hybrid vehicles, someone replies that electricity might seem cleaner up front, but not when you factor in the fact that large amounts of electricity are made by coal, etc.

I thought the same thing when I first heard about plug-ins. Since; however, I've learned about a few studies, such as one by Argonne Laboratories, which contradict the naysayers. According to science, electricity - ALL THINGS CONSIDERED - is still cleaner than refining oil into gasoline.

Plug-in hybrids certainly aren't the answer to America's pollution or foreign oil dependency problems, but they definitely offer another step towards these goals and they also increase visibility and momentum.

Equally as important, plug-in hybrids help drive more competition and innovation into the advanced batteries that hybrids use, escalating quality and performance for all hybrid vehicles.

According to the best scientific facts available, plug-in hybrid technology helps hybrids further reduce pollution and oil dependence. Until science demonstrates otherwise, Soultek.com will continue to promote plug-in hybrid technology.

Join our campaign for plug-in hybrids.

Don't like hybrids? Don't fricken buy one.

Are you a critic of hybrids cars?

What is your damn point? Are hybrid cars causing too much pollution? Are hybrid cars causing an increase in foreign oil dependency?

Are you worried that I'm spending too much on my hybrid? It's O.K. to over spend on horsepower that I can't legally use, but god forbid I spend extra money to reduce foreign oil dependency or reduce pollution?

Is that really your point?

Are there better technologies? Please, name one. The potential of hybrid cars has barely been tapped. Only in the short term can clean diesel, etc. compete with hybrids. Even so, why not go for the best fuel efficiency and least amount of pollution, such as a clean diesel hybrid? Oh, I'm sorry, are corporate profits more important than doing the right thing?

Even hybrid critics, such as John McCormick of the DetroitNews, states "Of course, most hybrids will still offer lower overall fuel consumption rates than conventional-vehicles and their tailpipe emissions will be much lower. But the striking appeal of their once high mpg figures will be muted." (more)

Exactly, I'm investing in lower fuel consumption and lower emissions. Have a problem with that?

So, you can sit in your foreign oil, terrorist-supporting gas-guzzler and question my investment in a hybrid car? No you can't. How can you put a cost on reducing foreign oil dependency, cleaning the environment and sending a message to automakers that these issue drive my automobile purchases? How dare you!?

If you don't like hybrids, don't buy one. Better yet, buy a gas-guzzler and keep giving your money to Osama and bury your head back in the sand.

Diesel, biodiesel, and ethanol not enough

Even hybrid cars, or plug-in hybrid vehicles do not push the envelope of auto technology far enough


Flex-fuel plug-in diesel/gasoline hybrid vehicles can completely change America's national energy paradigm - long before fuel cell vehicles become either cost-effective or technologically feasible.

Such vehicles could easily achieve well over 100 miles per gallon, utilizing gasoline, diesel, ethanol, biodiesel, or combinations, while completely ending foreign oil dependency. (more)

Nationwide campaign for plug-in hybrids launched

Nationwide grassroots campaign of cities, public utilities, etc. promote plug-in hybrids

"Plug-in hybrids represent a real near-term solution to America's over-reliance on foreign oil imports and energy prices that escalate the cost of everything and threaten the very economic life of our nation," says Austin Mayor Will Wynn, who pledged $1 million in city rebates to help citizens and businesses purchase the first wave of plug-ins to roll off assembly lines. "The technology exists today," Wynn says. "This campaign will demonstrate to automakers that the market is also there." (Mototrend)

Many plug-in hybrids currently achieve 80 mpg and significantly reduce pollution caused by vehicle emissions. Even when adding the extra emissions from electricity plants, plug-in hybrids still offer 50 - 75 percent cleaner emissions. Additionally, the cost of the 'electric gas' is just 75 cents per gallon.

Why not make all hybrids, plug-in hybrid vehicles?

Are hybrid vehicles forever marginal or a step into the future?

Over the weekend I've been contemplating the article, Despite car show hype, hybrids, diesels will remain marginal.

Not only does the article dismiss hybrid cars, diesels and small autos, but even fuel cell vehicles, which is contrary to the typical hybrid critic. Many critics call hybrids an interim step to fuel cells - a distraction if you will - but they do see a changing market. While I disagree, seeing hybrids as an essential step toward fuel cell hybrid vehicles, that's not the point.

Mr. Winton, the author of the article, seems to think nothing will change and that America will forever be dominated by the size of the motor, not fuel efficiency. Now Mr.Winton does note that gas prices have to remain at $2.00 per gallon for his future to take place.

