Is the Honda CR-Z hybrid being underestimated?

The first 6-speed hybrid

Long before hybrids, I drove a manual '94 Nissan Sentra. As I hopped from apartment to apartment, and job to job, I experienced many diverse Los Angeles commutes. Traffic, however, was always a common factor.

During those commutes I often hypermiled to work, pacing and spacing myself to minimize braking and to maximize coasting in neutral. Ultimately, I didn't do this to save money on my gas bill - it was the 90's - but purely for entertainment, purely to break up the horrible monotony of extremely slow stop and go traffic. It was just a game.

This makes me wonder about Honda's upcoming CR-Z hybrid. Finish: Is the Honda CR-Z hybrid being underestimated.

Is there a hybrid for everyone?

Have hybrids gone mainstream?

Today, consumers can find hybrid options for trucks, large SUVs, small SUVs, sedans and hatchbacks. So, is there a hybrid for everyone?

Today, 9 out of 10 of the most fuel efficient vehicles available in America are hybrids according to the government, and some believe that means hybrid vehicles have gone mainstream.

"This list proves that hybrids have gone mainstream," said Bo Saulsbury, who heads up the ratings project from the Oak Ridge National Laboratory's Environmental Sciences Division. "There's now a hybrid for everyone. The 32 hybrid models available in 2010 offer car buyers the choice of an SUV, passenger car, economy or luxury model, from almost every major automobile maker."

Still, hybrid vehicle sales represent only about 3 percent of total US auto sales. Is there really a hybrid for everyone?

Toyota hybrid sales up 10.9 percent

Led by the Prius

In October Toyota sold 18,757 hybrid vehicles, up 10.9 percent over the same period last year according to the company.

The Prius posted October sales of 13,496 units, up 10.3 percent over the year-ago month.

Interestingly, Toyota light truck sales were down 10 percent.

Is fuel efficiency coming back in vogue?

Higher gas prices good for Volt, but what about GM?

When will it be profitable?

At a plug-in conference hosted by GM in Detroit last week, news of rising gas prices was seen as a good thing.

"Every penny added to the price of gas makes alternative power just a little more attractive," said Tony Posawatz, head of the Volt program. "If petroleum hit $150 a barrel and stays there, he and others agree, the low cost of electricity would make plug-ins fairly competitive on an operating cost basis."

So, what's good for the Chevy Volt is good for GM?

Let's say gas hits a sustained $150 per barrel and $4.00+ at the pump in 2011, during the first full year of Volt production. That would be good for GM? While such gas prices might make the Volt more competitive - after a $7500 tax credit - what about the Silverado, Traverse or Impala, for instance?

Today, GM's profits are not driven by fuel efficiency. Can the Chevy Cruze and a limited production Volt change the troubles GM felt during the gas spike of 2008?

It seems to me, what's good for the Volt is not good for GM, at least not any time soon. While higher gas prices might make the Volt more competitive, can higher gas prices really make GM more competitive and profitable without radical changes to their product lineup?

Prius receives Popular Mechanics Excellence Award

50+ mpg

Popular Mechanics has released their Automotive Excellence Awards and the Toyota Prius took the award for innovation and foresight in fuel efficiency.

Considering that the Prius is easily the most fuel efficient mass-produced vehicle sold in America, I guess the award isn't too much of a surprise.

Study - Energy costs much more than consumers pay

And plug-ins don't help much if coal-powered

Some great information coming out of the “Hidden Costs of Energy: Unpriced Consequences of Energy Production and Use” study completed by the National Research Council for Congress.

Essentially, America's energy paradigm costs Americans MUCH more than what we pay at the gas pump or in our utility bills. In 2005, for instance, America's 'hidden' costs of energy production added an extra $120 billion in health costs, not including "damages from climate change, harm to ecosystems, effects of some air pollutants such as mercury, and risks to national security, which the report examines but does not monetize."

So, in reality, the costs are even far greater, and converting to grid-powered plug-in vehicles is no quick fix, at least in terms of health costs.

"Electric vehicles and grid-dependent (plug-in) hybrid vehicles showed somewhat higher nonclimate damages than many other technologies for both 2005 and 2030. Operating these vehicles produces few or no emissions, but producing the electricity to power them currently relies heavily on fossil fuels; also, energy used in creating the battery and electric motor adds up to 20% to the manufacturing part of life-cycle damages."

Of course, if national security costs had been monetized, then some of these health costs would be negated.

Consequently, the reports suggests that, "major initiatives to further reduce other emissions, improve energy efficiency, or shift to a cleaner electricity-generating mix (e.g., renewables, natural gas, nuclear) could substantially reduce external effects’ damages, including those from grid-dependent hybrid and electric vehicles."

Aptera almost eligible for Energy loans

Time to think differently about 3 wheels

Aptera, and the makers of other three-wheeled vehicles, might soon qualify for Department of Energy loans.

On Friday, Congress passed a bill that allows "any manufacturer of enclosed three-wheeled vehicles that can carry at least two adults while returning at least 75 miles per gallon" to be eligible for some $50 billion on Energy loans for fuel efficiency improving projects.

President Obama is expected to sign the bill.

Ford: America's greenest automaker

First to hybrid SUVs

Out of 500 companies, Newsweek has picked Ford Motor Company as the 108th most green company in America.

A representative from Ford told me that Ford was picked as the sole US automaker in this green list "for its improvements of fuel efficiency to its vehicles and by also having successful programs in place for recycling, water conservation, and GHG emissions reduction."

Cash for Clunkers: Trucks outperform hybrids

Silverado outsells Prius

Boy, what's up with the government's cash for clunker data? For weeks, according to the government, the Toyota Prius was one of the top selling vehicles via the Cash for Clunker program. In fact, I believe it was 4th for at least a couple of weeks.

Yet, according to the latest data, the Prius was the 14th best selling vehicle, falling below 2 large pick up trucks, the Chevy Silverado and the Ford F150.

I guess hybrid cars weren't quite as hot as we were led to believe. Nonetheless, many buyers did at least choose smaller, more fuel efficient vehicles.

Americans would like a Big 3 vehicle, but will they buy?

The Ford Fusion hybrid

According to a recent Consumer Reports survey, 81 percent of new car buyers would consider a vehicle from the Big 3, while only about 50 percent would consider an Asian or European vehicle.

Interestingly, however, the most recent month of auto sales data does not correspond with this survey. In August, for instance, Asian automakers achieved a record 50 percent market share.

Obviously, cash for clunkers and its focus on fuel efficiency might have advantaged Asian automakers. So does that mean Americans don't trust the Big 3 when it comes to fuel efficient products, or that the Big 3 simply don't have the right fuel efficient autos, such as Toyota Prius contender?

Will real world data back up this survey in coming months?

Cash for clunker's shocking reality

Legacy costs

Cash for Clunkers is over. After $2.88 billion we've removed 690,117 fuel inefficient clunkers from society while providing a quick bump to a down and out auto industry.

Good news, right?

Regardless, according to CNN, those 700,000 clunkers represent just "2% of the approximately 42 million fuel hoggers still clunking along." So, we have a long way to go, but at least 700,000 15 mpg vehicles were replaced, on average, with 25 mpg vehicles.

Unfortunately, if by some magic wand Cash for Clunkers could have worked for ALL clunkers, even at 25 mpg across the entire US fleet, America would still be terribly dependent upon foreign oil.

Fuel efficiency: Is the government hiding clunker data?

It's not all small cars

According to the government, the Cash for Clunker program is moving people out of fuel inefficient clunkers into vehicles averaging 25 mpg. I guess the keyword is average.

While the government hasn't released its data on the Clunker program, it has offered a Top 10 list that highlights small cars and a few hybrid vehicles.

However, Edmunds has compiled different data, and it shows lots of trucks, luxury vehicles and SUVs are also selling. For instance, Beny Ledesma, general sales manager at Williamson Cadillac-Hummer in Miami, has already sold 3 Cadillac SRXs and is finishing paper work on two more thanks the Clunker bill. Ledesma hopes to sell another 14 SRXs along with some Hummers. Both vehicles average 18 mpg.

For weeks now the AP and groups like Public Citizen have requested all the government's data on the program, so far the government has not complied.

Bob Lutz as GM's savior

Is the Volt's grandfather the dude?

I hate Bob Lutz. Then again, I love Bob Lutz. Long time Hybridcarblog followers, such as KP, have often criticized my Lutz affection.

What can I say? I just love his gun-slinging, say-it-as-he-feels-it attitude.

Unfortunately, I disagree with most of what he says. Yet, from a business perspective, I'd argue that Lutz is much more attuned to Detroit success that I am.

Nonetheless, Lutz is now more in control of GM than ever. Considering Lutz's history on global warming and hybrid cars, is this really the right move for GM?

Is fuel efficiency really that important to the real world survival of GM? Or, is Lutz correct in assuming that fuel efficiency - when push comes to shove - is really only important to about just 5 percent of America?

