Gangster government gone green

Larry Kudlow wonders, can hybrids drive profits to Detroit?

"Gangster government gone green" stated CNBC host Larry Kudlow, a proud conservative capitalist and a Cadillac Escalade hybrid driver, about yesterday's CAFE rule rewrite.

Kudlow claimed that all of the bailout money spent on GM and Chrysler thus far will be eaten by taxpayers. Moreover despite UAW concessions, Kudlow wonders can small cars, clean diesels and hybrid vehicles return US automakers to North American profitability?

I guess I doubt it. Americans have become so accustomed to buying not just more cars, but more car, than is actually needed thanks to cheap gas prices. More expensive, smaller and clean vehicles will just result in Americans buying less vehicles, won't they? That will probably mean even more downsizing in the long run and more glut in the short term.

Nonetheless, now that tax payers are part owners of Chrysler, GM, etc. shouldn't we know where our money is going? Is hiding green taxes the same way we hide military taxes really the best answer?

Inevitably, it doesn't matter, but I still think that a gas tax was the most transparent, honest way to have approached this problem. Unfortunately, a "gangster government" does run America. But, that's because we, the people, can't handle the truth. Fortunately, however, at least this new government gang is a green gang.

Automakers all on board with new CAFE requirements

California's EPA waiver no longer needed

In the last 24 hours I've noticed quite a bit of news regarding how US automakers are now on board with President Obama's plans to increase fuel economy and reduce CO2 tailpipe emissions. While they claim its about unified standards, I think its all about the money.

Not so long ago, many from the US auto industry claimed that such requirements were impossible to meet. Funny how bankruptcy and dependency on tax-payer money changed that opinion. Today, automakers need every dollar they can get out of the government. Maybe we should push them even harder?

Anyway, better late than never I guess.

Americans overwhelmingly against gas tax

22 percent of Americans would buy a hybrid to help the environment

Talk to most auto executives about fuel economy and most of them say the same thing. Without higher gas prices most Americans just don't care. Cupholders are more important. Thus, many of these executives have claimed that without a gas tax, the idea of significantly increasing American fuel economy is a far-fetched idea.

Unfortunately, a new Rasmussen poll has found that 81 percent of Americans are completely opposed to the idea of a gas tax. In fact, only 8 percent of Americans would support a gas tax and the rest are undecided.

The poll also seems to suggest that most Americans will not buy hybrid cars until prices come down much further or gas prices rise significantly.

Saturn might be dead, but the Vue plug-in is not

On track for 2011

In 2008 GM brought a Saturn Vue plug-in hybrid to the North American International Auto Show. Turns out that plug-in hybrid wasn't just some marketing-driven mock-up, but an actual test vehicle that GM had been road testing just days earlier. Everything seemed online for a 2010 launch.

Now Saturn is on the chopping block, however, the Vue plug-in hybrid will not be a casualty of this lost brand. Instead, GM plans to reproduce this hybrid under one of the remaining GM brands.

According to GM this plug-in hybrid will achieve at least twice the city fuel economy of any other conventional SUV.

Will cap and trade increase auto fuel economy?

How much must gas cost to make the Fusion hybrid a big seller?

So, Bill Ford Jr. is now advocating a gas tax. It seems everyone in the auto industry is hyping a gas tax these days. It provides such a perfect excuse for Big 3 inaction on fuel economy. Of course, its hard to argue that Bill and others don't have a bit of a point.

Still, why now? Is it just because the White House has indicated a gas tax isn't even on the table, as it all comes down to cap & trade now?

I'm not really sure, but I have wondered lately how cap & trade would affect gas prices. One article in USAToday recently claimed that by 2015 a cap & trade program would add between .16 cents on the low end to about $2.58 on the high end to the price of a gallon of gas.

Certainly, an additional .16 cents won't accomplish anything. $2.58, on the other hand, would have a pretty big effect. Nonetheless, that's quite a range and a lot of uncertainty.

Obviously, cap & trade is about carbon, but is such a program too open ended if the goal is ending foreign oil dependency?

Auto bailout: No strings attached?

Is Obama's task force being realistic?

Earlier this week, the EPA called CO2 a "health danger", setting the impetus to higher national fuel economy standards, probably similar to what California is seeking, in addition to a carbon trading cap-and-trade program. Both programs, many auto analysts have noted, could be detrimental to Big 3 viability.

At the same time, it appears a 9 1/2 million vehicle run rate per year could be around a couple of years - something which US automakers have called unsustainable. 11 1/2 million vehicles per year is closer to the Big 3's threshold.

Yet, here we are at the deadline for more automaker aid, which is coming with few strings. However, if the run rate sticks at 9 to 10 million autos per year, automakers will need more and more help, and that is without higher fuel economy standards or cap-and-trade. Add these programs, and the need for significantly more auto aid will be necessary.

Isn't it time for a more comprehensive conversation regarding these intricately intertwined issues from Washington? Is that too much to chew in a sound bite?

Bailout busters: How could you support the Big 3?

More hybrids?

According to numerous polls, most Americans are not very supportive of further bailout money for the Big 3. Is there, however, certain bailout strings that could make more Americans supportive of the US auto industry?

For instance, a requirement that each of the Big 3 would produce at least 1/2 million hybrid cars and plug-in vehicles per year?

Or, perhaps even better, how about agreeing to new CAFE legislation that is as strong as what California's EPA waiver request would require? Such a requirement would inevitably lead to a serious ramp up of of hybrid and plug-in production.

What would it take to make you more supportive of the US auto industry?

Fusion hybrid priced right?

$27,270

The new Ford Fusion hybrid is 8 miles per gallon more fuel efficient than the Toyota Camry hybrid in city traffic, but it will also cost over $1,000 more than the Camry hybrid.

According to the EPA, the $27,270 Fusion hybrid achieves 41 miles per gallon in the city and the 36 on the highway. The $26,150 Camry hybrid achieves 33 mpg in the city and 34 on the highway.

Is the Fusion hybrid worth the extra cost compared to the Camry hybrid, purely in terms of fuel economy? Not necessarily, especially for highway drivers. For city drivers, however, the Fusion hybrid makes a compelling case. Of course, hybrid tax credits are still available for the Fusion hybrid, so this price difference is currently less relevant.

Regardless, the Fusion hybrid is a pretty impressive offering from Ford. Now, if only they could start seriously ramping up yearly production of their hybrid cars.

New Prius: Is 50 mpg enough?

10 percent more efficient

Toyota is beginning to stage media briefings in preparation for its April launch, but really most of the key details are based around one simple stat: MPGs.

According to the EPA, the new Toyota Prius will achieve 49 mpg on the highway and 50 mpg in the city - a number that hypermilers will have little problem increasing.
.
Of course, in addition to the increased fuel economy the new Prius will be a bit bigger and faster, while offering a number of other cool new features, such as solar-powered ventilation.

Still, the Prius is the king of hybrid cars because of its fuel economy. With an expected price increase on the new Prius coming, is a 10 percent increase in fuel economy enough?

Kudos to Obama for now

This is not the future

UAW boss Ron Gettelfinger is telling members to ratify a new round of concessions with Ford. Otherwise, according to Gettelfinger, Ford will not survive.

Holy cow. During the first round of Congressional testimony on this issue, the UAW seemed pretty resistant to any further concessions. I guess the UAW has finally seen the light. Certainly the problems associated with the Big 3 are not purely the fault of the UAW, but the union did play a significant role.

Kudos to the Obama administration and Congress for playing some hard ball with Detroit. With the significant tie between labor and Democrats, an earlier cave in was expected, at least by this blogger. Of course, such a cave in probably would have guaranteed the eventual collapse of Detroit's automakers.

Still, now comes the hard part. How do the Big 3 deal with the fact that 10 million sales per year might be America's new run rate? Can the Big 3 compete at producing small, fuel efficient vehicles at a profit? Will any US automaker produce 100,000 hybrid cars per year within the next 5 years?

Obama team ready for energy "moon shoot"

Will we all be driving something like a Volt in 10 years?

Senator Ken Salazar, Obama's pick for interior secretary, is ready for big things regarding US energy policy, according to Edmunds.

"I will play a keystone role in helping to craft the energy agenda," Salazar told the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. "I would not have taken this job if I was not given the assignment to help craft the energy moon shot that we will take."

While exciting and expected, I can't help but wonder what kind of "moon shot" it's going to take to simply save the US auto industry, regardless of building any new vehicles. Can both "moon shots" be achieved simultaneously?

We'll see, but the potential for fiscal fiasco seems high considering the especially sad state of today's US auto industry. Of course, it can't get much worse, right?

A few 2010 Toyota Prius details

Blue man group hypes the Prius

There is a YouTube video featuring the Blue Man Group and the new Toyota Prius. The video isn't terribly exciting, but if you are wondering what new features the third generation Prius will offer, the video does provide some insight. I think it looks great, but I don't think Toyota is striving to sell the cheapest hybrid. And, ultimately, the Prius is still about fuel economy, so the EPA's new rating might be what most are waiting to learn.

Bailouts just the beginning if CAFE increased

Everything as efficient as the Prius under new Congress?

If you don't believe in an automaker bailout, you ain't seen nothing yet. Unless the economy quickly starts soaring, within the next few years, automakers could need as much as $120 billion according to recent Congressional testimony.