I say the days of $2.00 gas are long over, which immediately calls into question the entire logic of Mr. Winton.

This year, $3.00+ gasoline will become commonplace in many parts of the U.S. for an extended period of time - possibly forever - and the possibility of spikes as high as $4.00 or $5.00 are almost a certainty. This alone could significantly affect demand for hybrid vehicles and other alternative fuels, etc.

With significant hurricane activity expected the next several years, combined with limited oil refinery capacity and ever-increasing world demand, higher gasoline prices are inevitable for America.

But that isn't the whole story.

Environmental concerns and foreign oil dependency could also push many more Americans to completely rethink their vehicles and the relationship their vehicle has to world politics. Still, that isn't even the whole story.

I'm a Gen-X'er and I've grown up around computers. The way computer technology has advanced and become 'dirt' cheap in the last 20 years is truly mind-bending.

Well, hybrid technology is largely dependent upon the very same computer technology.

Hybrids will become cheaper; however, they will never match the cost of conventional vehicles. That is probably a fact. Nonetheless, as hybrid technology becomes cheaper, it will also become significantly more powerful.

This means that hybrids will not only offer significantly more fuel efficiency than their conventional counterparts in the next generations - more easily justifying the cost difference - but they will offer far more speed and power at the same time. That is the nature of computer technology.

Mr. Winton can continue to write about the marginality of hybrid cars on his typewriter, but hybrids, just as personal computers 20 years ago, are simply a young, barely-tapped, emerging technology. In 10 years hybrid technology will evolve significantly. Gasoline engine technology; on the other hand, will have changed about as much as, well, typewriter technology in the last 20 years.

I have had enough "hybrid hype"

I am so tired of the phrase "hybrid hype".

Today, I read the article, Amid Hybrid Hype, a Lonely Advocate of Fuel Cells, that finally pushed me over the limit.

"It matters not that, in the automobile industry, hybrids generally are regarded as an interim step toward cleaner, more fuel-efficient technologies, such as hydrogen fuel cells."

"Gas-electric and diesel-electric hybrids are of the moment. The news media love them. Toyota Motor Corp., the biggest purveyor of hybrids, gets lots of greener-than-thou credit for promoting them. There's a buzz; and where there's buzz, there are politicians; and when you mix buzz and politics together, you get policies, which beget certain permutations in business."

Wow, not long ago, GM's Bob Lutz also called hybrids a poor business case, which he now admits was a mistake. Ironically, GM has also admitted that its fuel cell vehicles will inevitably be fuel cell HYBRID VEHICLES.

If hybrid technology is an integral piece of fuel cell vehicle technology how can you call hybrids an "interim step"? If GM and Toyota, the two biggest automobile companies, are going to develop fuel cell hybrids, then hybrid technology cannot be labeled "interim".

Of course, there is a buzz around hybrids. Why shouldn't there be?

9/11, Katrina, global warming, and high gasoline prices have made many people decide the time for action is now and hybrids provide that action today. It isn't just about what the Toyota Prius hybrid or the Ford Escape hybrid can achieve today, but what they could achieve tomorrow.

Plug-in hybrids can achieve 80 mpg and other experimental hybrids, with advanced lithium-ion batteries, have achieved more than 250 mpg. If we invest in today's hybrid vehicles, this can be the future for tomorrow's hybrid vehicles.

And, speaking of hype, where are the real world fuel cells vehicles? They aren't even a reality yet. Today, the average fuel cell vehicle costs $1,000,000.00 and there are still technology barriers, not to mention fueling obstacles. Yet, GM has lobbied the government since the Nixon administration not to raise national fuel economy regulations because fuel cells were just around the corner.

Let's face it, it isn't implausible to suggest that it might be 2 more decades before cost-effective fuel cell vehicles are available - if ever. If hybrids are hype, then fuel cell vehicles are pure fantasy.

So,we should wait two decades before taking foreign oil dependency or global warming seriously because fuel cells will save the world in two decades? Nothing like putting all your eggs in one basket.

Still, even if you want fuel cell vehicles to develop as quickly as possible, short term investing in hybrid vehicles might just be the best way to make that happen, unless of course GM and Toyota aren't going to be part of the fuel cell revolution.

Perhaps gasoline and diesel hybrids are a bridge to fuel cells, but to call them an "interim technology" simply doesn't make sense.

Inevitably, hybrid technology will also help power fuel cell vehicles, and it might just turn out that advancements made in gasoline and diesel hybrids help make fuel cell hybrids a reality much sooner than expected.