Gas prices primed to stunt interest in fuel efficiency again

National average at $2.49

Gas prices continue to trend downward, and as America heads into the winter, gas prices should fall even more. And, if the recession sticks into 2010, prices could be, overall, cheaper next year than this year.

Coincidentally, this decline in gas prices could continue as automakers begin a more serious roll out of hybrids, small cars, and other efficient vehicles.

With new CAFE standards, CO2 worries, and a lingering memory of $4.00 gas, this temporary decline in gas prices won't kill alternative, fuel efficient technologies. Nevertheless, without higher gas prices, consumer interest in fuel efficiency is certain to again fall below cup holders in order of importance for consumers.

Fuel efficiency: Potential cash cow for automakers

But the General is not prepared

The University of Michigan released a new study today suggesting that fuel efficiency isn't the big burden many have proclaimed it to be for automakers. Instead, pent up demand for fuel efficiency will result in strong demand for such vehicles.

Unfortunately, however, the report also notes that GM is the least prepared for a move towards fuel efficiency. And while some have suggested relaxed CAFE standards for GM and Chrysler as they emerge from bankruptcy, the report claims such a move would only make GM less competitive into the future.

Has your hybrid turned you into a hypermiling fanatic?

I can't help it. I can't stop myself anymore. I'm an addict. I must hypermile.

Whenever I drive some place I've been before, I have to figure out how to get there on less gas. I have to. Is there a shorter route? Where are the hills? Are the street lights on a timer? I plot my course like a submarine commander heading into some crazy underwater canyon.

On residential side streets I often coast along like a gang banger looking for somebody from a different crew. Except I'm silent. Gliding through the hood almost unnoticed, and leaving little trail of pollution behind me. I'm the perfect criminal, only I'm not committing any crime.

Don't get me wrong, however, I don't just go 25 mph in a 35 mph zone and expect everyone to pass me so I can maximize EV mode. In free flowing traffic I always drive above the speed limit, but my typical commutes are rarely free-flowing. In my neck of the urban jungle, anything less than congestion is a danger sign.

So, I cruissssssssse into every stop light, stop sign etc. I'll even go a few blocks out of my way - mostly in EV mode - just to avoid a gas hogging hill, or to go down a battery charging hill - anything to increase my fuel efficiency.

Has your hybrid turned you into a hypermiling fanatic?

Increased fuel efficiency standards? Whatever

One Katrina away from $3.00 gas

So, fuel efficiency standards are going up a little by 2011. Whohoo!

Yet, whom knows how many flex fuel credits and EV loopholes Congress will offer automakers. Loopholes are the Congressional speciality.

With or without an increase in fuel efficiency standards, automakers better be preparing for higher gas prices. Numerous energy analysts, such as Boone Pickens, are predicting another huge gas price spike around 2011 - and this time it might be permanent. And, yesterday, Cambridge Energy Research Associates warned that a "potentially powerful and long-lasting aftershock" is going to follow the huge decline in oil prices that has been felt the last year.

This time automakers won't be able to use the excuse, "Nobody could have predicted such a gas price spike".

Is cap and trade the best path to plug-ins?

Is now the right time?

$150 billion over ten years to help the US auto industry develop much more fuel efficient vehicles, especially plug-in hybrids. Sounds like a good idea, but from where will the money come? Is it enough?

Under President Obama's new budget, it will come from an emission's cap and trade system, or it won't come at all. Yet, is cap and trade the right approach? Is it the the right time?

There have been a number of economists whom have claimed that, inevitably, it's going to take $100 - $150 billion just to stabilize the US auto industry. However, if the yearly run rate for US auto sales sticks around 10 million units for several more years, US automakers will need many more tens of billions just to survive, let alone to develop more efficient vehicles.

And, what about consumers? With the latest Rasmussen Polls showing that the majority of American's now believe that global warming is caused by planetary trends, rather than CO2 emissions, is using a struggling US auto industry, via cap and trade, the best litmus test for plug-in viability?

Of course, is there any other option?

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.

Give the Big 3 a break, Take 2

How serious are we about ending foreign oil dependency

President Elect Barack Obama made a lot of strong statements during his Presidential campaign about energy security and green jobs, even touting $150 billion over 10 years to develop the green economy.

$150 billion will help, but it's a drop in the bucket needed for an energy revolution.

Not long ago, Al Gore suggested it would take $400 billion to develop a new, national smart grid - the kind of grid many experts claim is necessary for the widespread adoption of electric vehicles. Perhaps a company such as Better Place can alleviate the need for a such a super grid for EVs, but that's a different story.

Then, we need the electric vehicles, vehicles that are going to cost far more than conventional vehicles for many, many years. Finish: Give the Big 3 a break, Take 2

Ford "far along" to "really fuel efficient vehicles"

A lithium powered Escape hybrid

While telling Inforum that Ford was doing well in these tough economic times, Alan Mulally also stated that Ford was "far along" in its plan to make new, efficient vehicles.

"I was really pleased with the reception we got for all of the work we are doing on fuel efficiency, from EcoBoost (a turbocharged yet more fuel-efficient engine) to hybrids to electrification," he said. "I don't think many people realized how far along Ford is on an agenda to make really fuel efficient ... vehicles."

How would we know? Where are some concrete plans? When is Ford going to produce more than 25,000 Ford Escape hybrids per year? Talk, talk, talk.

Energy policy: No faith in either candidate?

Can either candidate really motivate Congress?

According to a Cars.com survey, a majority of Americans don't believe that either Barack Obama or John McCain can lead America to a significant change in energy policy.

"In an online survey of 1,052 individuals 18 years or older across demographic groups, a majority (50%) believed that neither John McCain nor Barack Obama could bring down gas prices as president. A majority (48%) also rejected the idea that either candidate had an edge when it comes to working effectively with automakers to produce more fuel-efficient vehicles."

Cheaper gas prices and more fuel efficient cars? Aren't such expectations unrealistic and, even worse, contradictory? If gas prices are made significantly cheaper, won't Americans quickly forget all about fuel economy?

How many billions to bail out US auto industry?

A Hemi-powered hybrid

In recent weeks a lot of the mainstream auto press has come to the defense of the US auto industry claiming that no one foresaw $4.00 gas. No one except those with their eyes open.

Let's just be honest. The US auto industry built their entire business model around trucks and SUVs, period. For a plethora of reasons, US automakers wouldn't even try to compete with companies like Honda for the small vehicle segment, for fuel efficiency, even despite events like 9/11, Katrina, etc. which seemed to demonstrate quite clearly that oil dependence was leading to ever greater problems. Instead, US automakers blindly kept all their eggs in one very inefficient, but profitable basket.

Now that basket is broke and the eggs are cracked.

So, it will be up to Congress, with the help of US taxpayer money, to bail out the US auto industry, at least that's the hope of a non-partisan Michigan delegation, according to the DetroitNews. Billions in loans. Billions in tax breaks. Billions to retire old gas guzzlers. Almost a billion for a battery fund. Billions and billions to cover the costs of ignorance and denial.

Nothing like good old American free market lobbyism, I mean capitalism.

Big 3 as efficient as Asian automakers?

Do you feel sorry for the Big 3?

This morning on Behind the Wheel, Phil Lebeau points out that US automakers have finally caught up to Japanese automakers when it comes to assembly plant efficiency. Now, its time for the Big 3 to change perception, he argues.

O.K., I guess I can agree with that, but its the efficiency of the Big 3's product that has become the real question. Of the 6 top compacts and subcompacts, according to JD Power, not one is an American made vehicle, not ONE. When it comes to hybrid vehicles, only Ford has been in the game, albeit as a PR gimmick.

Yes, vehicles, such as the Chevy Volt, can help change perception, but is it too little too late? Probably not, but until US automakers convert paper plans and PR campaigns into reality, the Big 3 shouldn't expect perception to change much.

It took many years for US automakers to match Asian assembly plant efficiency, let's hope it doesn't take as long for Americans to catch the Japanese on vehicle efficiency.

Lack of fuel efficient cars: Just market forces?

Or, are consumers, automakers or oil companies to blame?

On today's Behind the Wheel Blog, Phil Lebeau is asking who is to blame for GM's problems. Just GM's, I ask? What about the rest of the auto industry's problems?

There isn't just a lack of quality fuel efficient vehicles from GM, but from all automakers. Even the king of hybrid cars, Toyota, has made hybrid fuel efficiency almost worthless with $3000.00 dealer markups.

And, while consumers, oil companies and government share a great bit of blame, the inability of automakers to realize the future is quite alarming. Yet, scarily, insiders from some of the world's largest automakers have told me that $3.00+ gas prices were forecasted years ago - today's prices were expected. Automakers saw today's gas crisis coming. Sure, maybe they forecasted $3.45 gas, rather than $4.00+ gas, but they saw it coming.

So, why was nothing done?