And, even if the economy warms, but car buying stays slow, the US auto industry isn't even "viable".

"At 10.8 or 10.5 million total market," for yearly auto sales, Bob Lutz told CNN, "we do not have a viable automobile industry in this country for anybody."

Yet, the push in Congress is to now raise fuel economy standards for the Big 3, under the direction of Congress. An aggressive increase in fuel economy means that US automakers won't be profitable for more than a decade, maybe decades. In fact, such a move will require significantly more money from the government beyond the $120 billion if the economy doesn't quickly and vastly improve.

Is socialization of the US auto industry now inevitable?

Green technology patents: The Big 3's trump card?

How do we get the technology out of the lab and into the real world

"General Motors, Ford and Chrysler are collectively one of the world's primary sources for the research and development of green and fuel-efficient technologies," notes a commentary in the DetroitNews. "As Washington decides on aid to the ailing auto industry, top consideration should be given to the significant potential of these Big 3 technologies for stimulating economic and job growth and creating a greener and more fuel-efficient world."

Interesting piece on the green technology patents owned by the US auto industry and how bankruptcy "would create a historically unique opportunity for their foreign competitors to acquire a vast amount of crown jewel technology for a fraction of their true value."

GM's plans for the bailout money, for the future

Hard to get excited about hybrids like the Tahoe

Just checked out a video that GM is using to trump up support for the bailout of the US auto industry, something I already support, although tentatively. Yet, this video demonstrates the problem with the Big 3 and with GM. Too much tomorrow. The next big thing, such as the Chevy Volt, is never here today, it's always tomorrow.

No doubt, quality at GM has improved greatly over the years, and massive restructuring has been achieved and more is forthcoming. Cars like the Malibu are solid winners. And, next year, GM will have 9 hybrid cars available for sale, far more than anyone else. Yet, will any of them ever sell at least 50,000 units per year?

And, as exciting as the Chevy Volt is, it will still lag far behind Toyota Prius sales for at least another decade. In fact, while the Volt will be a game changer, it probably won't hit its game-changing stride until close to 2020. By then, it might not be quite as unique as it is today.

The Chevy Volt might be the best green vehicle selling at least 100,000 units per year in 2016, but America, at least those doubting GM, want to see GM challenge the Prius with a vehicle that can sell 100,000 units today.

Carpe diem, GM. Carpe diem.

Some hope for fuel economy

The gas guzzler is done?

Well, that's probably not going to be true anytime soon, but the wild popularity of gas-guzzlers is dead. That's a step, and as I watch the automakers testify before Congress, I need some hope.

If the recession hitting the US lasts as long, including the recovery, as some economists are predicting, any chance of profitability for automakers is many, many years out. How are they going to be able to afford a serious push towards fuel economy if the technology costs more, especially if gas prices don't go significantly higher for the next few years? Aren't many consumers going to balk?

Or, have Americans smartened up?

That was the feeling I got after reading the comments to a MotorTrend article about the falling price of gas. Considering that MotorTrend is not a staunch advocate of fuel efficiency, it's a hopeful sign when many of MotorTrend's readers believe that cheap gas shouldn't be an excuse to a return to guzzling.

Congress and fuel economy - Can you say hypocrisy?

Even Barack doesn't have much high ground

I remember, just as gas prices were rising, a press conference that members of Congress had at a Washington DC gas station to address the rising cost of gasoline prices. Even though the gas station was just ONE block from Congressional offices, most members drove. Even worse, their drivers waited in idling cars as members spoke, then were quickly driven back the one block to their offices.

Reporters on scene also noted how most drove SUVs, or gas-guzzling performance cars. Only a couple members - in total - drove hybrids then, at least in Washington.

Around the same time President-Elect Obama told supporters at a town hall meeting in Illinois that America had to give up their love affair with gas-guzzling SUVs, then he left the meeting in a gas-guzzling SUV. Later, reps for Obama explained that it was a flex fuel vehicle. Unfortunately, in Chicago, where Obama spent most his Illinois time, there weren't but a couple of ethanol stations throughout the entire metro area. Of course, ethanol guzzlers are little better than gas guzzlers.

Yet, these same politicians - now holier than thou - cannot understand why US automakers haven't focused on more fuel efficient vehicles, more hybrid vehicles. With their leadership - on both sides of the aisle - is there really any wonder?

Autos: Let the new world order begin

Everything soon as efficient as the Prius?

By 2020, if all goes well, the average fleet-wide fuel economy of the US fleet will be 35 mpg, a far cry from the fuel efficiency required to end foreign oil dependency. On the upside, there could be more than a million plug-in vehicles on the road by 2020.

Unfortunately, even if automakers are selling 1 million plug-ins per year in the US by 2020, probably an aggressive number, that would still represent significantly less than 10 percent of total yearly US auto sales, and we'll still be very dependent upon Persian Gulf oil.

Yet, achieving that million EV mark is going to cost many, many billions in government tax incentives. Even then, most automakers will make little profit off these vehicles. In fact, the move towards fuel economy is probably going to mean that total US auto sales per year will decline, even significantly.

Sadly, getting serious about fuel economy probably means significant job loss, not gain - at least in the US.

Is Congress even considering these issues as they ponder the legitimacy of the Big 3's plans for the future? We'll soon find out, but one thing is certain: bailing America out of its foreign oil dependency will cost far, far, far more than US automakers are seeking in loans.

Big 3 "visionary leaders" of "rebranded green" autos?

So, when will the Big 3 make America foreign oil independent?

"They [Big 3] need to tell Congress next week and the world that they are visionary leaders of a rebranded green auto industry," Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm said in an interview with The Detroit News. "We're not whining. And I don't think the auto industry should whine. They just need to lead. ... They need to convey that they intend to lead our nation to energy independence."

Talk about denial. The problem is that the Big 3 are not leading us to energy independence, at least not in the next few decades. Already, Big 3 CEOs testified before Congress that 35 mpg by 2020 was already pushing their capabilities. That won't come close to ending even Persian Gulf oil dependence.

Is that the leadership to which Granholm is referring?

Forget plug-in tax credits

Killing American fuel economy

Ethanol fans can't talk enough about how ethanol has helped America. Yet, when Congress struck a deal in 1988 to promote ethanol, they devised a tax credit scheme enabling 16 mpg gas guzzlers to have a fuel economy rating of 24 mpg. Thus, through the '90s, US automakers couldn't roll out enough gas-guzzling SUVs.

Yeah, that sure has helped America, not!

So, how are plug-in tax credits similar to flex fuel credits? They are not. Yet, I'd bet the first generation of plug-in vehicles are more about meeting new CAFE requirements than they are about killing the conventional vehicle. And, with billions in free money available both in cash handouts and tax credits, why not use that money to roll out enough plug-ins to attain green marketing cred and to help achieve new CAFE requirements?

Money for nothing and CAFE for free?

I say, enough government regulation. Let's make it easy. Increase oil taxes on gasoline, diesel, or any other petroleum products, and let consumers and innovators decide the winners. The flex fuel credit has proven that the government might have good intentions, but seldom do their intentions achieve intended results.

Waxman to make life tougher for automakers?

Higher CAFE requirements coming?

If I had to make a wager, I'd bet that a bailout for US automakers is inevitable, despite the recent hardball from Democrats. While that might irritate most, relax a little if your focus is fuel economy and global warming.

Now that Henry Waxman has replaced John Dingell as the leader of the Energy and Commerce panel, tougher CAFE and global warming requirements for automakers now seem inevitable. If Democrats hold to their guns, a bailout can be a good thing.

LA Auto Show: Where's the green?

The coolest green debut in LA

Yesterday, as I walked the floor of the LA Auto Show for what seemed like the 1000th time in two days, I felt very disappointed. While there were more hybrid cars and electric vehicles than ever displayed here, few will have any impact in the next couple of years. Many will never even be built.

When it comes to fuel economy, particularly city fuel economy, the auto industry has little to offer. 25,000 Ford Fusion hybrids just isn't enough. Nor are small cars, such as the Mini Cooper and its EPA estimated 26 mpg city fuel economy.

And, sure, maybe Nissan will have cost-competitive EVs in 2012, but until then we get nothing? Even then, are EVs the focus of the auto industry, or just a niche product to balance their guzzlers into CAFE compliance?

Green automakers? That's an oxymoron.

Bail out automakers to save the Chevy Volt? Part II

I still love the Volt, but it's time for some reality

On Monday, after reading some stories supporting a US automaker bailout to save the Chevy Volt, I slammed the suggestion (more). It's not that I don't believe in the viability of the Volt, it's that I don't believe the Volt is the critical piece of this discussion.

After watching the CEO's of the Big 3 testify before Congress Tuesday, I believe that even more. Both Ford and GM insisted that the new CAFE requirements - 35 mpg by 2020 - were the absolute most achievable limit. Any new strings for the bailout, they argued, should not include higher fuel economy standards.

Hence, by 2020, most US-made vehicles will still be conventional vehicles - though conventional vehicles with direct injection and other technologies that will increase fuel economy - not vehicles like the Volt.

More important, while 35 mpg fleet fuel economy means foreign oil dependency from the Persian Gulf will be reduced by half, America will still be terribly dependent upon foreign oil in 2020. This reality, not the Volt, should be the focus of the bailout talks.