Cars: Are Americans really so superficial?

"As design has become increasingly important to a car company's success, almost every auto manufacturer is looking for a distinctive look that will help it stand out in an increasingly crowded marketplace," states a new article, that adds, "'Design DNA' is all the rage as carmakers try to make their vehicles stand for something."

The article cites Chrysler as an example of how 'design DNA' can be successful. Chrysler, of course, is the only one of the 'Big 3' that is actually doing well, and design is a big reason according to the article.

So, America is nothing, but a nation of bling, bling? We really are as superficial as most of the world sees us?

We suck up huge amounts of the world's oil, paying off terrorists and governments that absolutely hate us, but that's O.K. as long as we look cool?

Many times I've been on the Forums of AutoWeek, and many members criticize the drivers of hybrid cars relentlessly. Why? For trying to help the environment, for trying to reduce foreign oil dependency?

Why are so many Americans more concerned with looking cool than being cool? Is the American psyche really so dysfuntional?

The EPA enabled Automaker lies

So, the EPA is probably going to change their methods for determining the fuel efficiency of automobiles. I say about time. What's sad; however, is the fact that automakers have designed their lines to achieve their best fuel efficiency in EPA laboratories, not in the real world. If consumers had known the truth about just how fuel inefficient their automobiles were, there probably would have been a lot more consumer interest in diesels and hybrid vehicles in America much sooner. For the last decade or two, we could have been fighting our foreign oil dependency, instead of increasing it at an obscene rate. Thanks Congress! More on the EPA's Fuel Economy Testing and Hybrids.

Why hybrid vehicles are ESSENTIAL to America

No, it isn't foreign oil dependency and supporting terrorism, although issues such as Iran will inevitably push gas prices much higher. No it isn't pollution, or even global warming, it isn't even Kartrina or limited oil refineries.

The reason hybrid cars have become so important to America is manufacturing.

There is a great article, China, India seen setting stage for environment-friendly world, which notes that "Energy guzzlers China and India are often blamed for some of the world's environmental problems, but a new study says the two most populous nations may well set the stage for a clean and green Earth."

Further the article states, "The two countries are mastering energy-efficient technologies, implementing cheap and environmentally-responsible transportation systems".

Yet, America is still hyping muscle cars and SUVs to generate buzz for the future at the North American International Auto Show. Fancier, bling-bling gas-guzzling vehicles have no future in India and China, perhaps not even in America.

The only chance America has to sell products to these countries is to sell them the best, most energy efficient technology, at reasonable costs. America, and American automakers, will never have cheaper labor to compete with China and India. Therefore, America MUST have the most efficient and intelligent labor and corporations.

Within 10 years, not only will gas be significantly more expensive around the world, American automobiles will be expensive and obsolete compared to foreign made vehicles, unless they offer extreme fuel efficiency, top engineering and reasonable prices.

Waiting for fuel cell vehicles, which will almost certainly be hybrids anyway, is the surest path to failure for American automakers. Making America the most fuel efficient fleet in the world is an absolute necessity for American auto manufacturers. Plus, wouldn't ending pollution and foreign oil dependency be pretty cool too?

What IS the point of hybrid vehicle critics?

Hybrid cars make up around one percent of total automobile sales, yet hybrid hype could almost make you believe that hybrids are dominating automobile sales.

So, is it the hype that makes critics sound off?

Do hybrid critics just hate change, or do they hate hybrids because most of them aren't built in America?

I just don't get most hybrid critics.

Some hybrid critics claim hybrids won't save money. In some cases this is true; however, even in these cases, hybrid vehicles still pollute far less than their conventional counterparts, but you can't put a cost on that. It means everything to some people, nothing to others.

Anyway, why are some so concerned with criticizing those that stand up and use their money to cause less pollution? Why is acting on one's beliefs a bad thing? What are critics acting on anyway?

Besides, many hybrids can save money. There is no doubt that hybrids like the Toyota Prius and the Ford Escape hybrid can save money and can achieve significantly better fuel economy than their conventional comparisons. Yes, you will have to drive differently, but if reducing your fuel consumption is important, hybrids offer the greatest and most convenient tools available for achieving this goal.

Of course, driving habits aren't the only concern. While the Honda Accord hybrid is regularly ridiculed by hybrid critics, the Accord hybrid is built for the open highway. If you are driving in urban traffic, this car will not achieve great fuel efficiency. If you regularly drive between Temecula and Fontana, California every day, then an Accord hybrid can be a great buy.