Barack's automaker bailout?

but, still need to build more relevant autos

"Obama's plan to help the Big Three cope with stricter fuel-economy and emissions standards starts with a 10-year, $150 billion commitment to clean energy, with part of the money going to help automakers retool their factories to build alternative-fuel cars. In addition he would double funding for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership, a program that currently assists manufacturers in upgrading to more efficient technology. Lastly, the candidate would use money from a $10 billion venture-capital fund to create a program in Michigan that would focus on bringing eco-friendly auto technology from the lab to the market. All told, Obama says he plans on "committing the kind of resources we haven't seen in decades here in Michigan."" (more)

Pandering? Pork? A good idea? Much ado about nothing? What about tax credits for consumers that make more intelligent automobile purchasing decisions? Why not let automakers compete for this money in some way that requires consumer to put some skin in the game?

GM accepts SUV defeat and hybrid future?

Hummers: Not the most visionary vehicle?

We all know that large SUVs and trucks have been GM's bread and butter. And, while many have seen the writing on the wall regarding the death of large SUVs, GM has seemed unwilling to accept this 'reality', until now.

"We've been promoting our trucks more than we should have," Mike DiGiovanni, the company's top sales analyst, told a bankers' conference in Warren. "We're going to shift our marketing toward fuel economy and hybrids."

When it comes to hybrid vehicles, GM has a very intriguing and exciting lineup - on paper. From lithium BAS hybrids to the Chevy Volt, GM seems prepared to compete in the new future, but few of these new hybrids are either on the road or even ready to hit the road.

Can GM let go of the past and fully embrace this new fuel-efficiency-driven future? Or, is this just PR?

0 - 60: Ignorance or arrogance?

Is there a difference?

There has been a lot of hot air coming out of the auto industry regarding CAFE's 35 mpg by 2020 - even though there are already a plethora of loopholes between here and there. So, is CAFE going to cost, as GM's Bob Lutz has suggested, about $6000 extra per vehicle?

Not if automakers are smart, according to MotorTrend's Angus MacKenzie. As an example, MacKenzie points to the Mercedes Benz BlueEFFICIENCY C-Class, which is reported to achieve about 36 mpg - a good bit more than the low 20's of a standard C-Class. So, how does BlueEFFICIENCY do it?

Reduced weight, reduced rolling resistance, reduced aerodynamic drag, and a smaller turbo-charged engine. And, most important and unflattering for gearheads, a reduced 0 - 60 time. All of this, Angus predicts, because of the smaller engine, will probably lead to an equally priced vehicle - just 2 seconds slower.

That's not rocket science, and for those just dying to have extra power, or an extra second or two off the line, hybrid technology could easily bridge the difference. A fleetwide average of 35 mpg is achievable today, but not for ignorance and arrogance, and it doesn't have to cost $5000 per vehicle.

California's Emission's Requirements: The end of US automakers?

What if California wins its suit against the EPA?

I just finished reading Fuel efficiency trumps auto woes in Calif, an interesting piece about some of the conflicts within California regarding fuel efficiency requirements. Reading the article made me wonder, what exactly would happen to automakers if California wins its tailpipe waiver?

US automakers are in horrible financial shape, and they still make the majority of their money off vehicles that probably wouldn't be allowed under California's new standards. Thus, what affect would California's standards have on the US auto industry? Would it bankrupt at least one automaker? All automakers? Are automakers exaggerating the impact?

CAFE reality: Most interested in hybrids, but few buyers

Most still pick the Camry over the Camry hybrid

There is a belief, especially among hybrid critics, that the Toyota Prius is the best selling hybrid vehicle because it looks different. While there are some that buy the Prius purely for status, many others buy it purely for fuel economy.

But there is another reason that might be even more important when considering hybrids cars and fuel economy: short term versus long term thinking. Finish.....

Kelly: Prius is Fuel Efficient Champ

Surprise, surpise? Not!

Kelly Blue Book picked a number of hybrid cars for their 13 Great Fuel Efficient Cars according to CNNMoney.

Aside from the Toyota Prius, the overall champ, Kelly also picked the Nissan Altima hybrid, Honda Civic hybrid, Ford Escape hybrid, and the Toyota Highlander hybrid.

Obama to U.S. automakers: Make more hybrids

Maybe Barack should drive a more fuel efficient vehicle?

Barack Obama wants U.S. automakers to make more fuel efficient vehicles, especially hybrid cars. To achieve this goal, Obama would like to provide healthcare assistance to U.S. automakers so that automakers could utilize half their healthcare savings to invest in producing hybrids.

"For years, while foreign competitors were investing in more fuel-efficient technology for their vehicles, American automakers were spending their time investing in bigger, faster cars," Obama has stated according to a text of the Illinois senator's remarks that were provided to The Associated Press (more).

And consumers, such as Mr. Obama, have been buying these vehicles. Do consumers not share some of this lack of vision?

Mr. Obama typically drives a gas-guzzling SUV. Of course Mr. Obama, when questioned about his inefficient vehicle, claims its a flex-fuel vehicle. Sadly, since Mr. Obama spends much of his Illinois time in the Chicago area, he can't utilize flex-fuel because there are simply so few E85 pumps in that area. So, Mr. Obama has been a part of the problem, not the solution.

Even worse, it's not just Obama, it's the far majority of politicians of both parties. Leadership?

Read Obama's plan in comments

Are U.S. automakers already dead?

Would the Volt electrify GM's profits?

There have been some very interesting stories in the media regarding the slide in pickup truck sales for U.S. automakers. In addition, SUV sales - at least on the larger SUVs - are also down, as gas skips over $3.00 per gallon on its way higher.

While U.S. automakers offer smaller, more fuel efficient vehicles, those vehicles are not money makers for Detroit. Pickups and SUVs offer the big profit margins that U.S. automakers need to survive. Thus, I wonder, can U.S. automakers survive if fuel efficiency rules the auto market?

Even if GM had developed the Toyota Prius and was the king of hybrid cars, rather than Toyota, would it even matter? The profit margins on the Prius are even more narrow than economy vehicles - many of which are not profitable.

Scary days. I absolutely want to see U.S. automakers thrive, but not at the expense of increased foreign oil dependency, and I won't even get into global warming. And, while Detroit might be able to compete at producing fuel efficient technologies, the real question is, can Detroit profit from fuel efficiency?

Fuel efficiency: GM just can't compete?

Are flex-fuel lies killing GM?

GM's Bob Lutz is claiming that President Bush's plans to increase automobile fuel efficiency could raise the cost of automobiles by $5000.00, according to the DetroitNews. Rather than increase fuel efficiency, Lutz claims increased availability of ethanol is a better solution.

I'm so tired of hearing about GM's ethanol plans. First, GM is using cheap flex-fuel technology as a loophole to violate CAFE. As a result GM can't even meet the CAFE laws created 20 years ago, let alone more stringent rules. Consequently, GM is using legal loopholes to avoid paying massive fines, while increasing America's foreign oil dependency more than should be allowed by law. Second, corn-based ethanol is not a good solution to resolving America's energy problems. Third, GM is an automaker, not an energy company, so focus on automotive technology.

While Toyota achieves record months of sales significantly helped by hybrid cars, such as the Prius, GM has yet to sell one full hybrid vehicle. Why? Why can't GM realize that fuel efficiency is becoming ever more a critical aspect of automobile manufacturing survival - possibly and probably the key to the automotive future?

The good 'ole days of gas-guzzling land yachts are over. Deal with it.

U.S. automakers: Too focused on fuels rather than on fuel efficiency

Shouldn't automakers be more focused on fuel efficiency, rather than on alternative fuels?

I hate being critical of the biofuel movement, but it is simply a fact that corn-based ethanol is just not a very good bio-fuel. Moreover, there are plenty of questions still left unresolved regarding bio-fuels, especially until cellulosic ethanol is economically achieved.

For example, if we triple or quadruple ethanol consumption, how much will food prices increase? Also, considering that water is more and more labeled as the next oil, is it wise to use so much of this precious resource to fuel our vehicles via water-greedy corn? Furthermore, will global warming affect our ability to produce many bio-fuels? And that's just for starters.

Finish Fuels rather than fuel efficiency

State of the Union: Is 20 percent enough?

This Yukon hybrid is more than 20 percent more fuel efficient than a standard Yukon

So President Bush wants to decrease gas consumption by 20 percent in the next 10 years. Is it enough? Is it too much? Already the Big 3 are complaining that it's too much. Environmentalists and national security hawks are complaining that it's too little.

Toyota was supportive. Isn't that interesting?

GM now has the technology to convert any of its gas-guzzling SUVs into hybrid vehicles that are at least 25 percent more fuel efficient than non-hybrid models. GM also has flex-fuel hybrid vehicles that are production ready, and GM has a Volt concept that could achieve 150 mpg for those that drive less than 60 miles per day.

DaimlerChrysler also has GM's dual mode hybrid technology. Ford has hybrid technology.

So, the Big 3 could begin to make all vehicles 25 percent more fuel efficient right now, while investing in the technologies that could keep significantly increasing fuel efficiency with each generation of technology, such as a 100 mpg Prius that isn't a plug-in? In addition, there is flex-fuel, clean diesel and bio-diesel to help?