Why can't automakers help end foreign oil dependency by 2020? If EVs and hybrid cars can't get us there be 2020, what other technologies, fuels, etc. can get us there? Can cellulosic ethanol be significantly increased in the next 10 years? Can natural gas help? Something else?

The US auto industry needs government help, and I'm inclined to help. However, if the government and US tax payers are going to partner with the US auto industry to achieve success, why not strive for revolutionary success?

LeBeau - Automakers open to fuel efficiency strings for cash

Time to make the best out of this bailout?

During CNBC Reports just a few minutes ago, Phil Lebeau - whom interviewed GM CEO Rick Wagoner this morning - stated that US automakers would be open to fuel economy strings for government cash.

Seems like a positive sign, and an angle that Congress should exploit.

Democrats ready to play hardball with Detroit?

Time to Californiacate Detroit?

The state of California wants to regulate CO2 emissions, which would require massive increases in fuel economy - meaning automakers would be forced to roll out tons of new alternative technologies, such as hybrid cars.

In Washington, California Congressman Henry Waxman has argued California's case, and he appears ready to take California's case to a higher pulpit. According to the Financial Times, Waxman "is challenging the dean of the House, John Dingell of Michigan, in his role as chairman of the House energy and commerce committee."

Dingell's protectionism of Detroit, at the expense of CAFE and global warming, according to FT, has irked both Waxman and House Speaker, Nancy Pelosi. Thus, if Waxman does replace Dingell, it would seem that fuel economy and global warming would play a far more significant role in the next session of Congress.

Fuel economy versus auto jobs - What's more important?

No US Prius competitors any time soon

Fuel economy. In and of itself, fuel efficiency doesn't sound important. However, when you add foreign oil dependency into the equation, fuel economy becomes vital - perhaps the most vital issue facing America.

Yet, is America really taking foreign oil dependency seriously?

Finish: Fuel economy versus auto jobs - What's more important?

Another $25 billion for automakers in the works

Smelling the White House

Democrats are kicking around the idea of another $25 billion for automakers as a "bridge financing" loan according to the DetroitNews. Such funding now appears inevitable as Congress will eventually offer the Big 3 some kind of bailout. Fortunately, it seems that money will come with strings, such as the money can't be used for bonuses. Unfortunately, it doesn't appear the new legislation will come with enough strings, such as a fuel economy requirement, for instance.

If Democrats attain a super-majority in Congress, I worry a little that Congress might save too much of the Big 3. Yesterday's auto sales numbers indicate quite clearly that the US auto industry MUST be downsized in some way, and it seems that must begin with Chrysler.

Can Democrats clean and green the US auto industry?

America's freedom fighter?

On the NYSE floor, an Obama win has already been priced into stocks, and there is a belief that an Obama win, coupled with a filibuster-proof Democratic majority in Congress, will lead to 'new deal' style projects and bailouts, such as the one needed for the US auto industry.

Can politicians cost-effectively manage both a successful bailout of the US auto industry, while increasing fuel economy and reducing emissions?

More important, if Congress is going to invest many billions more of tax payer money into the US auto industry, shouldn't fuel economy requirements be even more stringent than new CAFE regulations? For instance, shouldn't a massive bailout plan be structured around a real world plan to end foreign oil dependency by, say, 2025?

Does a bailout take a bite out of CAFE?

Chevy Cruze delayed

A bailout to help GM and Chrysler merge now seems inevitable. So, why did Cerebrus buy Chrysler? That's right, to make money, and probably at taxpayer expense. Anyway, back to the bailout. It seems there are just too many jobs, healthcare and pension funds at stake for Congress to let the auto industry go under. So, when these companies emerge, one can only assume that means GM will then forever be too big to go under.

Whatever, right? It's the jobs. It's the economy.

Fine, but what happens if GM says it can't meet new CAFE requirements without tens of billions more of taxpayer money, or bankruptcy? How can the government enforce legislation like CAFE when the auto industry knows Congress won't let it fail?

Hybrid vehicle fuel economy tips: Hypermiling Tools and Tricks

Turning it off helps

Hypermiling. It's a favorite word of many hybrid owners striving to best past fuel economy records. Plus, the various energy monitors on many hybrid cars essentially force hypermiling.

Pulse and glide. Drafting. B Gear. Different driving conditions require different hypermiling techniques.

My favorite congestion technique, especially on short trips, is hitting the gas pedal. Yeah, that's right. After a cold start, a little extra gas seems to optimize engine performance, probably because of the Atkinson cycle.

Likewise, in these conditions, shutting off your console screen and AC can also have big effects on fuel economy.

What are your favorite hybrid hypermiling tools and tricks?

Cheap hybrids - Only Honda gets it?

Still too expensive?

Hybrid vehicles, and other emergent fuel efficient technologies, are not the cheapest vehicles on the block, especially up front. And, when your 401K, pension plan, and home equity values are racing downward - with gas prices - sticker price becomes even more important.

While plug-in hybrid vehicles have received all of the hype and hope recently, aren't cheap hybrid cars the most efficient path to better fuel economy and technological economies of scale?

Thus far, however, only Honda seems focused on cheap hybrids, even more so than Toyota, although I'm certain Toyota can readjust to cheaper hybrids quite quickly.

Obviously, the development of plug-ins is extremely important, but isn't there great danger in putting off until tomorrow what can be done today?

Why city fuel economy doesn't matter

Because denial requires commitment

Several weeks ago at GM's Centennial, GM's technology guru, Larry Burns, discussed transportation studies that demonstrated the future for world transportation is slow, congested driving. Already, congestion is a huge American problem, and the idea of the open highway as the average commute has been a work of fiction for decades.

Yet, the auto industry - makers and press - are still fixated on highway fuel economy. Why? Ignorance? Denial?

The two-seat Smart Car, for instance, achieves 33 mpg on the EPA's city cycle. Even hybrid SUVs, such as the Ford Escape hybrid, do better than the tiny Smart Car at 34 mpg. The 5 passenger Toyota Prius achieves 48 mpg on the city cycle. Yet, hybrid cars are so over-rated?

Denial won't make foreign oil dependency go away, nor will 33 mpg.

Natural gas hybrid tax credit

Fight foreign oil dependency and invest in electrification

Not long ago I suggested new tax credits for non-plug-in hybrid vehicles, but with higher fuel economy standards. Since it's going to take decades before everyone is driving a plug-in, if ever, America needs other fuel efficient choices in the interim, especially cheaper solutions.

But, instead of raising the fuel economy requirements for a new hybrid tax credit, how about tax credits for natural gas hybrids, including plug-in hybrids?

Elevate the battle against foreign oil dependency, and invest in the electrification of the automobile. Isn't it time for tax credits for natural gas hybrid vehicles?

Honda takes jab at Big 3 on fuel economy. Has anything changed?

Honda predicted gas-guzzler fade?

While calling loans to US automakers the right thing for the US government to do, Honda CEO Takeo Fukui blamed US automakers for many of their problems saying, "Their response (to fuel economy) was too slow," according to the DetroitNews.

Fukui also indicated that even though the large truck and SUV market was highly profitable at one time, Honda didn't invest much in that segment because the company didn't believe gas-guzzling was sustainably profitable.

Ironically, when Honda was making this decision, the Big 3 were, collectively, betting the farm on gas-guzzlers, even after events like 9/11.

Yet, even today, it is very distressing how little effort the Big 3 are putting into hybrid cars to challenge the Toyota Prius and the soon-to-be-released Honda Insight. Do hybrid cars not make sense to Detroit the same way that large SUVs and trucks made so much sense just a few years ago?

Should automaker loans become a bailout?

How much change does Barack really want

So, Barack Obama wants the Energy Department to quickly provide the $25 billion in loans that automakers are to receive to help meet increased CAFE regulations because of tough financial times. Yet, such regulatory efforts, according to reports, often take 18 months or more to structure.

Lest we forget, these loans - which cost tax payers several billion to fund - were specifically created for fuel efficiency projects, such as new hybrid cars. They are not, as the auto industry reiterated numerous times, a bailout. Thus, how much can retooling a factory help today's bottom line for the Big 3?

More important, if rushed and loopholed, is not a bailout exactly what these loans are in danger of becoming? Should the US auto industry be bailed out at any cost? Is the Nationalization of the US auto industry inevitable?

Plug-in Ratings: Both Congress and the EPA confused

What's the value of plugging in?

When tax credits for plug-ins become available, neither electric range nor fuel economy will matter, only battery capacity - a move that appears to strongly favor GM's Chevy Volt versus the Toyota Prius.

However, when it comes to the EPA and CAFE, it's fuel economy that will matter. And that is the standard that Congress will judge automaker fleet fuel economy.

So why the double standard? Shouldn't there be just one way to judge plug-ins?

Dan Foley, of the Automotive X-Prize has been suggesting MPGe as a better rating "MPGe is a measure that expresses fuel economy in terms of the energy content of a gallon of gasoline, asking how much energy was delivered to the vehicle, and how far did it go."

Automaker loans easily pass through House

Hopefully its used to develop plug-in hybrids like this Escape plug-in hybrid at NAIAS

Don't call it a bailout, but the House of Representatives has passed a bill that includes $25 billion in loans for US automakers, and the bill is expected to easily pass through the Senate. Still, even though its not a bailout, it will cost US tax payers $7.5 billion to fund these loans.