So, again, what is the point of hybrid critics?

Many educated hybrid critics claim that hybrids are just a distraction along the path to fuel cell vehicles. Interesting point except for the fact that even GM has recently admitted that fuel cell vehicles will be fuel cell hybrid vehicles, as has Toyota (more on this). Thus, purchasing a hybrid vehicle helps invest in the fuel cell future. These critics see no value in that?

Even without fuel cell hybrid vehicles, current hybrid technology offers the ability to easily achieve 100 mpg with today's technology, and experimental hybrid technology goes even further, at far less costs than fuel cells.

So what? Well, achieving 100 mpg across America's fleet would easily end foreign oil dependency.

So, these critics don't think that foreign oil dependency, in addition to pollution and global warming, are important issues? These critics don't find it interesting that the Chinese are now building hybrid vehicles as they scour the Earth for oil deals?

Besides, so what if some want to invest in the future, without necessarily profiting from it personally. Is that really a waste of time? Instead, selfish gas-guzzling greed is a better use of resources?

Does this all come down to guilt? Is that what is it about?

Perhaps hybrid vehicles don't ultimately save every consumer money, but only help reduce oil dependency, help reduce pollution and help invest in the future. How pathetic.

Is this the point these hybrid critics are making?

Re: "GM drawing on the past as it attempts to speed development of hybrids"

I was just reading AutoWeek's article, GM drawing on the past as it attempts to speed development of hybrids, and it seems that GM is even more dysfunctional than I have previously thought.

Saying something like that can be dangerous because, in America, there are many devout GM followers. While I criticize GM quite often, it's not because I think GM is technologically inept. I think GM is corporately inept. When it comes to technology I think GM is just as capable as any other auto maker. It's vision where GM is lacking, and that boils down to corporate leadership.

Having said that, I think that GM is even more dysfunctional than previously thought because of the double talk coming out of Detroit. How can GM's Bob Lutz state that hybrid cars don't make economic sense when GM's Larry Nitz, a 30-year GM veteran and executive director of GM's global hybrid powertrains states, "Fuel cell vehicles are always fuel cell hybrid vehicles because they have battery packs. The same people that work on the hybrid batteries work on the fuel cell batteries. The same people that do electric motor controls for the hybrid system do motor controls for the fuel cells, too."?

So, the future IS hybrid vehicles, even to GM? So, why the lies and deception? Is this the model for corporate America? Is this the model for success?

Perhaps GM is just too old of a company, run by an ancient belief in the good ole boy's network. The rich might still run America, but average Americans aren't as blind as we used to be, and change is inevitable.

Toyota has been making the fuel cell argument in support of its hybrid vehicles since it started selling the Prius hybrid car. I've often stated that Toyota is laying out the fuel cell vehicle future right now, with every hybrid it puts on the road.

On the other hand, hybrid critics have long stated that fuel cell vehicles, not hybrid vehicles, are the future. Yet hybrid technology is integral to the fuel cell vehicle. Thus, the more work that is done on hybrids - even gasoline electric hybrids - the faster fuel cell vehicles become reality.

So, what exactly is the point of hybrid critics?

Let's be clear about another thing. Pure hydrogen vehicles ARE NOT the future, and if GM believed, or still believes, its path to fuel cells would begin with pure hydrogen vehicles as an interim step to fuel cell vehicles, then GM really sucks.

Pure hydrogen vehicles just aren't all that fuel efficient. That's a fact. Ford has noted that the best way to create fuel efficient hydrogen vehicles would be to create hydrogen hybrid vehicles. Once again hybrid technology is a critical component.

Yet, GM's boldest hybrid move to date has been hybrid lies.

Now I realize that GM has legacy costs that make R&D more difficult, and that is a serious problem, so serious that it's going to cost at least 30,000 their jobs. Nonetheless, GM has a multi-billion dollar yearly marketing budget. Couldn't some of that have been used for R&D, especially after 9/11?

Let's face it, in hindsight, GM and Ford should have started taking fuel efficiency seriously in the 80's and 90's - not just because of gas scares, or political problems in the Middle East, but because of simple market share. When does year after year of declining market share finally make you think, huh, maybe we should try something different?

Yet, even after 9/11, GM is still barely doing things different. In many respects, GM's very survival is still dependent upon gas-guzzling vehicles. High gas prices, too bad. Foreign oil dependency, too bad. Helping to finance terrorism, too bad. Polluting the environment, too bad. That's GM today.