The Big 3 should accept 20 percent as a minimum. The technology to achieve 20 percent is available today. Instead of focusing on why it can't be done, the Big 3 should focus on how they will get it done. Make a plea for incentives. Be productive. Stop complaining. Stop making excuses.

Is the Accord hybrid dead in 2008?

When the Honda Accord Coupe Concept was revealed at NAIAS I was in attendance hoping to hear something about an updated Accord hybrid. Unfortunately, a hybrid version of the Accord was not mentioned as part of the debut. I later asked a Honda spokesperson if the new Accord Coupe, which is set for launch as a 2008 vehicle, would include a hybrid version. To that question, I was simply told there is not yet an answer.

Considering that Honda's debut focused on Honda's efforts in fuel efficiency, it was surprising not to hear something about an Accord hybrid, which only makes me think that the Accord hybrid could be phased out.

Will fuel efficiency matter at Detroit Auto Show?

So, most automotive executives believe that fuel efficiency is becoming the most important consumer concern. If so, how well will this issue be addressed at the upcoming North American International Auto Show?

All of the pre-show hype regarding hybrid cars, for example, has thus far focused on the FT-HS hybrid sports concept and a couple of clean diesels. While there are rumors that GM will debut some concept vehicles in this space, they are now just rumors. On the other hand, I've heard few hybrid or next generation fuel efficient technology rumors coming out of Ford or Honda, for example.

In my opinion, the FT-HS represents a revolution in both automotive technology and hybrid technology. Will all other automakers simply concede this space to Toyota for now? In reality, the hybrid revolution is probably 3 years away from fruition - the time when next generation batteries become mass-production reality. So, it wouldn't be surprising to see automakers idle their hybrid concepts in the short term.

On the other hand, it is as important as ever for automakers to be ready for the hybrid revolution - there really isn't that much time left to prepare. Consequently, I believe there are going to be a number of major hybrid concept launches at NAIAS by multiple automakers.

At least I hope so.

Ford CEO named Aviation Week's Person of Year

Thus far I have been a big fan of Ford's new CEO and President, Alan Mulally. True, Mr. Mulally has only been CEO of Ford since September, but I say he's off to a great start. Moreover, if the past is any indication of the future, then Ford is poised for big things. Because of Mr. Mulally's past success at Boeing, he was named Person of the Year by Aviation Week & Space Technology. As CEO of Boeing Mulally "was responsible for all of the company's commercial airplane programs and related services, which in 2005 generated record orders for new business and sales of more than $22.6 billion." (more)

Last week I suggested that Ford stock might be a buy based on discussions Mulally, a disciple of efficiency, had with Toyota. Consequently, I think good things can be expected from Ford in the near future, in both automotive production efficiency and fuel efficiency. Sure, it will take a couple of years to see any real results, but if anyone can achieve results, Mulally seems to be the person. Moreover, I'll bet there will be some bold move announcements coming from Ford in the next couple of months regarding hybrid cars and other fuel efficient technologies.

Small car crash tests and hybrids

I think that America would be well served by moving towards smaller vehicles; however, many Americans are very resistant to such a move, especially after recent crash tests. While some might argue small cars would be safer if big vehicles were taken off the road, such a move simply doesn't seem like it has the political legs to see reality. As a result fuel efficiency is going to have to be achieved with technology and hybrid technology seems like a no-brainer.

Honda's Good Year & Fuel Efficiency

Earlier this week Honda announced that its great year in sales would result in more investment in fuel efficient vehicles. While there was no indication that Honda's increased investment in fuel efficient vehicles would include hybrids, Honda's success does show that fuel efficiency is becoming much more of a consumer concern.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Do you agree?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fuel efficiency (carbon) tax for gas-guzzlers?

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

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

Would that be fair?

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

Is that fair?

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

What do you think about a consumer based carbon tax?

Why do we keep talking about highway fuel economy?

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

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

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

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

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

NYTimes review of Mercury and Vue hybrids

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

Detroit must "think anew"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let consumers determine fuel efficiency?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Are Democrats AGAINST the hybrid vehicle revolution?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Even oil man Bush understood that issue.

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

GM less fuel efficient today than 10 years ago

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

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

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

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

Ford to focus on fuel efficiency

Ford is set to focus on fuel efficiency.

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

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

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

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

Speaking of the right path.

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

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

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.

A city Prius and other derivatives coming soon?

In a few years there will probably be more than one type of Prius. While there are no known plans for these derivative Prii, the idea is brewing within Toyota according to Bloomberg News.

``To the extent they can leverage derivatives to help amortize investment costs for the hybrid system, they'd be crazy not to,'' said Eric Noble, president of consulting firm Car Lab in Orange, California. ``There is so much equity in the Prius name at this point, that would make sense, especially in the near term.''

A smaller ``city car'' based on the Prius would have even higher fuel efficiency and would fit with ``a trend toward people moving into inner-city lofts,'' Lentz said. ``People also want to see more utility on the vehicle, so you could imagine something that's a little more utility or crossover-based.''

In related news, Toyota is reporting that sales of the Prius are still strong and should be higher in 2006 compared to 2005.

Consumers just don't care about fuel efficiency

Consumers care about horsepower and costs, they really don't care about fuel efficiency unless it means saving money, according to a group of automotive experts at today's World Oil Conference. Alternative technologies, such as hybrids or clean diesels, really don't resonate with consumers, unless they save consumers cash - or offer lots of extra horsepower. Doing the right thing, ultimately, means absolutely nothing to most, even after 9/11, Katrina and $3.00 gas. Wow!

(Source: Reuters)

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.

2008: When your hybrid vehicle will really pay off?

Gas prices are dropping. I don't really need to tell you that. Already, after just a couple of months, interest in fuel efficiency is also dropping.

So, are cheap gas prices here to stay?

Probably not according to most energy analysts, and unlike past valleys and peaks in gasoline prices, the distance between each valley and peak is likely to shrink as we trend upwards.

According to some, the next big threat to American gasoline prices is Russia. If you haven't noticed the influence of Russian oil, you soon will as Russian gas stations open in your neighborhood. That's why 2008 could create the highest gas prices we've ever seen.

"And it's my memory of how traumatic those transfers of power used to be that leads me to pick 2008 for a Russian oil supply shock. That year will be filled with uncertainty and rumor, as the question of who will run the country rises to the top of the agenda for overseas investors and purchasers of Russia's oil. Even if, as I think is almost certain, power remains with Putin or someone in his circle, the uncertainty will be enough, with oil supply and demand in such precarious balance, to give the oil speculators plenty to work with." (more)

The recent rise in gas prices was driven by speculation, not George Bush. Americans must get this through their heads. Electing a Democrat as President isn't going to change foreign oil market speculation.

Imagine continued and escalated problems with Iran, Chinese oil grabs, hurricanes and turmoil in Russia all happening at the same time - the perfect storm. Oil could easily surge beyond $100 per barrel. Even worse, imagine war in the Middle East. In such an event, $100 oil would seem cheap.

The dynamics driving oil speculation aren't really improving. Sure they are now calm, but new storms are building. When those storms hit land, hybrid vehicles will really pay off.

Eaton showcasing hydraulic hybrids

The Eaton Corporation is hosting Fluid Power Technology Days to demonstrate its hydraulic hybrid propulsion system. "The UPS delivery truck on display features the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)'s patented series hybrid hydraulic powertrain technology. The truck achieves 50-70 percent better fuel efficiency in urban driving and lowers greenhouse gas emissions by roughly 40 percent compared to a conventional UPS diesel-powered delivery truck, according to EPA estimates. The EPA is also estimates that a typical fleet owner operating one of these high-efficiency hydraulic powertrains would save up to 1,000 gallons of fuel each year per truck. The vehicle was developed through a partnership between EPA, Eaton, UPS, International Truck and Engine Corporation and the U.S. Army." (Full Press Release)

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.

Toyota diesel hybrids coming soon? Not

"Already the diesel [price] premium is quite high, then you'd have to pay a hybrid premium, so we're not seeing that there's a market," Toyota Motor Europe chief executive Tadashi Arashima told BBC News. The response came when Mr. Arashima was asked about Peugeot's plans to make diesel hybrid vehicles.

Some fans of hybrid cars have hoped for a line of clean diesel hybrids, which would offer even better fuel efficiency than current gasoline hybrids. Perhaps when Peugeot and other European automakers begin to produce their own diesel hybrid vehicles, Toyota will change its plans.

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?

Michigan Study: Fuel Efficiency Best Way Forward for Detroit

According to a study by the University of Michigan, fuel efficiency is the best way forward for the Big 3 to increase profits and to maintain jobs. (more) While large SUVs have been the most profitable vehicles for the Big 3, this trend, the report claims, cannot and will not continue. New automotive technologies must be utilized, even though they will be expensive in the short term.