Hopefully, the language in this bill remains tough, particularly that language requiring the loans be used only on projects that achieve at least a 25 percent increase in fuel economy - a standard automakers were fighting to lower.

If it stays at 25 percent, I won't call it a bailout. If automakers successfully lobbied Congress to reduce this requirement, however, then how can you call it anything but a bailout?

Chevy Volt hated by bipolar America

Too Prius like?

As if that's a bad thing. Yet, the Internet and the Chevy Volt Nation are up in arms. This is not the Chevy Volt that debuted at NAIAS in 2007.

"Huge disappointment," and an "unlikely love child of a one-nighter involving GM's concept and the Prius" are some of the criticisms that AutoObserver reported.

For many of these critics the Volt was the anti-Prius, an American-made bad ass electric muscle car that would put America back on top of the auto world. A vehicle that would allow Americans to continue to act like Americans, but without the guilt. We'd no longer waste gas, instead we'd waste electricity, which is so much more 21st century.

But, now the Volt looks too much like the Prius. Well, some times intelligence needs to trump vanity. Finish: Chevy Volt hated by bipolar America

Automaker bailout isn't a bailout?

Chrysler's idea of hybrid technology

Earlier today I changed my stance and suggested that Congress give Detroit automakers the money they are seeking, with conditions that mandate more change than just new CAFE.

Let's ensure the bailout leads to guaranteed change, I thought, but then I learned it's not a bailout. The Big 3 don't really need the money. It's for us - you and me - Joe Customers.

"It's not a bailout. It's an acceleration of technology into the hands of consumers who couldn't afford it," Chrysler's Jim Press said.

Huh? You can't find a hybrid today on a lot. Toyota is months behind demand for its hybrid cars, and is increasing production as fast as possible. Next year Honda will sell more hybrids than the Big 3 combined by a couple times at least. This money isn't about helping consumers, it's about one thing, bailing out Detroit's over-dependence on large SUVs and trucks.

Give Detroit the money, but....

Toyota's very fuel efficient Tundra?

The Big 3 continue to increase their efforts to acquire as much as $50 billion in loans from the US government - $25 billion of which was written into CAFE increasing legislation, and momentum is gaining in Congress.

Thus far, I've been against this bailout, but I think I've changed my mind. Perhaps the bailout can be the impetus for desperately needed change.

Finish: Give Detroit the money, but....

Bigger hybrids are better, right?

A better application for hybrid technology?

Small cars, so goes the thinking of some, are already fuel efficient, so why waste costly hybrid technology on small hybrid vehicles? Instead, putting that hybrid technology in large vehicles, they note, actually saves more fuel.

I thought about that this weekend as I watched a few Cadillac Escalade hybrid commercials. 'Why are hybrids always small cars,' the driver of an Escalade hybrid asks. Why not a vehicle with an 8 inch nav screen, dvd entertainment system and room for 8, yadda, yadda, yadda.

FINISH: Bigger hybrid vehicles are better, right?

EPA should change testing for the Volt?

Being treated unfairly?

According to MotorTrend, the EPA and GM are having a problem agreeing how to define the Chevy Volt. For those driving less than 40 miles per day and that recharge every day, the Volt acts basically like an electric car. For those that drive longer distances, or don't recharge every day, then the Volt acts more like a hybrid. Unfortunately, EPA testing is not designed for such duality in capabilities and performance. Thus, the difference, as far as the EPA is concerned, is a 45 mpg EPA sticker, or a 100 mpg EPA sticker.

Should the EPA create a new classification for plug-in hybrids? If the Volt lives up to the hype, will the EPA sticker even matter?

US automakers are "deserving" of $50 billion in loans?

Lutz claims Big 3 "deserving" of $50 billion in loan guarantees

I want the Chevy Volt to succeed. I want the Big 3 to survive, but I want them to survive because they are solid, quality businesses. But are they?

'We make what consumers want,' the Big 3 have maintained, as their market share has perpetually declined as millions of consumers switched to more fuel efficient vehicles from the likes of Honda and Toyota.

And while hybrids didn't make sense to US automakers, despite tax payer funding, Toyota turned their hybrid cars into a long term business model, even though "nobody could have foreseen $4.00 gas prices."

Perhaps the Big 3 are deserving of these loans, but aren't the American people also deserving of some honest accountability? Some real responsibility?

Fuel economy: Double jeopardy for tax payers?

Just let Congress manage our economy?

Yesterday, I blogged on how the city of Flint is providing millions in tax breaks to GM to help fund the Chevy Volt, and GM is also seeking millions from the state as well. Likewise, GM is also requesting part of $50 billion in low interest, government backed loans to help in the conversion to vehicles with better fuel economy, such as smaller vehicles and hybrid cars. And, when GM finally starts selling the Volt, it will probably need large tax incentives for consumers in order to make these vehicles affordable.

And, if Ford and Chrysler ever develop real plans to address fuel economy, they'll need just as much help.

Yet, the pain doesn't stop there. Automakers claim that CAFE will increase the price of all vehicles significantly. Thus, not only are tax payers committing billions in loans and tax breaks to Detroit, they're also going to have to pay more for the products their tax dollars are helping to fund.

Without doubt, US automakers provide great jobs for many Americans, but how did things get so screwed up? More important, can the US auto industry really be saved, or are we just delaying the inevitable?

Most cost-effective gas savers according to Intellichoice

The most cost effective mid-sized gas saver

According to Edmunds, most hybrid vehicles are not good buys because they cost more. Accordingly, a Honda Fit without air conditioning or cruise control and little more than a cheap AM/FM radio is a better deal than the Toyota Prius, simply because the Prius costs more. I won't even get into keyless entry, etc, for example, because such features have even far less value to Edmunds.

However, others, such as Consumer Reports, have perpetually picked the Prius as one of the most cost-effective vehicles to own. And it isn't just CR.

Finish: Most cost effective gas savers

I hate gas guzzlers

Gas guzzler.

Gas guzzler, gas guzzler, gas guzzler.

You see them everywhere. Huge SUV gas guzzlers. Luxury sedan gas guzzlers. Sports car guzzlers. Gas guzzlers everywhere.

But driving a gas guzzler is fun. It's about more than transportation. It sends a message. It tells people you can afford the gas. It makes you feel powerful. It can make a dork feel cool. A short person tall. A poor person rich. An impotent man virile. It's not about driving. It's about perception. And, since life is so short, why shouldn't you just do what you want, drive what you want?

Finish: I hate gas guzzlers

Fuel economy, cars and politics

Large gas-guzzlers still qualify for tax incentives

Democrats are the party for greens, right? So, why are solar tax credits set to expire? Why are tax credits for hybrid cars expiring while tax incentives for huge gas guzzlers are not?

We shouldn't be surprised according to an interesting chart The Fast Report sent to Hybridcarblog. The chart shows a strong correlation between gas prices and the ratio of small to large vehicle sales. Overall, higher gas prices lead to less guzzler sales, more small car sales and greater US fuel economy. Great for greens, right?

And yet Democrats want to tap into oil reserves, grill oil executives and whatever else to try to lower gas prices, an event that will only lead to more gas-guzzler sales and decreased fuel economy. Contradictions?

Republicans couldn't run Congress and now Democrats can't either. Talk, talk, talk. Spend, spend, spend. Man, I gotta run for office. What a job!

Highway fuel economy is for suckers

Is highway fuel economy even relevant anymore?

So, the Ford Focus is a better deal than the Toyota Prius, and GM offers more vehicles that achieve 30 mpg or more than any other automaker. Of course, ONLY (and maybe not even then) based upon perfect world highway fuel economy.

So, what percentage of your commute is a cruise-controlled 55 - 65 mpg on a flat surface without any wind resistance?

Most people, even in small towns, stop at a few stop signs or red lights, conditions that reduce fuel economy significantly. Suddenly, 30 mpg is more like 20-25 mpg, or even worse, depending on how many stop lights you actually hit. Then there is the kind of congestion that you find in large cities like LA and Chicago. In such conditions, the Toyota Prius has been demonstrated to average almost 60 mpg. In tough urban congestion the Focus might not even achieve 20 mpg.

Yet, according to transportation studies, congestion is increasing and it's going to increase significantly in the future. So, is highway fuel economy even relevant anymore? Even worse, isn't marketing highway fuel economy deceptive?

Auto industry too old school?

Stuck in the last century?

So, I was watching CNBC this morning and I caught a feature regarding GM's future, and the products that are going to drive their future. Cadillacs, Camaros, and Corvettes dominate, in addition to the new and improved Malibu, which is a very solid auto. Still, the feature felt more like a blast to the past, although these vehicles will all probably be hot sellers.

Then, later today, I saw a headline from CarandDriver that caught my attention: Five Fuel-Saving Technologies - Feature that focused on clean diesel, direct injection, variable displacement/cylinder deactivation, turbochargers, and variable valve timing and lift. All great fuel saving technologies, however, the article didn't even mention hybrid cars.

To be fair, the CarandDriver article closes the opening paragraphs with the statement that the article is about"current engine technologies that help make more power and improve efficiency". Obviously, hybrid technology is about more than just engines, so maybe it was fair to keep hybrids off the list.

Still, isn't the entire auto industry - from press to manufacturers - still too old school?

Evolution: Time for a few auto dinosaurs to die?