Unfortunately, it's average Americans, not rich shareholders and corporate executives, that will pay the real price for this ineptitude.

GM's problem is simple: Vision, or the lack thereof

"We just couldn't react," Wagoner said in an interview last week with Automotive News . "It really highlighted that the underpinnings of our business are too fragile. So if we lose mix or volume, we cannot get costs down as fast as (sales) volume comes down." (more)

While I agree that GM isn't "nimble enough" to quickly react to changing market forces, it is still a week excuse for why GM is in a sales slump. Actually, GM's problem is quite simple, the company has no automotive vision.

Sure, you can say fuel cell vehicles, but GM has been talking up the fuel cell vehicle since Nixon. When is it time to stop talking and start doing? Fuel cell vehicles have been nothing but an excuse for GM to do nothing.

Back in the '90s, the U.S. government gave the Big 3 a billion tax dollars to develop fuel efficient vehicles. Yet, where are those vehicles today? What happened to those American tax dollars?

The evidence demonstrating the massive harm that auto pollution causes to America and the world has been piling up for decades. The intensity of the dangers in the Middle East and America's oil dependence has been increasing for years, and the evidence for massively growing worldwide demand for oil has been clear.

How could GM not think that maybe, just maybe, some of this evidence would eventually have an effect on the American automotive market?

Toyota and Honda were certainly paying attention to this evidence. That's why when GM ridiculed Toyota and Honda for pursuing hybrid cars, these companies just pushed ahead. With such a massive amount of evidence piling up, change was inevitable.

O.K., so GM made a mistake, but since 9/11 what have they really done to change? Shouldn't 9/11 have been the last straw?

So, what is GM's big announcement today? The new Chevrolet Tahoe is going to achieve 2 more miles per gallon on the highway. Of course, if you stop at a street light or stop sign, or do any other kind of city driving, your fuel efficiency will barely be above 10 mpg.

What a joke!

Sure hybrid vehicles might not be the absolute answer to GM's problems, or to America's problems with pollution and foreign oil dependency, but at least hybrids demonstrate that you are addressing the most important issues facing America today.

After further review GM leadership still stinks.

Syriana, Kyoto and Hybrid Cars

So, the Montreal climate conference resulted in a 150 Nation agreement for further meetings that won't include the U.S. (more). The Bush administration won't sign onto the Kyoto Protocol because of fears that mandatory emissions cutbacks could have a negative effect on the U.S. economy.

While I support the Kyoto Protocol, I think Bush does have a point about the economy, but I think he has an even greater point when he demands that Kyoto must include India and China. Nonetheless, in the midst of ever more global warming evidence, I think serious action is required, and Kyoto might be a good step because it gets the U.S. to stop talking about global warming and to start doing something about it.

So, what is Bush's answer to global warming, technology.

While I agree with Bush, I don't agree with his process for bringing forth such technology. The Bush future is the hydrogen economy, which I believe in, but I also believe we can't wait for it. We must start taking action NOW.

Ironically, one of the main contributors to global warming is also one of the main contributors to terrorism - oil dependency. Yet, even after 9/11, after Iraq, after Katrina, the U.S. is still taking little action to really change America's dependency on oil.

If Bush believes in technology, then why doesn't he seek oil independence the same way Kennedy sought the moon in the '60s?

The technology just isn't there yet?

Baloney!!!!!

While many criticize hybrid cars for their costs and for their failure to meet EPA fuel efficiency ratings, the truth is, if every American drove a Toyota Prius hybrid today, we would end foreign oil dependency today.

But the best part of hybrid cars isn't what they can do today, but what they can do tomorrow if we invest. Experimental hybrid cars demonstrate that the technology to drastically reduce America's oil consumption exists right now, and it really isn't that expensive. In fact it is incredibly less expensive and incredibly more feasible than hydrogen vehicles.

Is it more expensive than conventional vehicles, yes, and that is why the government needs to get involved. Still how expensive is the war on terror, or the costs of pollution and global warming?

Recently, Bill Ford lobbied the government to provide more tax incentives to help Detroit reduce foreign oil dependency and to regain its sense of automotive innovation.

The government has said it isn't interested.

Isn't this exactly what Bush was talking about when it comes to better alternatives to Kyoto? But it isn't just Kyoto, its the war on terrorism as well.

"I'm involved in this because most of the world's oil reserves are owned by countries that finance people that want to kill us, that finance radical Islam," Anne Korin, co-director of the Washington, D.C.-based Institute for the Analysis of Global Security.