"Deploying new technologies takes time and money to accomplish, and time and money are in short supply in Detroit. While management is currently focused on cutting capacity through massive layoffs, they need to undertake a deep transformation to much more fuel-efficient fleets to avoid going under. The dilemma the Detroit automakers face is that while they may believe that they cannot afford to make fuel economy a high priority, in actuality, it turns out that they cannot afford not to."

I say it's just a matter of priorities and vision. As GM's Bob Lutz has claimed, GM could have beat Toyota to hybrid cars by using a fraction of their yearly marketing budget for hybrid vehicle development, instead of for marketing gas-guzzlers.

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?

Hybrids only 9% more efficient than regular vehicles?

Are hybrid vehicles only 9% more fuel efficient than conventional vehicles? That's what J.D. Power claims, according to the Detroit News. While noting that interest in hybrids is growing, J.D. claims that hybrid buyers have unrealistic expectations in terms of performance.

While I agree that some buyers have unrealistic expectations, I have to question the 9% figure. Other studies have claimed the same, but those studies were done using track testing. For the majority of drivers, track testing is about as accurate for gauging real world fuel economy as are EPA estimates of hybrids.

Moreover, saying 'hybrids' are only 9% more efficient than conventional models is completely deceptive. For example, some hybrids were not produced to achieve the highest fuel efficiency possible. The Honda Accord hybrid, for example, is really a performance hybrid, though it achieves excellent fuel mileage for that performance. The same is largely true of both the Lexus RX400h and the Toyota Highlander hybrid, though these vehicles are - for their class - more fuel efficient than the Accord hybrid.

In terms of fuel efficiency, both the Ford Escape hybrid and the Toyota Prius hybrid, are the two hybrids most designed for fuel economy. While the Civic hybrid is a very fuel efficient vehicle as well, so to is the standard Civic. Additionally, the Civic hybrid doesn't offer as much electric assist as the hybrid Escape or Prius.

Consequently, comparing some hybrids is about as accurate as comparing apples to oranges. Thus, averaging their fuel economy is completely useless.

Even worse, if the Silverado hybrid was also included in the 'hybrid class' by J.D., then the results are completely skewed against hybrid fuel efficiency. The Silverado hybrid isn't even a mild hybrid in my book. In fact, its not even a hybrid in my book.

Consequently, the class of current hybrid vehicles are actually a very diverse group of vehicles. To average their fuel economy is misleading at best and, ultimately, deceptive. Studies by both Consumer Reports and Edmunds very much call into question the number, 9%.

Some hybrids are more fuel efficient than other hybrids. Some hybrids offer more power than other hybrids. Some hybrids perform better on highways compared to other hybrids, and some hybrids perform better in urban slow-and-go or stop-and-go traffic than other hybrids. Inevitably, hybrid fuel efficiency can ONLY be assessed vehicle by vehicle. Even then, two different drivers of the same hybrid can still achieve vastly different outcomes.

So, don't take this 9% very seriously. It might be true for some hybrids, but it certainly isn't true for all hybrids. If you want to read more about real world fuel economy from real world hybrid drivers, check out these hybrid testimonials.

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.

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.

GM, Daimler and BMW hybrids: Talk, Talk, Talk

While I am very excited about the dual mode hybrid transmission that GM, DaimlerChrysler and BMW are working together to produce, I am equally as bothered by the lack of real results from this group.

"We believe that our two-mode hybrid is the best of the hybrid systems," said Andreas Truckenbrodt, executive director of DaimlerChrysler's hybrid programs, recently (more).

Don't tell me about it, show me.

Toyota has now sold more than 500,000 Toyota Prius hybrids. Neither GM, Dailmer nor BMW have sold 1 of their two-mode hybrids - NOT ONE!

It is actually quite possible that by the time that the GM et al alliance begins to roll out a competent supply of hybrid cars, Toyota will already be launching its THIRD generation of hybrid technology. Such technology, it has been rumored, could result in huge gains in both performance and fuel efficiency.

I really hope that two-mode hybrids live up to the hype. Even if they do live up to the hype, they still might not be able to live up to Toyota's real world experience.

News for hybrid cars this week

I've been sick this week, so I haven't been doing much writing. To top it off, I probably won't be doing much writing today, as I found out that someone threw a cinder block through my windshield last night - just another day in L.A.!

Anyway, over the weekend, I read an interesting article in the Detroit News, San Antonio joins hybrid-incentive trend. Aside from San Antonio joining the hybrid incentive trend, the article kind of paints the question, 'Do hybrid vehicles receive too many perks'?

The article references policies in Salt Lake City, for example, which - at times - are more favorable to small cars than some hybrid vehicles.

I think supporting small vehicles is great. Still, I don't believe that if every American drove a small car that America would be doing enough to fight oil addiction.

In fact, I'm not SURE we CAN'T do enough to fight oil addiction.

This week Toyota also released a press release noting that worldwide sales of the Toyota Prius hybrid have surpassed the 500,000 vehicle mark. While that is great P.R., what is the real impact of 500,000 cars? Not much.

Still, in America - even in the most unfavorable hybrid driving conditions, the Prius can achieve well over 40 mpg. How many compact cars achieve that kind of mileage? Then, when you add in stop-and-go traffic performance and emissions, it's pretty hard to top the performance of the Prius. And, when it comes to hybrid cars, this is just the beginning - better battery technology could easily double performance and fuel efficiency in just a few years.

Technologies, such as hybrids, represent the true power of the computer revolution and no country more than America has more to gain by embracing this revolution.

Of course some hybrids, such as the Lexus RX400h or the Honda Accord hybrid, are geared more for performance than fuel efficiency. Nonetheless, for the performance these hybrids provide, the fuel efficiency of these hybrids is nothing short of stellar. More important, buying such a car STILL invests in hybrid technology.

Let's face it, gas isn't going to get cheaper any time soon. Now that Prudhoe Bay is reducing capacity, places like California will almost certainly see $4.00 gas. In some areas of California, $5.00 gas won't be surprising before the end of this year.

Of course, if the situation in Israel-Iran-Lebanon-Syria continues to escalate, $5.00 gas will dominate all of America.

The world has changed and we're never going back to $25.00 barrels of oil. In fact, we're probably never going back to even $50.00 barrels of oil.

Ultimately, we cannot embrace hybrid technology fast enough.

GM considering plug-in hybrid vehicle

GM has stated that it is considering a plug-in hybrid vehicle.

"We are always looking at ways to provide fuel efficiency to our customers, and energy independence to the United States," said GM spokesman Brian Corbett. "Obviously, a plug-in hybrid is something that would definitely be on our radar screen, something we could consider for the future. But I'm not saying we're going to do one or the other." (more)

Concern for energy independence? Oh, really? Wow! I'm sorry, but GM is still admitting that hybrid cars are only useful for image and marketing. I guess their plug-in hybrid vehicle would be for the same?

Still, I hope GM builds the plug-in hybrid.

Eaton Corporation Stepping Up Hybrid Development

Hot off the announcement of its hydraulic hybrid partnership, Eaton Corporation is also stepping up the development of electric hybrids as well. "Diversified industrial manufacturer Eaton Corporation has announced it has begun development of a hybrid electric power system for the heavy-duty (Class 8) commercial vehicle market - to deliver both on-road efficiency and idle reduction for significant fuel savings and emissions reductions." (More)

Bush blowing off U.S. automakers? Get real Detroit

Not long ago President Bush told U.S. automakers to make more relevant vehicles. Automakers answered, that they didn't have to, E85 would save America. Yet, the science behind E85 is not nearly as convincing as the E85 rhetoric coming out of Detroit. Some scientists claim it takes more energy to produce ethanol than ethanol provides and that ethanol is purely a huge pork-barrel distraction. Others claim that only cellulosic ethanol - which isn't yet reality - can provide any real help to America's oil addiction.

Still, even those that think ethanol can provide help are quick to note that if Detroit doesn't produce more fuel efficient vehicles, ethanol won't help much.

So when Bush blows off Detroit's request for a meeting to discuss what Washington can do to 'protect' American automakers, can you really blame him? According to the Detroit News besides asking for government help, the Big 3 want to use the meeting as a PR campaign - It's ethanol or bust.

"The automakers have been trying to meet with Bush to discuss soaring health-care costs, energy and trade issues. The Big Three have been waiting to follow the summit with an announcement about their commitment to producing more flexible fuel vehicles."

Give me a break!

How about a commitment to fuel efficiency? It's as if Detroit wants mandates on the oil industry, a massive government bailout, but they don't want to be forced to change. We can all drive Hummer-like gas-guzzlers filled with E85 and the world will be perfect - right!

While Detroit does have some legitimate legacy issues, many of those issues were self-created. More important, Detroit's failures cannot be completely pinned to legacy issues. When it takes 16 more labor hours for Detroit autoworkers to build a car versus Japan, as it did for DECADES, you have to realize there is a problem. Yet, Detroit did very little.