Can US automakers reinvent the Model T for this century?

It is said that one of the critical moments in human evolution was the extinction of large dinosaurs, for it opened new environments for smaller animals to explore, to adapt and to evolve.

Today, with the US auto industry flailing, it's hard not to wonder if the US auto industry couldn't be revived with a little extinction, and many have made such a case. As fuel economy has become the critical factor for automaker survival, the inefficiencies of the dinosaurs of the US auto industry have become pathetically obvious and simply unacceptable to some.

On the other hand, building autos is no easy business, especially when Americans demand many millions of new vehicles every year, and building new generations of hybrid cars and electric vehicles will be even harder. So, righting these wayward ships of inefficiency seems the most efficient plan, but can US automakers be righted and can they be righted quickly enough?

Also, if a US automaker or two went under, would it only lead to more foreign made cars, or could emerging US companies quickly fill the void?

GM uses Volt to lobby for lower fuel economy standards

No game changer until well after 2015

The Chevy Volt will be an amazing piece of technology when it hits the road in late 2010, but it won't be a game changer until well after 2015. According to the DetroitNews, GM is currently lobbying the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to lower the increase in fleet fuel economy required between 2011 and 2015 because such a requirement could slow the rollout of the Volt.

"GM's game-changing (extended range electric vehicle) technology should be treated as a low-volume application" through the 2015 model year, GM said in its filing, adding that it "strongly discouraged" NHTSA from assuming large numbers of vehicles would be built before then. It urged NHTSA to drop its yearly increase to 3 percent per year.

Back in April, Hybridcarblog reported that GM might use the Volt as an SUV fuel economy bargaining chip, and it now appears that prediction has come true. Sources within GM have claimed that less than 200,000 Chevy Volts would be built before 2015, therefore, the Volt will have little impact on GM's fleet fuel economy.

Should the Volt be an excuse for lower fuel economy standards? What if some unforeseen problem slows the Volt and E-Flex? Too many eggs in one basket?

Honda: Proof that plug-in vehicles are a gimmick?

Honda just not worried about CAFE?

When it comes to CAFE and NHTSA fuel economy regulations, one automaker is always absent from the discussion, Honda. Interestingly, in this time of high gas prices and super sluggish auto sales, Honda sales keep on rolling. Sure, Honda doesn't have the hybrid cars, yet, to match Toyota, but Honda's overall fleet is far more fuel efficient than Toyota, and CAFE seems of little concern.

Thus, it's very interesting that Honda is not aggressively pursuing either plug-in hybrid vehicles or electric vehicles. Instead, Honda believes cheap hybrid cars are the best short-to-midterm solution, followed by fuel cell vehicles, such as the Honda Clarity.

Even more ironic, however, one might think Toyota and GM would be less concerned over CAFE if they are so bullish on plug-ins - vehicles which should significantly help balance their fleet fuel economy. Hence, one can only assume that neither Toyota nor GM believe that plug-ins will be a major component of their fleet fuel economy for many, many years.

Certainly, there is no doubt that America will see a number of plug-in vehicles by 2010, but when will we see them in numbers that matter? Are plug-in vehicles before 2015, even 2020, more of a niche, PR-gimmick to distract Americans from the reality that automakers are failing us as consumers on fuel efficiency, foreign oil dependency and global warming?

SoCal hybrid drivers save over $2,500 per year?

Dial a clue hybrid haters?

OK, I don't have any statistics to support this claim, but I was just watching Jane Wells, of CNBC, discussing mass transit versus driving in the Los Angeles area. One interesting 'fact' she pointed out: the average SoCal commuter wastes $2500 per year just idling in traffic. Since hybrid vehicles can use only electric power during much of this idling, SoCal hybrid drivers are saving a nice chunk of change compared to non-hybrid drivers in this all-too-common SoCal driving condition.

Prius, Escape hybrid rule city fuel economy

Escape hybrid outperforms the Civic hybrid

When I tell people that a Toyota Prius can achieve as much as 60 mpg in LA driving, many don't believe me. Yet, a recent city driving test by Cars.com has proven my - in some minds - wild claims.

In several tests of real world Chicago traffic, the Toyota Prius achieved fuel economy ranging from 50.5 mpg to 60.8 mpg, averaging 55.7 mpg according to observed tests and 59.1 mpg according to the Prius computer.

Surprisingly, the Ford Escape hybrid outperformed the Honda Civic hybrid in the same traffic, achieving 38.3 mpg versus the 37.6 mpg of the Civic hybrid.

Cars.com only tested four hybrid cars. The other hybrid tested, the Chevy Tahoe hybrid, achieved 20.5 mpg.

35 mpg by 2020, 75 mpg by 2030

Fuel cell cars only way forward?

While automakers are already complaining about the technological feasibility of 35 mpg by 2020, things could get far worse. In order to meet greenhouse gas emission reduction requirements currently being proposed, automakers would have to achieve 75 mpg by 2030 according to a top EPA official.

"There are a lot of strategies you need to consider -- both engines and fuels," Margo Oge, director of the Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Transportation and Air Quality recently said in an interview. Automakers "need to be thinking of those investments for the long term basis," beyond the energy bill, Oge said.

Sure automakers will need to use long term vision, which is scary, but how realistic is it to expect automakers to achieve such a massive increase in fuel economy when many members of Congress are still trying to figure out how to make gas cheaper for Americans?

50 mpg - Much ado about tax incentives?

America loves two-seaters, not!

50 mpg by 2020. According to automakers, such a task is almost technologically impossible. Nonsense! On the contrary, such a task is quite feasible. Such a task does, however, require a shift in consumer psychology, or financial help.

The Newsweek article, Miles to Go, points out that 50 mpg simply requires American consumers to give up either "cost, drive quality or safety", or, presumably, some combination thereof. The technology, however, is available in the form of lighter materials, smaller sizes and hybrid technology.

Still, it seems obvious that American consumers don't like to give up anything. Sure, they might down size a little, but it seems very unlikely that a Dodge Durango buyer is going to start driving something the size of a Mini Cooper. Hence, are not consumer tax credits for fuel efficient technologies the key, especially considering the government's unhealthy role in maintaining foreign oil dependence?

Finally: Fuel economy rules!?

High gas prices re-shaping consumer psychology

A new AAA survey suggests that fuel economy is now the number one consideration for new car buyers according to the DetroitNews, and other data also supports the growing importance of efficiency in the mind's of consumers.

"The survey results clearly demonstrate that gas prices have reached levels sufficient for consumers to dramatically alter their driving behaviors and car-buying habits," said Kathy Harrison, vice president and chief public affairs officer for AAA Michigan.

So, if gas prices recede a good bit, will consumers return to their gas-guzzling ways, or have we finally wised-up?

Can the X-Prize achieve what automakers cannot?

SpaceShipOne after the first X-Prize

After SpaceShipOne won the first X-Prize, several years ago now, I sat in the Mojave Desert feeling as if the world was on the verge of a great change. I'm still waiting. Nonetheless, the X-Prize did lead to Virgin Galactic and a number of other private space ventures, so the fruits of the first X-Prize are still ripening.

Today, at the New York Auto Show, the X-Prize is hoping to inspire a new wave of green cars. Yet, I cannot help but wonder, is an automotive X-Prize really needed? Every major automaker is now working on 'green cars', and the main obstacles now boil down to costs. On the other hand, however, the lack of out-of-the-box thinking seems to be a major auto-industry illness.

While the 'green' X-Prize might not lead to a new, green production vehicle, the X-Prize can still inspire the public, perhaps even reshape consumer psychology regarding fuel economy and pollution. That alone is worth the effort.

Waxman claims White House blocked California EPA waiver

The White House blocked the EPA

"Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., chair of the House Oversight Committee, contended in a letter to EPA administrator Stephen Johnson that the White House scuttled a 300-page draft regulation that would have essentially required automobiles to average 35 miles per gallon by 2018 -- two years ahead of an energy bill signed into law on Dec. 19." (more)

Of course, had Congress acted responsibly over the last few decades regarding fuel economy, would the EPA have even mattered?

Fuel economy and SUV safety

Is safety really an excuse?

Many women, I've been told by several auto industry-related women, buy large SUVs because they feel safe - it's some kind of motherly instinct they claim. But are SUVs really safe?

Why is it that improvements in SUV safety seem to find their way into the news a few times per year if SUVs are so safe in the first place? Is the foreign oil dependency that large SUVs create safe for US soldiers fighting an oil war in Iraq? Was it safe for the victims of 9/11 - an attack partially funded by foreign oil profits?

There are some out there that do need a large SUV, such as the GMC Yukon hybrid pictured above, but not nearly as many as drive such vehicles. Thus, does safety legitimately justify SUV need? I don't think so.

Has the EPA lost all credibility?

Just a puppet of the US auto industry?

"This is a choice only you can make, but I ask you to think about the history and the future of the agency in making it," stated a memo by a senior career staffer in the EPA to Administrator Stephen Johnson regarding California's tailpipe waiver. "If you are asked to deny this waiver, I fear the credibility of the agency that we both love will be irreparably damaged."

"The eyes of the world are on you. It is obvious to me that there is no legal or technical justification for denying this".

I guess there was only politics. Do US a favor, Mr. Johnson, resign. It is your destiny.

Is the green movement a zealot-driven jihad?