While Mrs. Korin doesn't believe in global warming, she is joining with global warming activists and using the movie Syriana to bring attention to the dangers of America's oil dependence (more).

Yet, GM is set to roll out model after model of gas-guzzling SUVs and neither Ford nor GM seem to know how to be profitable in a fuel efficient world.

What better opportunity for the government to get involved? This isn't about interfering with free markets, it's about protecting the people from the proven dangers of terrorism, while also protecting the environment and the 'possible' dangers of global warming. If global warming isn't a national security issue, terrorism certainly is.

And, speaking of the economy, if America is the fuel efficient, greenhouse reducing technology leader of the world, what could be better for the economy?

Washington not interested in bailout for U.S. automakers

Last week I wrote about how Bill Ford was lobbying the government for help to fight foreign oil dependency and to help bring forth American automotive innovation. This week Washington responded, no thanks (more).

So, it doesn't look as if any new incentives for hybrid cars are on the radar.

Sick of narrow-minded hybrid car critics

I was reading some AutoWeek forum entries this morning about hybrid cars when I realized that most hybrid critics are not only narrow-minded, but they have a complete lack of vision.

How does the quote go, "There is only one constant in the universe, change." I guess the Buddhists call it impermanence, or the idea that in 100 years, everyone that exists today will be gone, yet the world will go on, it will just be different because change is constant.

If hybrid critics were leading the world for the last 100 years, the world would still be riding horse and buggy. Fortunately, change is inevitable.

But back to the point. The two main criticisms of hybrids are 1.) They aren't as fuel efficient as the EPA rates them, and 2.) They don't save money.

It is true that hybrid vehicles aren't as efficient as the EPA rates them. All vehicles aren't as efficient as the EPA rates them. So what's the point?

Additionally, individual driving habits have a HUGE affect on fuel efficiency - in both hybrids and conventional vehicles. Even a standard Toyota Highlander can achieve better than average fuel efficiency by adjusting driving habits. Nonetheless, the Highlander hybrid or Escape hybrid can achieve much larger increases in fuel efficiency by adjusting driving habits compared to their conventional versions.

Shouldn't hybrids just be more fuel efficient?

Well, they are. For the average driver, hybrid technology will achieve better fuel efficiency than a standard vehicle, especially in city driving. And if you adjust your driving habits, you can significantly increase a hybrid's fuel efficiency performance.

Since most drivers of hybrids are concerned with saving fuel, hybrid technology offers an excellent tool for them to meet their goals.

Testers from AutoWeek, etc., aren't concerned with the fuel efficiency capabilities of hybrids, they are concerned with proving that hybrids don't achieve EPA predictions.

If you don't care about fuel efficiency, well, then a hybrid isn't for you. If you aren't going to use a tool correctly, then it probably is best not to use it. If you want to put a screw in the wall, a hammer can do the job, but it won't do it as well as a screwdriver because the screwdriver is a better tool for the job.

For those drivers seeking to achieve the greatest fuel efficiency, many hybrid vehicles are by far the best tools available, but you still have to use the tool correctly to achieve maximum performance.

Why is that so hard for critics to get? Not everyone has to stroke their ego by driving the biggest or the fastest vehicle.

Additionally, why are critics so concerned with hybrid performance anyway? If they are so concerned with fuel efficiency, why are they worried that a Prius might achieve 45 mpg, rather than 60 mpg? Shouldn't they be more concerned with why a Dodge Durango is only getting 10 mpg instead of 14 mpg? I mean, lets get real.

Regarding the costs of hybrid technology, critics have a point, but so what?

People pay more for the right gas-guzzle obscene amounts of foreign oil but somehow that's cost effective in the eyes of these critics - that's worth the extra money?

Yet, choosing to spend extra money to help reduce foreign oil dependency and to help save the environment isn't justified. Please!

Well, America better wake up. Global warming is real - whether it is caused by man or by nature - and the majority of the world is beginning to take this threat quite seriously. Well, except for America, and the world is becoming much angrier with America for this position. We can continue to pretend like the opinions of the rest of the world don't matter in our ever-more-interconnected world, but we'll do so at our peril, but I digress.

Ultimately, many hybrid owners can recover the costs of their vehicle with intelligent driving. And if not, how do you put a cost on clean air and a cleaner environment?

If you don't care about clean air and a healthy environment, then quite frankly, you are the problem, not the driver of a hybrid car. Any help is still help and changing direction always requires leaders.

