Hybrid News

Or do I mean F America?

Congress is in a tough spot. The majority of Americans don’t want Congress to help the US auto industry, despite the fact that all of the Big 3’s competitors receive heavy subsidies from their governments.

I understand. For decades the Big 3 built a lot of crap and, even after 9/11, they still didn’t react to fuel economy. Profit was more important than national security.

Nonetheless, Congress has to give automakers the money and, we the people, should accept that because we the people are also responsible for the state of the US auto industry. We bought the gas-guzzlers. We demanded that gas stay cheap. We voted for politicians that made gas taxes and increased fuel economy standards dirty word for decades.

I know. None of that justifies the failures of the Big 3, whom helped brainwash the people into gas-guzzling stupidity. And, I know most Americans want the corporate big wigs of America, including those from Detroit, to suffer. Yet, it will be average Americans - all over America - that will suffer most if Detroit goes under. Now is not the time to seek revenge, it’s time to turn a wrong into a right.

Original post by Dahcredyns

Detroit still far behind the Prius

Pop open the bubbly, ladies and gentlemen, it’s party time. In 4 states gas has fallen below $2.00 per gallon. On Wall Street, the overwhelming consensus is $50 oil before $65.

But, is that a good thing?

When gas was $2.00 US automakers laughed at the Toyota Prius. Today, the Prius has already sold more than 1,000,000 Prius hybrid cars, yet there won’t be one US made Prius-contender on the road until late 2010 with the Chevy Volt. Moreover, GM probably won’t be selling the 100,000 Volts per year until at least 2014.

Fortunately, if gas prices remain low, America’s gas-guzzling will decline thanks to CAFE, but CAFE regulations won’t be strong enough to end foreign oil dependency. Unfortunately, as history as proven, US automakers will simply do as much as needed to achieve CAFE, and when foreign oil dependency again rears its ugly head, America will again be unprepared.

Thus, a bailout must include strings.

Original post by Dahcredyns

America’s freedom fighter?

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

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

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

Original post by Dahcredyns

Not only US automakers are suffering

The EU is “ready to grant automakers a three-year delay until 2015 to reduce the CO2 emissions of their new vehicles” because of the “global economic crisis” according to AFP.

With US automakers facing mergers and possible bankruptcies, does a similar fate await CAFE regulations?

While Honda and Toyota, are ramping up production of hybrid cars, US automakers are canceling large hybrid SUVs and delaying the launch of new, more fuel efficient autos, such as the Chevy Cruze. Thus, can US automakers afford to meet new CAFE requirements without significant financial help beyond the $25 billion already allocated? And, if they cannot, will Congress intervene?

Original post by Dahcredyns

Chevy Cruze delayed

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

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

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

Original post by Dahcredyns

The battery-powered EcoVoyager

Chrsyler CEO, Bob Nardelli, told CNBC TV this evening that “great synergies” existed for automotive industry consolidation because of the financial environment, but he would not discuss a possible merger with GM.

Nardelli also claimed that new CAFE standards had created a “tremendous financial burden″ on the automaker, and that it was important that America didn′t turn foreign oil dependence into dependence on foreign batteries.

While I’d rather be dependent on foreign batteries than foreign oil any day of the week, if Detroit had taken some leadership on hybrid cars, this would be a non-issue.

Original post by Dahcredyns

Filed under: MPG, Legislation and Policy

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has released its 1,000-page environmental impact study on new fuel economy rules and the final form of those rules could be in place by the middle of next month. When NHTSA announced a draft of the new CAFE regulations last spring, it drew criticism from all sides. The rules went beyond what was mandated by Congress last December, but also contained some very controversial elements. The requirements would be based on the vehicle’s footprint (the area between the wheels), meaning that vehicles with a larger wheelbase or track would have a lower standard to meet.

The study indicates that the new regulations will save 19.5 billion gallons of fuel through the end of the next decade. However it also indicates a very small impact on the environment over the next century. The expected change in sea level is only expected to be reduced by 0.11 cm and the temperature is only expected to be cut by 0.013 degrees celcius. Nonetheless, automakers are not happy with the rules because of the inconsistencies. Still, proposals from the initial draft seem unlikely to be significantly changed. At this point, there is a 30-day comment period before the new corporate average fuel economy rules are finalized.

[Source: Detroit News]

Read | Permalink | Email this | Comments

Original post by Sam Abuelsamid

What’s the value of plugging in?

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

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

So why the double standard? Shouldn′t there be just one way to judge plug-ins?

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

Original post by Dahcredyns

Filed under: MPG, Legislation and Policy

I fully agree that we need more fuel efficient vehicles. But I also firmly believe that the vast majority of American drivers (and others around the world) will always buy the biggest, most powerful vehicle they think they can afford to operate. When gas was cheap in this country, they bought big SUVs and trucks because they could afford them, even though there were plenty of small, efficient vehicles offered. Sure, some people bought compacts for a variety of reasons but most people went big. What caused that trend to turn around seemingly overnight? Certainly not anything that politicians and bureaucrats did with fuel economy regulations. Plain and simple, it was that gas prices shot up.