Green critic John McCormick claims the green movement has turned into a jihad

"If reducing CO2 output is the name of the game -- and let's remember that no-one has proved that man-made CO2 has anything to do with the earth's natural warming trend ....," John McCormick states as he attacks the green movement's jihad against fuel inefficiency in today's DetroitNews.

Perhaps nature is solely responsible for global warming, an unlikely possibility. So what? Does that make foreign oil dependency any less of a threat to national security? Read more....

Do mild hybrids make sense?

Is the Malibu hybrid worth the effort?

There was a time when I hated writing about mild hybrids, but today that isn't the case. It isn't that I'm willing to give much pen time to the mild side of hybrid vehicles now, but at least I no longer hate mild hybrids.

Still, do mild hybrids make sense? Read more.......

The Honda Civic Hybrid is "fun"

A "fun to drive" vehicle?

The DetroitNews ran an article reviewing the Honda Civic hybrid this weekend that called the Civic hybrid, " a lot of fun to drive" without really talking about what was so fun.

Was it funner than a regular Civic? Was it funner than a Toyota Prius, or a Camry hybrid? Was it the way it handled?

No. It was "fun" to watch the fuel economy gauge.

Anyway, for some real world Civic hybrid experiences, especially regarding fuel economy, check out our Honda Civic Hybrid Testimonials.

More automakers blame gas prices for fuel economy

Big trucks are the best selling vehicles in America

"Gas prices would have to be $13 a gallon in today's world for consumers to demand a fleet where half the vehicles achieved better than 35 miles per gallon," Chrysler LLC economist Paul Traub said after addressing the Society of Automotive Analysts this month.

Is that statement an exaggeration? Can automakers profitably sell significantly more fuel efficient vehicles - that consumers are willing to buy - without a significant increase in gas prices?

Does the Tahoe hybrid make sense? Congress?

What's the purpose of SUVs?

The hybrid technology that powers both the soon-to-be-released Chevy Tahoe hybrid and the GMC Yukon hybrid is impressive. However, ever since GM announced plans for dual mode hybrid vehicles, I've asked one simple question: Will the technology be cost-effective and, therefore, relevant?

That question has been answered, kind of, and I have some questions for Congress. Read more....

Lutz blames cheap gas for poor US fuel economy

Bob Lutz and Rick Wagoner in front of the Volt

Only gas prices at the level that Europeans pay will cause Americans to rethink their vehicles, Lutz said. Current European gasoline prices are the equivalent of about $8 a gallon, he said.

“If for the last 15 years we’d had a slow but sure rise in federal fuel taxation of, say, 15 cents a gallon per year -- that would have gradually put the customer in the equation,” he said.

There are some more great Lutz quotes in this AutoWeek article as well.

Have FCVs gotten their mojo back?

Honda has definitely stepped up their fuel cell efforts

Recently, Honda stated that the near future for Honda was hybrid cars, then fuel cell vehicles. Electric cars would not be part of Honda's plans (more).

Is Honda crazy?

GM, Ford, Toyota, Hyundai and many other automakers have also been significantly ramping up their fuel cell vehicle efforts. It appears that a corner has been turned on fuel cell vehicles. Still, despite the amazing progress that fuel cell vehicles have made in the last couple of years, there is one HUGE problem.

Where is the hydrogen highway? Where are all these fuel cell vehicles going to refuel? In California, a hydrogen-leader, hydrogen filling stations are decreasing, not increasing, and building a new hydrogen highway infrastructure could cast as much as $500 billion according to some estimates.

So, is Honda crazy? Maybe, or maybe Honda's hydrogen Home Fueling Station is far closer to reality than the skeptics believe. Considering Honda's history, I wouldn't bet against them.

CAFE: 35 mpg really means 26.5 mpg?

26.5 mpg by 2020 - Nancy's shot heard round the world?

Karl on Cars has a great article dismissing the new CAFE standards coming out of Congress. It turns out that CAFE doesn't measure fuel economy the same way as does the EPA; therefore, a CAFE standard of 35 mpg actually equals 26.5 mpg. Likewise, I assume CAFE strongly favors, easier to achieve, highway fuel economy.

When you add in the lower standard for trucks plus the ethanol credit, U.S. automakers aren't going to have to do nearly as much as one might think to achieve CAFE compliance. Essentially, the Chevy Tahoe hybrid is probably already close to compliance, so anybody expecting massive changes in America's automotive landscape might be waiting a whole lot longer.

Gotta love those politicians.

Ethanol blocking CAFE

Time to end the ethanol loophole

The DetroitNews is reporting that Congress is close to finishing off a 35 mpg by 2020 energy bill, however, "several congressional sources and auto industry lobbyists said the major issue is the fuel economy credit automakers get for making flexible-fuel or dual-fuel vehicles."

Thus far ethanol is a joke that has caused more harm than good. Sure, cellulosic ethanol holds promise, but corn-based ethanol should not be used as an excuse not to produce more fuel efficient vehicles.

Shouldn't CAFE be limited just to fuel economy? If automakers and Congress want to work on biofuels, incorporate that legislation into gas taxes. For instance, offer a lesser fuel tax for greener alternative fuels, but let's at least keep CAFE about fuel economy and fuel efficiency-increasing technologies, such as hybrid cars and clean diesel vehicles, for example.

No gimmicks. No excuses. 35 mpg means 35 mpg. Keep it simple.

Clinton calls for 'plug-in revolution'

55 mpg by 2030

On Monday Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton called for a fleetwide increase in fuel economy to 40 mpg by 2020 and 55 mpg by 2030. To help automakers achieve these goals, the Senator offered $2 billion for battery research and $20 billion in government bonds to help U.S. automakers retool auto plants.

Essentially, Clinton believes plug-in hybrid vehicles, such as the Chevy Volt, are the future.

Nonetheless, automakers called the plan nonsense, while other Democratic presidential candidates questioned Hillary's record on fuel economy.

"You can't bring about change on our energy policy if you change your position to suit the politics of a presidential campaign," Obama's Iowa communications director Josh Earnest said. "When she had the chance to lead, Senator Clinton voted multiple times against legislation to increase production of renewable fuels and to increase fuel efficiency standards."

Lexus hybrid most fuel efficient luxury SUV

A great hybrid for luxury drivers

When it comes to hybrid cars and fuel economy, I probably hear more complaints about the Lexus RX400 h hybrid than any other hybrid vehicle. Of course, I always wonder, what were these buyers expecting from a luxury hybrid?

When push-comes-to-shove, for the performance it provides, the RX400 h is a great vehicle, and its performance in urban traffic makes it Forbes' Top Most Fuel Efficient Luxury SUV.

If you want the most fuel efficient SUV, pick up a Ford Escape hybrid. If you want a luxury SUV with good fuel economy, it's the RX400 h.

EPA - 2008 Most Fuel Efficient Hybrids

Most fuel efficient cars for 2008

Hybrid cars, once again, dominate the list of most fuel efficient vehicles according to the EPA. In order the most fuel efficient vehicles were: 1.) Toyota Prius, 2.) Honda Civic hybrid, 3.) Nissan Altima hybrid 4.) Toyota Camry hybrid, and 5.) Ford Escape hybrid, Mercury Mariner hybrid, Mazda Tribute hybrid (2 WD Versions).

That's right, the top five sports were dominated hybrid vehicles.

Top Safest Fuel Saving Cars

Tahoe and 5 other hybrids lead the pack

So, you want to save money on gas, but you also want to feel safe - it is your family, right? What could be more important?

No problem. CNNMoney has come up with 6 vehicles that save gas by providing great fuel economy while providing best in class safety, and 5 of those vehicles are hybrid vehicles.

The Saturn Aura hybrid, Honda Civic hybrid, Nissan Altima hybrid, Toyota Camry hybrid and the Chevy Tahoe hybrid and the Ford Taurus all provide great fuel economy for their class, while also providing excellent safety.

Tahoe, Yukon hybrids to equal Camry fuel economy?

As efficient as a Camry?

Ed Peper, a General Manager for GM's Chevrolet, told CNBC's Behind the Wheel that the Chevy Tahoe hybrid would achieve 21 mpg in the city - the city fuel economy of a conventional Toyota Camry.

That's a good start. Of course, the Toyota Camry hybrid, on the other hand, achieves mid to high 30s fuel economy in the city.

Still, I get Chevy's point.

My Chevy Tahoe hybrid test drive left me very impressed. Still, it's hard for me to endorse any large SUV, but I absolutely believe that the buyers of large SUVS need to take some responsibility for their gas-guzzling. The Tahoe hybrid and the GMC Yukon hybrid provide such an opportunity for large SUV buyers to both reduce foreign oil consumption and to invest in GM's hybrid technology.

Hopefully, one day, that investment will lead to hybrid cars in addition to smaller hybrid SUVs from GM. Until then, the Tahoe and Yukon hybrids are a step forward.

Honda, Toyota lead U.S. fuel economy

Prius balances Toyota's gas-guzzlers

Honda Motor Co. had the highest fuel economy of any manufacturer selling automobiles in the U.S. with 22.9 mpg, a slight decrease compared with its 2006 lineup, according to MSNBC.

Toyota posted a 22.8 mpg average for its 2007 vehicles compared with 22.4 mpg the previous year, largely driven by the Prius and Toyota's other hybrid vehicles.