Still, many hybrid vehicle drivers aren't just buying a hybrid to save money, or just to reduce foreign oil dependency, or just to clean the environment. Many are making an investment in the future.

While many hybrid vehicle drivers could drive any vehicle they want, they choose to buy a hybrid to help fund the development of new, cheaper generations of hybrids.

Already, experimental hybrid vehicles demonstrate that the potential of hybrid technology is barely being tapped. Plug-in Prius hybrids can easily achieve more than 80 mpg, the Enigma diesel hybrid achieves 80 mpg, yet can go from 0 to 60 in 4.3 seconds, and other experimental hybrids have achieved more than 100 - even 200 - miles per gallon.

Today's hybrid buyers are helping to make tomorrow's hybrid technology more fuel efficient, more powerful, and cheaper.

Perhaps another technology will come along and hybrid technology won't be needed. Or, perhaps it will be hybrid technology that finally makes fuel cell vehicles realistic. Rather than waiting and continuing to gas-guzzle, however, hybrid buyers are taking action because they believe a better tomorrow starts today.

Apparently, hybrid critics would rather just keep talking and hammering screws into the wall as they wait for tomorrow.

AutoWeek and Hybrids: Makes me wanna laugh

I know that AutoWeek is a horsepower magazine and that many of their fans are the American-made, period, type of crowd. Still, sometimes the magazine is just plain silly.

I've noted in the past that any time a hybrid graces the cover of their website, it also includes some sort of negative caveat. Currently, things are slightly different this time on the home page of their website which includes a story about the Honda Accord hybrid.

"At $1.50 a gallon for gas, few Americans seemed to care about fuel economy, but how quickly apathy turns into concern when prices reach $3 per gallon. Suddenly, the word "hybrid" is on every lip. So the funny thing is, actual owners of hybrids - those who responded to our AutoFile survey on the Honda Accord Hybrid - seem to defy any real monetary motivation in their purchase decisions."

No, actually it isn't that funny. The funny thing is the way that AutoWeek plays dumb.

There are different kinds of hybrids vehicles. For example, Toyota hybrids, such as the Prius and Highlander hybrid, and Ford's hybrids, such as the Escape hybrid, are quite different than either Honda or Lexus hybrids.

Honda's hybrid technology increases fuel efficiency on the highway, where as Ford and Toyota achieve their best performance in the city. Ford and Toyota hybrids have the ability to function on just electric power during congestion and stop-and-go traffic, the same conditions that make conventional vehicles - even Honda hybrids - perform their worse. This is set to change with the upcoming second generation Civic hybrid, which will act more like Toyota and Ford hybrids. Still, there is a vast difference between Toyota and Honda hybrids.

The Accord hybrid, like the Lexus RX400h hybrid, is a performance hybrid. Sure the Lexus hybrid still offers excellent fuel efficiency in congestion compared to the conventional version, but it was not built for fuel efficiency, it was built for performance.

Both the RX400h hybrid and the Accord hybrid are about a second faster from 0 to 60 than their conventional counterparts, yet they achieve this performance while also achieving better fuel efficiency than their conventional counterparts. Of course, the RX400h excels at urban driving, while the Accord hybrid excels at highway driving. Nonetheless, you don't buy either one of these vehicles because you are on a budget trying to save money on gas.

Thus, contrary to AutoWeek, classifying the owners of the Accord hybrid with owners of the Prius hybrid, for example, is just plain silly. They are not hybrid owners from the same tree. So, why does AutoWeek do it? Is it because Forum members of AutoWeek are offended that some hybrid owners question their gas guzzling, so this article makes hybrid owners seem confused and silly?

I don't have the answer, but I know that AutoWeek knows fully well that comparing the Accord hybrid to the Prius hybrid is about as effective as comparing apples to oranges - they are fundamentally different. So, I can only guess that this appeals to their core audience - the hybrids just don't really makes sense audience.

Ultimately, there are different kinds of hybrids and consumers buy for them for many different reasons. Perhaps, one common thread of hybrid buyers is that hybrid consumers believe that buying hybrids sends a message to the auto industry that fuel efficiency is important, especially in light of the problems that foreign oil dependency so obviously has caused and continues to cause to America.

Let's be real, even Bill Ford believes that foreign oil dependency is important for America.

Hybrid vehicles, such as the Engima, and other experimental hybrids demonstrate that hybrid technology can lead to unbelievable gains in fuel efficiency and performance - something to which AutoWeek should be able to relate.

Until then, sometimes when I read AutoWeek, I guess all I can do is laugh.