Over and over Detroit has stubbornly refused to change.

O.K., Detroit has reduced this labor gap to 8 hours, yet it still seems painfully obvious that Detroit needs to be more efficient if it wants to be competitive. Additionally, why did it take so long to even address this issue?

Perhaps if the Big 3 were announcing a huge transition to hybrid cars, or the development of some other fuel-efficient, real-world technology, Bush would be more inclined to meet with them.

However, if the best the Big 3 have to offer is E85, then it is obvious that even after 9/11, even after Katrina, even after $3.00 gas, Detroit still doesn't get it.

The world has changed and it's time for Detroit to do the same. If they can't do more to change, then they shouldn't expect taxpayers to do more to bail them out.

Could ultracapacitors be the key to hybrid cars?

One of the main concerns regarding hybrid cars for many potential customers is the life of the hybrid battery pack. Additionally, it is the hybrid battery which significantly limits or increases fuel economy, especially in urban driving. Thus, many hybrid vehicle proponents are very interested in lithium-ion technology. Such technology has caused Toyota to believe that a lithium-ion powered Prius could achieve more than 90 mpg. While lithium will be a great technology, it isn't the only technology. For example, Maxwell Technologies, is developing ultracapacitors for hybrid cars, which help manage the electrical load of batteries. Such technology not only extends the life of the hybrid battery, but results in better fuel efficiency and even lower emissions. Despite the beliefs of some geniuses, such as Robert Lutz, hybrids do make business sense - at least if you are thinking about the future.

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)

CR: High gas prices creating hybrid interest

According to a survey by Consumer Reports, "More than a third of American drivers say they are considering getting rid of their current vehicle in favor of something more fuel efficient." Half of those concerned are interested in hybrid cars. Interestingly, those most interested in hybrids are very concerned with oil consumption and the environment - not just fuel economy. Even more important; however, those not interested in a hybrid were primarily worried about costs. As hybrid technology improves in the next couple years and as prices reduce, the market for hybrids will be huge.

Hybrid Vehicles: Neither an interim technology, nor a bridge to the future

The time for the hybrid car revolution is now

I regularly note that one of the best things about hybrid cars is the potential of hybrid technology. For example, the second generation Toyota Prius hybrid made great gains in efficiency and performance compared to the first generation Prius.

Ultimately, hybrids are an emerging technology and the best is yet to come.

Ironically, earlier today I noted that GM regularly tries to downplay hybrids, yet also admits that its fuel cell vehicles will be fuel cell hybrid vehicles. So, is this just deceptive marketing by GM, or don't they really believe in the future of fuel cells?

Inevitably, I don't care. The future will emerge - with or without GM. (More)

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.

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.

My First Camry Hybrid Test Drive

On Friday morning my local Toyota dealer called me to tell me that they had just received their first 2007 Camry hybrid. An hour later, I was at the dealership, but there wasn't any Camry hybrid in sight.

After a few calls around the lot, we learned that it was already on a test drive, and that another customer was also waiting to take Toyota's newest hybrid for a test drive as well.

Finally, it was my turn in this hot, red hybrid.

This was my first up close look at the newly designed Camry. What an improvement! The Camry has never been a visually stunning vehicle, but it is now. I would almost call the new Camry, sporty, but one thing is certain, this is the best looking Camry ever.

As I sat in the Camry, it was immediately obvious how much roomier this new hybrid is compared to the Prius. Much like most other hybrids, sitting in the Camry hybrid feels very much like sitting in a conventional vehicle. Almost everything about the Prius, on the other hand, seems different.

As I looked around the cabin, I quickly noticed the sunroof, something which isn't available on the Prius. This Camry also came with leather and a few other amenities which pushed the price to about $29,000, versus about $25,000 for a base level Camry hybrid.

The 2006 Prius that I checked out in the lot while waiting for my test drive actually cost a few hundred more than this Camry. While both hybrid cars offered leather and top electronics, the Prius also offered a navigation system and rear back up camera. Still, it goes to show how difficult it is to understand the pricing of hybrids.

As we pulled out of the dealer lot, it was immediately obvious that the hybrid Camry offers more horsepower than the Prius, of course that also means that the Camry isn't as fuel efficient as the Prius. Additionally, I feel that the Prius drives a little stiff, whereas the Camry offers a bit of a smoother drive.

Unfortunately, my test drive did not last long. Just as we were about to pull onto the freeway, my salesman's phone rang and we were directed back to the lot. This Camry hybrid was no longer available for sale.

While I was disappointed that I didn't get to hit the freeway, I'm sure the Camry hybrid would have offered more power there as well, compared to the Prius.

The Prius Versus the Camry Hybrid

Some people hate the design of the futuristic Prius. I find the Prius to be one of the most efficiently designed vehicles ever made, and I don't just mean regarding fuel efficiency. For such a small vehicle, the Prius offers an incredible amount of storage and space. Additionally, one of my favorite Prius amenities is the hatchback, which is just incredibly useful.

For those whom hate the design of the Prius, the Camry hybrid is a very nice alternative. Unlike most hybrid vehicles that are compared to their conventional cousins, many hybrid Camry buyers might only compare the Camry hybrid to the Prius, rather than to a conventional Camry. This could really help the Camry hybrid sell, even though it is more expensive than a standard Camry.

Ultimately, these two Toyota hybrids feel and look very different. The Prius is a unique, sensible, very fuel efficient vehicle. The Camry hybrid is sensibly elegant, offering a little more luxury, a little more refinement, but a little less fuel economy for a few thousand more than the Prius.

Nonetheless, with gas prices above $3.00, I think both cars will be hot sellers.

Bush asks Congress to limit cap on tax credits for hybrid vehicles

Tax incentives for clean vehicles, such as hybrid cars, are great legislation. Unfortunately, tax credits for hybrids are capped. Consequently, before the end of this year, Toyota hybrids will not qualify for the full tax credit.

At least for this year, that could change.

"The easiest way to promote fuel efficiency is to encourage drivers to purchase highly efficient hybrid or clean diesel vehicles," President Bush said in an address to the Renewable Fuels Association summit in Washington.

"If the automakers sell more than their limit, new purchasers are not eligible for the full tax credit.

"And so here's an idea that can get more of these vehicles on the road, and that is to have Congress make all hybrid and clean diesel vehicles sold this year eligible for federal tax credits," he said. (DetroitNews)

Congress shouldn't stop with the clean vehicle credit. Congress should also add hybrids to the $25,000 small business tax deduction, which currently only applies to the worst gas guzzlers.

First small riceburners, then hybrid cars

Hybrids will prove America wrong, again

I remember my parents picking me up from grade school one afternoon in the late '70's. Across the street from school, my father noticed my teacher's new Honda Civic. He laughed and said, "Who would ever want to drive a small riceburner like that? Honda is a motorcycle company, not a car company."

Well, needless to say, the rest is history. Not only did Honda do well selling cars no one "would ever want to drive", but so too did Toyota and Nissan. Just a few decades later, these 'riceburners' have knocked the American auto industry against the ropes and a TKO is very possible.

My father was a Union machinist and back in the '70's buying such a vehicle, regardless of how reliable it was or much gas it saved, was simply un-American. And it wasn't just my father, but most of America that felt that way.

Many Americans still feel that way today, which is why I think so many Americans are SO against hybrid cars. If hybrids take over much the same way riceburners did, it might just spell doom for American automakers.

According a Detroit News poll, the majority of Detroit-area readers don't believe hybrid vehicles will be around long. (See the Poll)

I say, get your head out of the sand. Don't make the same mistake twice.

The days of cheap oil appear to be over, and there probably isn't a windfall tax that can do anything to change that. A windfall tax can't stop problems in Iran or Nigeria. A windfall tax can't stop a billion new drivers from China and India.

The world has changed. Fuel efficiency and pollution will be the key drivers of not just automotive technology, but of all technology. In fact, clean and green technology is not only possible, as the Toyota Prius hybrid car so beautifully demonstrates, but it is destined to improve greatly, while getting significantly cheaper.

$3.00 gas is only the beginning, the beginning of the hybrid car revolution. Flex fuel hybrids, diesel hybrids, gasoline hybrids, hydrogen hybrids, and fuel cell hybrids - hybrids are THE future.

Lexus debuts 2008 LS 600h L hybrid sedan

Lexus unveiled the 2008 Lexus LS 600h L hybrid sedan at the New York International Automobile Show today.

"The LS 600h L was developed to explore the outer reaches of performance, style and safety," said Bob Carter, Lexus Division group vice president and general manager. "It is a vehicle as efficient and familiar as it is indulgent and advanced, a far-reaching concept, fully developed and fully realized. It is simply in a class by itself." (Read the Press Release)

According to Lexus, the 600h will offer Best of Class V8 fuel efficiency - even achieving better fuel economy than many smaller V6 vehicles, and will offer 70% cleaner emissions the "cleanest" of competitors.

Available April, 2007.

Automakers misusing hybrid technology?