22.9 mpg is the best fuel economy in America? There is only one word to describe America's fuel economy: pathetic.

$3.00 gas is good for America?

Western oil companies are losing power

I'm reading an advanced copy of a book called ZOOM: The Global race to Fuel the Car of the Future, which has been a very interesting read thus far.

One thing, however, that has been particularly noteworthy is the focus the book places on oil. Rather than criticizing oil profits, it concentrates on how America's big oil companies are losing power.

Ultimately, more and more, oil reserves are in the control of just a few countries - many of which are neither interested in Democracy, nor in a strong America. Thus, the problems associated with foreign oil dependency have the potential to become far, far more detrimental and problematic for America than they are today. Yet today, foreign oil dependency and gas-guzzling is already empowering our enemies, while weakening the dollar and the economy.

Consequently, maybe $3.00 gas is good for America.

If gas were $1.50 per gallon, the Toyota Prius would still be an unknown vehicle. Hybrid cars wouldn't even be part of America's vocabulary, let alone plug-in hybrid vehicles. Furthermore, America's foreign oil dependency would be growing dramatically.

Instead, high gas prices have made Americans more focused on fuel economy than ever before, and that's a good thing.

Since oil reserves are concentrated ever more in the hands of countries - many of which are anti-American - the likelihood of serious energy shocks in the future is growing and almost a certainty. In reality, $3.00 gas isn't an energy shock. It's a wake up call for revolutionary change.

Will America heed the alarm, or wait until gas prices hit $6.00, or even $10.00 per gallon?

Traffic congestion, MPGs and Hybrids

"Things are bad and they're getting worse," said Alan Pisarski, a transportation expert and the author of "Commuting in America."

According to a new study, traffic in America is increasing, and that traffic is costing Americans - on average - about a work week per year.

Traffic also results in the worst fuel economy and the highest emissions, unless you drive a hybrid, such as a Toyota Prius. For this reason, I feel that the EPA and automakers should highlight city fuel economy, rather than highway fuel economy.

According to experts, the majority of Americans will soon live in urban areas, urban areas like Los Angeles where almost 2 weeks per year are wasted. Unfortunately, there are few solutions for this congestion, which means the problem is only going to get worse and probably significantly worse.

While it's great that a lot of cars achieve 30 mpg on the highway, it's their fuel economy in the city that is becoming ever more important. Hybrid cars, such as the Prius or the Ford Escape hybrid - even the Chevy Tahoe hybrid - provide huge improvements in fuel economy in these conditions.

Sadly, traffic is a problem that took only a few decades to grow out of control, and it will have devastating consequences on fuel economy, foreign oil dependency and global warming if it isn't taken seriously into the next few decades.

Angus likes the Prius, but it's no silver bullet to fuel economy?

Is there ever such a thing as a silver bullet?

"We like the Prius here at Motor Trend. A lot. You may recall we made the second-generation version our 2004 Car of the Year, probably one of the most radical choices in the entire history of the award. But -- and let me be crystal clear about this -- despite what the likes of DiCaprio, Al Gore, and Vanity Fair would like you to think, the Prius is not the car that will save the planet," writes Angus Mackenzie.

Thus, Angus claims, there is no silver bullet to fuel economy. While I agree....Finish: Angus like the Prius, but it's not silver bullet to fuel economy

Ron: Fuel economy will destroy U.S. auto industry

Time for new leadership?

"We're being told that we must choose between protecting our environment versus protecting our jobs," said UAW president Ron Gettelfinger as he thrust himself into the center of a contentious debate over fuel economy.

So, foreign oil dependency doesn't matter? It's not just the environment, Ronnie, it's National Security. Get with the program! We're not living in the '80's. The world has changed Ron. Unfortunately, you have not.

Oh yeah, you were the Union leader who kicked U.S. soldiers off your parking lot!!!!!!!!

Had the Union, under Ron's leadership, accepted the challenge of foreign oil dependency a decade or two ago, instead of refusing to allow the auto industry any flexibility to change, America might be in a far better situation. Yes, the auto corporations also deserve blame, but the Union has been complicit.

I say F the Union if they can't change, and I say change starts with dumping Ron. America's Unions need a leader with vision, not one that buries his head in the sand to prevent change.

Indian automakers chasing green

Tata Motors: Tomorrow's green leader?

"Indian vehicle makers are joining the global race to make less-polluting greener vehicles, teaming up with international firms and pouring money into research that could result in commercially viable technologies quickly," Reuters claims this morning.

Bio-fuels, hybrid cars, fuel cells and more. India's emerging automakers are thinking big, and they are thinking green.

American automakers, pay attention. Years of declining U.S. marketshare have been balanced by Europe, Asia and emerging markets. Even worse, the future for U.S. automakers seems pinned to China and India - markets where local automakers are fiercely trying to catch up to the big boys of the auto world.

Once, the Big 3 laughed off the challenge of Japanese automakers and compact cars. Will U.S. automakers make the same mistake again regarding hybrid cars and other fuel efficient and green technologies?

Study claims 35 mpg CAFE is 'economically feasible'

If the Volt is 'technologically feasible' by 2010, then how can 35 mpg not be?

Congress and Detroit. Two peas in a pod? If there was ever a common element between politicians and automakers, it has to be vision. Or, more precisely, a lack thereof.

O.K., the House of Reps. is going to delay any action regarding fuel economy until Fall - something that will make automakers breathe a little easier the next few months. While automakers show off fancy cars, possibly able to achieve 100 mpg by 2012, they also continue to argue that 35 mpg is not 'technologically feasible' by 2020 - a claim I disputed on Tuesday.

Yet, not only is 35 mpg easily 'technologically feasible' by 2020, it is even more economically feasible than not achieving this higher level of CAFE, according to a new study cited by Edmunds.

"Detroit's automakers would collectively earn $14.4 billion by 2017, the study says, under the toughest standards being considered by Congress: a combined car and truck average of 35 mpg by 2018. The U of M auto brain trust calculates that indexing mileage targets to vehicle size wouldn't penalize Detroit with its truck-heavy lineups the way the existing car and truck standards do. Instead, the domestic automakers would be allowed to aim for a lower target — around 33 mpg — while Japanese rivals that are top-heavy with passenger cars might need to average 38 mpg. "

Why doesn't Congress get off its ass and do something meaningful? Forcing, while helping, Detroit to build as many hybrid cars today, while developing tomorrow's plug-in hybrids, seems to be the best thing Congress could do for Detroit - and America.

So, show some vision already!

Hybrids have saved 230 million gallons of gas so far

Still just a drop in the gas bucket

Since hybrid vehicles first hit the road, they have saved 230 million gallons of gas according to the U.S. Department of Energy's National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL).

Unfortunately, that amount of fuel saved doesn't even equal a full day's worth of gasoline consumption. Nonetheless, NREL believes hybrids can have a huge impact on fuel consumption.

"Although the fuel savings from hybrid vehicles to date is relatively small compared to the total fuel use, as the technology matures and these numbers increase, they can have a significant impact on reducing our overall transportation fuel use."

What is "technically feasible" fuel economy?

Aren't automakers duping consumers?

A 'technically feasible' approach to fuel economy has become the new buzzword among automakers, including Toyota, the king of hybrid cars. Yet, if a Toyota Prius can achieve almost 50 mpg and a Camry hybrid can achieve more than 40 mpg, then why are automakers fighting even 35 mpg as a new CAFE standard?

The new CAFE standards will not even go into effect until 2020. By then, Toyota, for example, will probably be on at least their 5th generation of hybrid technology. Even hybrid late-comers, such as GM and Ford, will have already moved through multiple generations of hybrid technology.

--> Finish: What is 'technically feasible' fuel economy?

Americans want 35 mpg CAFE standard

Pew finds overwhelming support from voters

A survey conducted in Kentucky, Pennsylvania, Florida, North Carolina, Michigan, Tennessee and Ohio between July 13 and July 20, found that "almost 90 percent of the 3,900 likely voters surveyed favor requiring the automobile industry to improve fuel efficiency" to 35 mpg by 2018.

Those surveyed believe that increasing fuel economy will both reduce gasoline prices and decrease fuel economy. Most surveyed also do not believe that increasing fuel economy would adversely affect the U.S. economy.

Automakers clueless on "reasonable" fuel economy standards

Automakers want to work with Congress to set "reasonable" standards

According to the DetroitNews, automakers will be starting a new ad campaign regarding proposed legislation to increase fuel economy standards in the U.S..

"We don't have all the answers to questions about reasonable fuel economy standards. No one does. Together, we can find the answers America deserves," the campaign says according to the paper.

I have an answer to questions regarding reasonable fuel economy standards. End foreign oil dependency. That's the answer! If you want to work with Congress, work with Congress to end foreign oil dependency! How many fricken trillions of dollars do we have spend in places like Iraq and to fight the War on Terror because of our dirty, protect our foreign oil consumption at all costs politics? Is that reasonable?

Work together to create enough hybrid cars, plug-in hybrids, electric vehicles, clean diesels and biofuels to end foreign oil dependency! Had automakers and Congress followed through on proposals to do this a decade ago, America already would have saved at least half a trillion and the costs would have already paid for themselves.

GM cancels some concepts to focus on hybrids?