Fuel cells: Another reason why hybrids rule

Already, Toyota is claiming that its hybrid cars will eventually become fuel cell cars. In essence, hybrid vehicles are providing the foundation for fuel cell automobiles. A recent article demonstrates that Ford is also starting to follow this path. "The FCV [Ford Fusion FCV] is a hybrid car that uses a fuel cell powertrain supplied by Ballard Power Systems Inc. as well as a nickel metal-hydride battery pack and a brake-by-wire electrohydraulic regenerative braking system."

If this is true, what is the foundation of most hybrid critics?

Hybrids, such as the Prius or the Escape hybrid, can achieve amazing fuel efficiency and clean emissions today, but the potential of such hybrids is barely being tapped. Better hybrid batteries, diesel hybrids or bio-diesel hybrids, demonstrate that we can change the world - in terms of foreign oil dependency and clean air - and we don't have to wait for fuel cells.

Nonetheless, as fuel cell breakthroughs do occur, we can convert hybrids into fuel cell hybrid vehicles.

Is it just because GM isn't leading the way that hybrids are so criticized? I know they have an amazingly huge marketing budget, but is that enough reason for critics to wear such blinders?

Do GM's hybrid vehicles demonstrate fuel cell lies?

GM won't really have any major hybrid presence until around 2008, yet GM has stated numerous times that its fuel cell vehicles will be a reality by 2010. "We believe we can design and validate a competitive fuel cell propulsion system by 2010," stated Lawrence D. Burns, G.M.'s vice president for research and development recently (more).

So, why is GM even developing hybrid vehicles? If GM can develop a "competitive" fuel cell system by 2010, then there is no need for hybrid vehicles, right? Even GM has stated, "Hybrids could be another niche, low-volume technology that is nice to have," according to Mr. Burns.

I guess GM is just a hybrid poser? "Toyota is at this moment skimming off all the altruistic people who are doing it for the birds and the bees and for energy independence," Bob Lutz, G.M.'s vice chairman, told reporters in Detroit in September.

Oh, excuse me for caring about energy independence and the environment, you putz, I guess those are just silly issues to GM?

Mr. Lutz has also stated that GM could have developed hybrids at a cost of a fraction of its YEARLY marketing budget. That's right, for a fraction of ONE year's marketing budget, GM could have helped fight FOR the environment and AGAINST foreign oil dependency, but GM chose to invest in INCREASING foreign oil dependency and environmental damage.

Is that an example of American corporate leadership?

GM has been telling the U.S. government that fuel cell vehicles were just around the corner since the Nixon administration, and GM has likewise cited increased U.S. fuel economy as a roadblock to its fuel cell outcome. Thus, after decades, fuel economy in the U.S. has gone nowhere, as have GM's fuel cell vehicles.

Good thing increased foreign oil dependency hasn't had any costs to America!

If GM can achieve its 2010 fuel cell goals, it will be decades ahead of the rest of the auto industry and it will salvage itself and America. However, if GM fails to meet its fuel cell goals, then it will have failed America as no other American corporation has ever failed America.

For now, I'll wish GM the best of luck, but if they fail, heads MUST roll - there can be no more excuses from GM.

Re: What Makes A Hybrid Hot

According to the brain scientists at BusinessWeek, when it comes to hybrid cars, "Buyers seem to prefer ones that feel, um, weird to drive".

I'd say this article epitomizes journalistic ignorance. How about a little research, or some objectivity?

The majority of hybrid buyers are much more intelligent than the writer of the BW article. The majority of hybrid buyers care about the environment and they care about foreign oil and oil dependency, and they are buying hybrids to invest in the future.

While the article notes that hybrids don't achieve EPA numbers, it makes no mention of the fact that conventional vehicles don't achieve EPA numbers. You can't compare the real world fuel economy of a hybrid to the EPA fuel economy of conventional vehicles.

According to Consumer Reports, the majority of conventional vehicles don't even come close to their EPA ratings in city driving, missing those ratings by as much as 40 or even 50%. Yet this is not important? I guess the grossly misleading fuel economy of 99% of America's vehicles is a non-issue to BusinessWeek.

Since increased congestion is the future for the majority of American drivers, shouldn't city driving be the standard for judging fuel economy? In these conditions hybrids are vastly superior to conventional vehicles, and the potential of hybrid vehicles in these conditions has barely been tapped.

That's the real hybrid story.

I can't help but wonder if BW's ignorance was based on bad assumptions, or just the quest for GM's advertising dollars.