Many environmentalists are mad, mad that the word 'hybrid vehicle' is being misused by automakers, and they want the word hybrid vehicle to only describe fuel efficient vehicles. Therefore, only hybrid cars, such as the Toyota Prius or the Honda Civic hybrid, deserve the label 'hybrid car'.

"With the emergence of performance-oriented hybrids and ultra-mild hybrid systems, environmentalists now see the technology as one more example of how Big Auto has hoodwinked consumers into believing their products are as green as they can possibly get." (MSNBC)

While it's true that some hybrid technology, currently, offers very little improvement in fuel efficiency, where do you draw the line?

"We think that hybrid technology ought to be reserved for the environmental and consumer benefits [it] can deliver," says UCS's Jason Mark. "Every quasi-hybrid under the sun is being labeled as a hybrid for public relations benefits." Mark thinks that hybrid technology should be put to better uses than turning a 16-mpg vehicle into an 18-mpg vehicle. "The point is not to turn extreme gas-guzzlers into moderate gas guzzlers."

So, what should these 'hybrid' vehicles be called? Gas guzzling vehicles with hybrid technology?

Maybe.

Still, if more and more hybrid vehicles are produced, won't customers start to realize which hybrids offer the best fuel efficiency bang for the buck? More important, the government should offer better tax incentives for the most fuel efficient hybrids in each class.

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.

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.)

Accord hybrid versus the Camry hybrid

Hybrid Competition Heats Up, A little

Slowly, albeit very slowly, competition amongst hybrid cars is building.

Already we have the Toyota Highlander hybrid versus the Ford Escape hybrid versus the Lexus RX 400h, as well the Toyota Prius versus the Honda Civic hybrid, and soon we'll have the Toyota Camry hybrid versus the Honda Accord hybrid.

Both the Accord and the Camry are already top selling cars in America. So, how will the hybrid battle between these two champions play out?

Unfortunately, it probably won't be much of a battle.

The Accord hybrid is a performance hybrid, offering some of the best performance of any Accord. For the power offered, the Accord hybrid offers good fuel efficiency. Ultimately, however, the hybrid Accord was built to perform on the highway, not to set fuel efficiency records.

The Camry hybrid, on the other hand, will offer significant gains in both fuel economy and pollution reductions compared to a standard Camry. While the hybrid Camry will still perform well, it wasn't designed for 0 to 60 supremacy, however the hybrid Camry should offer exceptional fuel efficiency.

Ironically, the real competition in the hybrid vehicle wars will probably be between the Camry hybrid and the Prius.

French diesel hybrids coming soon?

Peugeot hopes to sell the Peugeot 307 and Citroen C4 hybrids by 2010

Yesterday, I blogged that I was tired of reporters whom claim that clean diesel is an alternative to hybrid cars, especially since diesel vehicles can also be hybrid vehicles.

Case in Point

"Imagine a car that gets 82 miles a gallon -- doubling the average fuel efficiency of the green-automotive market leader Toyota Prius. French auto maker PSA Peugeot-Citroen believes it can deliver such a car by 2010 with hybrid diesel engines that will join two fuel-efficient technologies. "That's the future. It combines the best of both worlds," says Thomas Sedran, partner at Munich consultancy Roland Berger." (BusinessWeek)

Whether the fuel is diesel, gasoline, hydrogen, ethanol, bio-diesel, or electricity, hybrid technology makes each of these fuels, and the vehicles powered by them, cleaner and more fuel efficient.

Join the Hybrid Car Revolution!

Diesel technology is not a hybrid vehicle alternative

Quite often when new clean diesel technology is talked about, it is referenced as an alternative to hybrid cars. For example the article Audi race victory helps put diesel on the map states, "The cause of diesel powertrains, seen by certain automakers and suppliers as a strong alternative to hybrids in the U.S., just received a significant boost."

I say diesel technology is an alternative to gasoline technology, but not to hybrid technology. Quite simply hybrid vehicles can be diesel vehicles. Hybrid technology doesn't just make gasoline vehicles more fuel efficient, it makes clean diesel vehicles more fuel efficient.

While diesel technology can compete with current hybrid technology in some fuel efficiency comparisons, it still isn't as clean. More important, however, the technology powering hybrid vehicles will become more powerful, more fuel efficient, lighter and cheaper in the next decade.

Ultimately, comparing hybrid technology to diesel technology is about one thing: complacency. In today's world good products just aren't good enough. In the future, only great products will survive, especially in the auto industry.

Sure, clean diesel vehicles are a good technology, but clean diesel hybrid vehicles are a great technology.

Can automakers do the right thing? Join the hybrid revolution

Talking 'bout a revolution

Recently, IBM held a think tank calling on business leaders to lead the green revolution, before the government forces them to do it with messy and expensive regulations.

Automakers need to heed this call.

Let's face it, can we really afford to wait much longer before taking oil dependency seriously? Political tensions in Iran, Venezuela, Nigeria, the War in Iraq, bomb attacks on Saudi oil refineries and increased hurricane activity over the next decade are already great reasons to act, but they are only the beginning.

New evidence suggests that global warming is picking up fast. In less than 100 years, Miami could be a memory as oceans rise as much as 20 feet (NewScientist).

Additionally, yesterday I blogged about the potential of a billion new drivers from Asia and asked, "Where will the oil come from?"

Today, even China is beginning to tax SUVs and other gas guzzlers in an attempt to spur the sales and development of efficient automobiles.

Yet in America, we can only propose new fuel efficiency standards on large SUVs, but not on trucks - a huge source of gas-guzzling - because we wouldn't want to upset the American consumer or the American auto industry. (MORE)

We must do more, much more.

Even Flex fuel cars, hybrid cars, and plug-in hybrid cars are not enough. We need even better cars. We need to make automobiles smaller, and we need to make them flex fuel, plug-in hybrid vehicles. We need the best technology that the entire auto industry has to offer and we need it to be affordable. Most important, we need it NOW!

Yet, AutoWeek questions, "Do consumers even want plug-in hybrids?"

Since when did consumerism become more important than health or national security? So, what about smoking? What about seat belts? What about the Dubai port deal?

Ultimately, consumers will mostly do what is in their best interest, however, national security takes priority over consumer choice - ALWAYS. Still, if consumers know they can reduce fuel costs by 50%, they will gladly plug-in their vehicles.

Imagine the competition that could be created by flex-fuel plug-in hybrids for fuel choices. Ethanol, diesel, bio-diesel, gasoline, hydrogen, clean coal-powered electric, solar-powered electric, wind-powered electric, etc. all could play an important part in the new energy revolution that can fundamentally change the world. Ultimately, the green revolution and energy independence are not about protecting America, it's about liberating the people of the world.

The green revolution can be driven with the automobile. If the auto industry cannot focus on creating green choices for the world, then eventually the government will have to, and that won't be good for either consumers or businesses. Starting now might already be too late, but waiting any longer is simply suicidal.

Let's Revolt!

Congress doesn't need to build the green revolution, they need to inspire the green revolution with intelligent tax incentives. Let's keep the pressure on Congress and Business to do the right thing. Join the Hybrid Car Revolution Campaign.

Oil: Why are Americans so irresponsible?

CNN did a very interesting survey on oil.

"Although Americans don't believe the country faces an imminent energy crisis, most believe there are "major problems" --- from potential oil shortages to possible terrorist attacks -- and they are harshly critical of the leadership on the issue from the White House, according to a new CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll."

Yet, only 1 in 4 Americans believe consumers brunt any responsibility and only about the same amount blame automakers. While Bush receives much of the blame, oil companies are the most hated.

So, what are Americans doing about? Buying more oil.

In reality, what can Bush really do? Most energy experts note the majority of the problem is refinery capacity. Yet, there has been little support the last few decades to build new refineries and even if Bush said, build ten more, they wouldn't be online until long after he's out of office.

Yet, Dems like Hillary Clinton complain that Bush isn't being tough enough with Iran, at the same time Iran is devising plans to use oil as a weapon against the U.S. If problems with Iran escalate, gasoline prices would easily surge beyond $4.00 or $5.00 per gallon.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't

Lame duck Bush simply can't win, even though there is little he, or anyone, can really do about short term oil prices. All we can do in the short term is conserve.

Then there are the oil companies. I'm tired of this one. Too much of the oil industry is controlled outside of the United States. We, the consumers, need to buy less oil - that's it.

Of course that's hard since automakers haven't provided a lot of choice when it comes to fuel efficiency. GM still doesn't have any hybrid vehicles on the road - no their 'mild' hybrid doesn't count. Additionally, GM's 'GoYellow' compaign is complete B.S., since there aren't any gasoline stations with E85. So, who is GM kidding?

Apparently, most Americans!!! It's too expensive for GM to build hybrids, but not too expensive to spend $3 billion per year on advertising lying about ethanol and other 'professional grade' technologies.

In reality Congress deserves far more blame than the President and if any President deserves blame for oil, you'd have to blame Clinton, the first Bush, or Reagan.