Bob Lutz at the the debut of the Volt at NAIAS

GM has now made fuel economy a major priority, according to product chief, Bob Lutz. Thus, some GM concept vehicles have been canned in favor of other projects, such as plug-in hybrid vehicles.

Once a major critic of hybrid vehicles, it appears Lutz has now staked his legacy at GM on such hybrids, especially the Chevy Volt. Yes, Lutz might believe hybrids are just a bridge to fuel cell vehicles and the hydrogen highway, but I can live with that.

Make it happen, Bob.

(Source: DetroitNews)

AutoNation's CEO, Mike Jackson, on fuel economy

Bush, and the last 4 Presidents, have accomplished nothing regarding foreign oil dependency

"We've had five presidents in a row who have said our dependence on imported oil is a matter of national security. Actually, on this issue you can pick whether you're motivated by global warming or national security—it doesn't matter. If you look at the issue and want a serious energy policy that's going to make a difference—because in this period with these five presidents we've gone from importing 30 percent of our oil to 60 percent of our oil—so, obviously we don't have a policy that's dealing with this."

"When it comes to fuel consumption and fuel economy do not listen to what people tell you they are going to do, look at what they actually do. Take model year '06 with all the discussions about fuel economy and everything else, fuel economy for the cars sold will be basically unchanged. It's the same as the last 25 years."

So, what's Mike Jackon's favorite solution? A gas tax.

(Source: BusinessWeek)

If Detroit wins the CAFE battle, does America lose the war?

Can America survive a couple more decades of foreign oil dependency?

So, the Senate has already watered down their original CAFE plan, and more diluting should be expected in the House, as Detroit-influenced lobbyists storm the halls of Congress. When all is said and done, you'll probably be able to drive a fleet of Hummers through the CAFE loopholes.

Obviously, Detroit has no choice. When around 70 percent of your business comes from selling the most fuel-inefficient vehicles, the phrase 'fuel economy' becomes fighting words. Besides, isn't Detroit just trying to protect American jobs and an important part of America's economy?

Yet, are those jobs more important than National Security? When a line can be drawn from the first Persian Gulf War to Bin Laden to 9/11 to Afghanistan back to Iraq because of foreign oil dependency, isn't it time to start asking serious questions and to take serious actions?

Update: Congress struggling with fuel economy

Both the Senate and House are struggling

Forcing automakers to develop significantly more fuel efficient automobiles is proving to be no easy task - something which should be a surprise to no one.

According to Reuters, "The U.S. Senate struggled on Wednesday to reach a compromise on proposals to increase vehicle fuel efficiency, a major sticking point in broad-based energy legislation." In addition, " Unable to reach a consensus among Democrats, a House of Representatives committee said this week it would delay consideration of its fuel economy and global warming proposals until autumn."

Chevy Tahoe hybrid: A real American revolution?

Finally, an American hybrid

I won't call it a freedom-fighter - that takes, minimally, 40 mpg. Nonetheless, I'll call the Chevy Tahoe hybrid an incredibly important step in the evolution of the American automobile. I might even call it an American revolution.

The Chevy Tahoe hybrid, as well as the Yukon hybrid, will not just be the first dual mode hybrid vehicles, these hybrids vehicles will be Made in America.

Unlike Ford's hybrids, such as the Escape hybrid, the Tahoe hybrid......

---> Finish: Chevy Tahoe hybrid: An American revolution

Hillary would help Detroit through health care?

Who pays?

"Hillary Rodham Clinton on Saturday offered a double-barreled campaign message for the struggling U.S. auto industry: accept tougher fuel economy standards in exchange for federal help with the costly burden of retiree health care."

"Clinton said negotiating health care should not be the UAW's responsibility, saying she favored steps that would "lift some legacy costs from the auto industry."

According to the article, Clinton didn't offer any details on the plan.

So, the taxpayers would pay for it?

Wagoner: Forget auto technology and fuel economy, biofuels instead?

Have biofuels become the new fuel cells?

For decades U.S. automakers told Congress to take it easy regarding fuel economy standards in the U.S.. Legacy costs limited R&D, Detroit told Congress, but fuel cells were just around the corner. Consequently, a push towards hybrid vehicles or electric vehicles would take too much money away from fuel cells.

Thus, Congress let Detroit slide for decades.

Not there is a new, stronger-than-ever push for fuel economy. This time around, however, Detroit isn't using fuel cells as an excuse for inaction. This time it's biofuels.

"For example, it has become increasingly clear that, of anything we can do over the next decade, biofuels have by far the greatest potential to actually reduce US oil consumption, reduce oil imports, and reduce carbon gas emissions," Wagoner told members of the Senate.

Let's hope biofuels aren't this decade's fuel cells.

UAW says Big 3 compete at fuel economy

Living la vida loca?

According to the UAW's Ron Gettelfinger, American automakers are unfairly portrayed as not competing on fuel economy, stating "Unfortunately, there is a misperception that the Big Three only make gas guzzlers, while Toyota is a division of Greenpeace."

I don't know, Ron. The Big 3 trail both Honda and Toyota year-after-year-after-year on fleet fuel economy. Are those facts based on misperception?

Without the profit margins of Detroit's most fuel inefficient vehicles, bankruptcy would be unavoidable. Yet, Toyota and Honda could survive.

Perhaps the real problem is Ron's misperception of reality? Time for a new UAW President?

Hybrids & CAFE: Is Toyota playing America?

Hybrid king and CAFE fighter?

Toyota has received an incredible amount of positive press over its very successful Toyota Prius hybrid car. Thus, one might assume that Toyota would love to see the U.S. become as aggressive as possible regarding fuel economy - something that almost guarantees the success of Toyota's hybrid vehicles.

So, why is Toyota also joining U.S. automakers in the fight against significant increases in CAFE?

Finish: Hybrids and CAFE: Is Toyota playing America.

Are you a hypermiler?

Are you a fuel economy wizard?

Obviously, most drivers of hybrid vehicles are concerned with fuel economy. Many are even obsessed. Some, however, are consumed by achieving unbelievable hypermileage with their hybrids.

A Honda Insight achieving 75 mpg. A Toyota Prius in Japan achieving 112 mpg - without plug-in technology. A Civic hybrid achieving 60 mpg. All these examples are the work of hypermilers according to the AP - people whom coast, draft, and slightly over inflate their tires.

Are you a hypermiler? What kind of crazy fuel economy have you achieved with your hybrid?

Automakers launching ads against CAFE increase

Because foreign oil dependency has no costs?

"Despite rising gas prices and a growing concern about climate change," the DetroitNews writes today "the auto industry is going on the offensive to convince Americans to oppose dramatically higher fuel economy requirements."

"Led by Detroit's Big Three and Toyota Motor Corp., the industry is launching print and radio ads this weekend warning consumers that fuel regulations under consideration by the U.S. Senate would lead to higher vehicle prices and smaller and less safe vehicles."

Most Americans not interested in hybrids, diesels or alt fuels

No serious changes until $4.00 gas?

A new survey by Consumer Reports shows that most people are interested in better fuel economy, but only about half are willing to sacrifice size or performance to achieve better fuel economy. Also, "47 percent of those currently shopping for a car said they would consider purchasing a hybrid, diesel or flex-fuel vehicles."

SUV Madness: Americans still like SUVs, but they're smaller

As big as most SUVs need to be?

Last week, when blogging about a Senate panel's approval of a plan to lift CAFE to 34 mpg by 2020, I wondered whether most SUV owners couldn't move to a hybrid around the size of a Ford Escape Hybrid.

While I think many SUV owners simply want their SUV to be as big as possible, in terms of real world functionality, I still think most could downsize. Ultimately, this issue is so important because it is large SUVs and large pickups that are forcing Congress to baby Detroit when it comes to fuel economy.

Ironically, however, hybrids like the hybrid Escape almost meet 2020's proposed CAFE standards today, yet hybrid technology will advanced greatly in just the next few years - as hybrid cars move from NiMH batteries to lithium-ion batteries. In reality, 34 mpg by 2020 is child's play, at least in terms of technology - especially if Americans are willing to downsize their SUVs and pickups.

Consequently, I was refreshed to read a new JD Power study which demonstrates that higher gas prices have "some owners of large and midsize trucks trading to smaller vehicles."

Forget hybrids: Senate Panel approves Detroit-friendly CAFE increase

What percentage of Americans really need a bigger SUV than this Escape hybrid?

A Senate panel approved a plan to increase average fleet fuel economy in the U.S. to 35 mpg by 2020. Of course, the plan has yet to be approved by the full Senate and the House has its own plan, so it won't be surprising if the final plan is watered down, especially related to trucks and SUVs - Detroit's moneymakers.

Still, the Ford Escape hybrid can essentially meet 2020's standards, today. The Toyota Prius blows this requirement away, today. Hybrid cars provide the technology to meet this requirement, today.

Between now and 2020, lithium-ion battery technology will be available, offering significant increases to hybrid fuel economy and cheaper costs. Plug-in technology for both hybrids and full electric vehicles will be available, but let's keep living in the stone ages of the automobile industry!

The more that America strives for mediocrity, the more mediocre we'll become. It's not immigrants and out-sourcing destroying America, it's our lack of vision as automakers, consumers and politicians. We can conquer the moon, but it takes decades to achieve a 10 mpg increase in fuel economy!

Let's go America, let's be average! Greatness is so passe!