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