Ultimately, however, Americans should blame automakers and themselves for buying the billions of dollars of propaganda that the big 3 have been selling to America. The right to gas guzzle isn't about American freedom, it's about American stupidity.

And these people laugh at us for buying hybrids.

Bio-diesel hybrid coming soon?

Last week I made a post about the Land Rover e Concept hybrid vehicle that I didn't give much attention. Since; however, I've read a feature that MSN published on this hybrid. MSN states, "The Land_e is one of the most unusual concept presentations in the show, but potentially one of the most significant."

Not only will the Land Rover hybrid offer 30 percent gains in fuel efficiency, it's innovative hybrid technology will enable this hybrid to function off-road with the same performance for which it is known. In fact the hybrid Land Rover might actually perform better than a conventional Land Rover in off-road conditions, as well as on the highway.

And to top it off, the Land Rover e Concept will be able to utilize bio-diesel.

Just another example of how the technology behind hybrid cars is just emerging and that there is far more potential to be tapped.

GM showcases fuel efficiency efforts

GM's fuel efficiency claims; Much ado about nothing

Eric Kaufman, GM engineering group manager for energy and drive quality said that while the buzz around fuel efficiency has been focused on hybrid cars, GM has made other important gains. (MotorTrend)

For example, they have made gasoline engines more efficient through a number of achievements and they now have almost 2 million flex-fuel vehicles on the road.

Why is GM such a joke? Why don't they just shut up regarding fuel efficiency?

Let's just be clear, GM is not focused on fuel efficiency, PERIOD.

As for flex-fuel vehicles, how much is a flex-fuel vehicle worth if you can't find ethanol? GM flex-fuel vehicles cause more harm than good. Since no one can fill them up with ethanol because there aren't any pumps, or it's too expensive, the only thing GM's flex-fuel program achieves is CAFE credits.

GM's flex-fuel vehicles simply enable GM to avoid fines on their gas-guzzlers, that's it. If GM cares so much about flex-fuel, why not offer it on all vehicles and not just those vehicles that might miss their CAFE requirements?

Even doing that wouldn't have much effect any time soon, but at least it would demonstrate some sincerity.

GM isn't going to go green by going yellow, they need to get real if they want to go green.

A Land Rover hybrid?

Land Rover is planning a new line of gasoline/diesel hybrid vehicles, dubbed the Land_e Concept, that the automaker believes can achieve 30 percent better fuel efficiency than conventional Land Rovers.(more)

Camry Hybrid built for Fuel Efficiency

The Toyota Camry hybrid will be built for optimal fuel efficiency according to Consumer Reports. While this is great news, I don't fully understand what that really means. Toyota has admitted in the past that the Highlander hybrid was built for a mixture of performance and fuel efficiency. Yet, the Camry hybrid is still going to offer 192 hp. EPA estimates for this vehicle are 40 mpg, of course in the real world that will probably mean low 30's. Ultimately, I'd expect the Camry hybrid to achieve the best fuel efficiency of any Camry, while offering performance similar to the 6 cylinder Camry.

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.

Pricing on the Lexus 450h announced

Lexus GS 450h will start at $54,900.00.

The 2007 Lexus GS 450h hybrid sedan will come loaded with premium features and hit dealerships sometime in May. The GS is said to achieve 28 mpg, a 33 percent increase in fuel efficiency over the conventional V8 GS. (Car & Driver)

More hybrid vehicles.

Hybrid cars and Gas costs: Still a huge misunderstanding

Fortune Magazine is publishing an article on the development of the Toyota Prius in its March 6th issue. As a preview, Alex Taylor III wrote the article, Toyota's recipe for success.

Taylor doesn't seem critical of hybrid cars and appears to try to be objective in touching on the major hybrid issues. He is, ultimately, laying down the foundation for how Toyota's hybrids might completely dominate the future of automobile sales after all.

Still, he notes, "Critics complain that hybrids are inherently uneconomical because the $3,000 or more the technology adds to the cost of the vehicle can't be recouped with greater gas mileage; that they didn't improve fuel efficiency that much; and that some American models were being built more for performance than to benefit the environment."

To which Taylor states, "The knocks against hybrids are all true. But what the critics didn't put a price on was the value of being seen as eco-sensitive without giving up performance."

"Does it save enough money to pay for itself?" asks Jim Press, president of Toyota Motor Sales in the U.S. "That's not the idea. What's the true cost of a gallon of gas, if you factor in foreign aid, Middle Eastern wars, and so on? The truth is on our side."

While I agree with Mr. Press about real cost of gasoline, I have a bigger issue. Are hybrid vehicles "inherently uneconomical"?

There is simply no way that you can argue that a Toyota Prius is "inherently uneconomical", even without the current hybrid tax credit, and I'd say that the Honda Civic hybrid is close to this category as well. These vehicles are cost effective and do recover their costs for many drivers, especially those that drive in urban areas.

But let's just run a few simple numbers. In Southern California, where I live, it isn't uncommon to spend $100.00 per week on gasoline. That would add up to $4800.00 per year. Let's say a hybrid saves 20% - even though many save more - on your fuel needs. That would be roughly a $1000.00 per year. In 5 years you've saved $5000.00? What's the problem?

O.K., let's cut that it in half. $50.00 per week, $2500.00 per year and after 5 years you've saved $2500.00. Still not bad, and on the Civic and Prius you've recouped your costs. That's at current gas prices, which could go up significantly in the next 5 years. So, what's wrong with this bet, especially if protecting the environment is an important concern? This isn't treehugger craziness, it's just common sense.

To describe hybrids as simply "inherently uneconomical", is simply "inherently ignorant." Hybrids like the Prius recover their costs, while significantly reducing emissions. You're not losing money to be green. In fact, for many drivers it is a cost benefit to own a Prius.

Yes, cost-effectiveness isn't true for all hybrids, but it will be true for most hybrids in the future based on emerging hybrid technology. Most hybrid buyers understand this investment in the future angle, in addition to the real cost of gasoline and oil dependence.

That's why we shouldn't have capped tax credits for hybrid vehicles. Instead, we simply should have ended the $25,000 + tax deductions for the Detroit's worse gas-guzzlers.

That's "inherently uneconomical" for the welfare of the United States.

Fit Honda adding another hybrid vehicle to lineup

Honda set to offer the first subcompact hybrid.

In 2007, according to unofficial reports, Honda will begin offering the Honda Fit Hybrid, a subcompact hybrid. With a starting price of just $11,790.00, the Fit hybrid should shake up the world of hybrid cars.

According to the report, the new Fit will achieve fuel efficiency in the range of the Toyota Prius hybrid or the Honda Insight hybrid.

Some analysts already speculate that this move is a sign that Honda now believes that hybrid vehicles will have a much more critical role in the future. In the past, Honda has indicated that it wasn't sure about the future of hybrids. In addition to the Insight and Fit hybrids, Honda also offers the Civic hybrid - now in its second generation - and the Accord hybrid.

Ironically, this will be Honda's fourth hybrid car. GM, on the other hand, has stated that it is mostly interested in putting hybrid technology only in its large vehicles. Thus, one cannot help but wonder if GM is not sealing its fate with its stubborn refusal to challenge Japan in small cars and the new battle for fuel efficiency supremacy.

Is 'I don't care' America's mantra?

Democrats often complain that George Bush doesn't have a mandate. I agree, but if Al Gore had won because of the popular vote, would he have had a mandate? Since both Bush and Gore could only muster up about 25% of the vote, wasn't the real mandate of the 2000 election, "I don't care"? In fact, has not only 'I don't care' become the mandate of most modern elections, but the mantra of America?

Speaking of politics, how about those tax incentives? No, I don't mean tax credits for hybrid cars and other fuel efficient technologies. Shoot, $3400.00 is small change compared to the $25,000 tax deduction you can take for buying a Hummer.

But who cares? If I can afford to gas-guzzle why should you care?

Sure, Nigerian rebels are kidnapping American oil workers and threatening to bomb foreign oil ships, and Iran is signing huge oil deals with China as it builds nuclear bombs. But who cares?

I mean so what if China started copying American oil consumption? Just because there wouldn't be close to enough oil for the world, who cares?

And that global warming mumbo-jumbo melting ice caps agenda, maybe that's just a part of your 'evolution' theory?

I say God bless American politicians. We cap tax credits for hybrids because we don't want too many of them and we cap them by manufacturer so that we can protect GM. Yet we don't put any limits on tax deductions for Hummers and other gas-guzzlers - we don't even monitor how many are using the deduction. Now that's American!

We're saving GM - isn't that what is important? With flex-fuel technology no one uses, faulty CAFE testing, and tax deductions we can make sure that GM will never have to take fuel efficiency seriously.

This is America, monkey boy, we don't have to think about the future or take responsibility for our actions and consumer choices - that's bin Laden's logic, not American logic.

Pollution, global warming, terrorism - who cares? In America cupholders are more important than fuel efficiency - at least for real Americans.