Gore Vidal has dubbed this country the United States of Amnesia because consumers have a notoriously short memory. Raising CAFE standards will not help reduce fuel consumption unless people are willing to buy more efficient vehicles and that’s something that is unlikely to happen if fuel prices drop (unless of course our economy continues its collapse, in which case nobody will be buying anything). Over at Motor Trend, editor Angus McKenzie thinks that CAFE combined with low fuel prices has actually made things worse by encouraging automakers (including Toyota and Nissan and to a lesser degree Honda) to build big trucks and consumers to buy them. Instead, he suggests attacking the demand side (as I have done for years) by scrapping the plans for $100 billion in loans to the industry along with the current supply-based CAFE rules. McKenzie says the money should be used to stimulate demand for high efficiency vehicles. McKenzie doesn’t mention fuel prices, but I would add that attempts to reduce fuel prices much below $4 / gallon should also be abandoned. As Dr. David Cole has said, a floor price should be set for petroleum to keep demand up for efficiency and then if the market price drops below that, tax it up to the minimum price. This will do a lot more to reduce fuel consumption than the ridiculous footprint-based fuel economy rules now being put forward by NHTSA.

[Source: Motor Trend]

Read | Permalink | Email this | Comments

Original post by Sam Abuelsamid

Chrysler’s idea of hybrid technology

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

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

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

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

Original post by Dahcredyns

Toyota’s very fuel efficient Tundra?

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

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

Finish: Give Detroit the money, but….

Original post by Dahcredyns

Filed under: MPG, Legislation and Policy

After the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration announced its proposed new Corporate Average Fuel Economy rules last spring there was a public comment period to be followed by revisions before finalizing the regulations. There were certainly some negative comments related to the footprint-based standards but the other aspect that came in for criticism was the cost benefit analysis. In a seemingly surprising move, even the Environmental Protection Agency filed a comment opposing the draft regulation. The energy bill that was enacted last December required NHTSA to set the standards based in part on what was technically and financially feasible. NHTSA set the mileage requirements based on the assumption that gasoline would cost an average of $2.42 in 2016. Given where gas prices are today that seems like a serious under-estimation. Even the EPA that declined to approve a waiver for California’s CO₂ regulations felt that NHTSA used too low a price estimate in its analysis. If a higher price was assumed it would make a higher standard more feasible.

[Source: Detroit News]

Read | Permalink | Email this | Comments

Original post by Sam Abuelsamid

Filed under: MPG, USA

According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the fleet of cars sold in the U.S. through the first half of the year averaged 26.8 mpg. That’s a new record, and it is being pushed by the rapid move from larger cars, trucks and SUVs into smaller, more fuel efficient vehicles. For reference, last year’s rating stood at 26.6 miles per gallon. While these numbers can be useful for tracking the overall average mileage of new cars in the States, these are actually the CAFE numbers that the government uses for keeping tabs on the automakers. As has been widely covered, these figures aren’t really the most accurate numbers available as there are provisions for automakers to improve their scores through the use of alternative fuels. Some manufacturers also carry over credits from past years when they surpassed the CAFE requirements. Still, a fuel mileage improvement is a good thing, and it’s likely to only get better as fuel prices remain high enough to impact purchasing decisions.

[Source: The Detroit News]

Read | Permalink | Email this | Comments

Original post by Jeremy Korzeniewski

Filed under: MPG, Legislation and Policy

The energy bill that was passed by Congress last December requiring corporate average fuel economy to be raised to 35 mpg by 2020 had some interesting little known elements in it. Among other things, the bill required NHTSA to set the standards at the maximum feasible level for any given years meaning that the 35 mpg threshold could be reached well before 2020. The problem lies in that word feasible. In setting standards NHTSA was required to factor in projections for what fuel prices would be in future years. That’s why when NHTSA released its draft proposal for the first round of fuel economy standards, the average was set at 31.6 mpg by 2015 which caught some people by surprise. However with gas at $4 /gallon this spring, it looked like the reality would overtake the law. It turned out that NHTSA used a projection of $2.42 /gallon in 2016 to set the 31.6 mpg standard. Representatives Ed Markey (D-MA) and Todd Russell Platts (R-PA) this week introduced a bill that would require NHTSA to use more realistic projections in setting the standards. Under this proposal the standard could be moved up to 35 mpg by 2015. Again all of this demonstrates that mandating a fuel economy standard is probably a wrong headed approach. If higher fuel prices suddenly make higher fuel economy feasible, why not just set a minimum floor price for fuel and if prices drop below this level, tax it up to the minimum. We′ve seen this work in Europe where average fuel economy is much higher than in the US based largely on higher fuel prices. Then there is the issue of the bogus fuel economy calculations.

[Source: markey.house.gov]

Read | Permalink | Email this | Comments

Original post by Sam Abuelsamid

Filed under: MPG, Legislation and Policy, Green Daily, USA

TMI. What does that mean? Well, it usually means ‘Too Much Information,’ but in the case of fuel mileage, there is truly no such thing. Everybody and their brother wants to know what kind of mileage they are likely to get out of their next new car purchase, so we’ll take any information we can get. With that in mind, Cars.com has gone to the trouble of calculating the mileage statistics of all the major brands sold in the United States and has sorted them by average miles per gallon. While the list doesn’t actually break down each manufacturer further by model, it is still helpful in some way.

As you may be aware, CAFE mileage statistics aren′t actually representative of what a given manufacturer is likely to achieve, as they are adjusted for all sorts of reasons. Therefore, Cars.com chose to go by the EPA’s mileage ratings to calculate its figures. For the same reason, the impending fuel mileage requirements being proposed by the Feds aren′t quite as harsh as they might seem. For instance, CAFE’s 2007 rating for Honda’s domestic passenger-car fleet comes in at 33.5 mpg, while Cars.com estimates a much more realistic 24.9 mpg. So, the EPA’s estimations are still useful for comparing individual car models, and Cars.com’s TMI rating is useful for comparing the manufacturers themselves. Remember, though… your mileage may vary.

[Source: Cars.com]

Read | Permalink | Email this | Comments

Original post by Jeremy Korzeniewski