Green Car Advisor
Opinion
November 5, 2009
But Language Permitting Such Trades Was In the Legislation Almost From the Start
The feds have published a detailed list of trade-ins and purchases under the summer's Cash for Clunkers program and some media have picked up on an item we cautioned about before the program became law.
It allowed owners of some older pickups and vans to trade them in for new trucks with lower fuel economy.
We don't know the details of every one of the 150 or so "worse gas mileage' trades that were made (according to an Associated Press analysis), and some may have been approved in error or even through outright fraud, but they really shouldn't have taken anyone by surprise.
Way back in May, the House Energy and Commerce Committee began considering the "Car Allowance Rebate System" or CARS bill with language that clearly approved of those "worse mileage" trades.
It specified that owners of pre-2002 work trucks could trade them in and get a $3,500 voucher for new trucks in the same or lighter weight classes, with no requirement for improved fuel economy.
Continue reading...
- Posted by
- Permalink | Comments (3)
- John O'Dell November 5, 2009, 3:00 AM
- Categories:
- Fuel Economy, Legislation, Opinion
- Technorati Tags:
- Cash for Clunkers
, Cash For Clunkers Truck Trades, Fuel Economy, Worse Mileage Trade Ins
September 21, 2009
It's not the first time a U.S. politician has criticized Japan and South Korea for unfairly blocking sales of U.S. cars, but this time the complaints is aimed at eco-protectionism.
Sen. Debbie Stabenow, a Michigan Democrat with strong ties to the U.S. auto industry, has asked President Obama to protest policies that effectively bar U.S. cars from being sold under those countries' cash for clunkers programs.
In a letter sent Friday to the president, Stabenow complains that while the U.S. clunkers program was open to all car sold here, import regulations in Japan and tariffs in South Korea make it all but impossible for Japanese and Korean motorists to buy an American-made car under their countries' clunker programs.
----------
Sen. Debbie Stabenow worries that green cars like GM's Chevrolet Volt could be barred from Japanese and South Korean markets under protectionist policies.
----------
"We followed international law and made [the U.S. program] apply to all cars sold in the United States, not just American cars," Stabenow wrote. "That is why it is so outrageous that Japan and [South] Korea would have the audacity to implement similar programs that discriminate against American automakers."
You can read the entire letter here.
Stabenow is asking Obama to "remind" Japanese Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama and South Korean President Lee Myung-Bak "of their obligations under the WTO," or World Trade Organization charter, promoting fair and equal trade.
Continue reading...
- Posted by
- Permalink | Comments (0)
- John O'Dell September 21, 2009, 11:02 AM
- Categories:
- Green Vehicles, Japan, Opinion
- Technorati Tags:
- Debbie Stabenow
, Green Cars, Japanese Protectionism
September 3, 2009
Perhaps Discussing GM's Silly 230 MPG Claim for Volt Would Have Been More Productive
By John O'Dell, Senior Editor
Whoops.
Diesel booster and Audi of America President Johan de Nysschen, whose remarks questioning the common sense (or worse) of people who'd pay $40,000 for an extended-range Chevy Volt plug-in hybrid have been all over the Internet today (including an earlier Green Car Advisor piece), says he didn't mean it that way.
In fact, the famously outspoken de Nysschen (left) says in a new posting on Audi's Facebook page that he doesn't recall using the term 'car for idiots' to describe the Volt (what he did say, apparently, is that "there are not enough idiots who will buy" Volts), and certainly didn't intend to disparage electric cars or people who want to buy them.
He'd better hope he hasn't done the latter - Audi is working on an electric-drive car of its own.
In any event, de Nysschen said in his Facebook posting, "if I was unclear on either of those points then I need to eat crow."
What he did want to make clear, he said, is that, in is opinion the Volt, which he believes will be selling for a "50 percent or so price increase...over a similar gasoline car," won't be able to earn back the price difference for owners through fuel savings alone.
Continue reading...
- Posted by
- Permalink | Comments (4)
- John O'Dell September 3, 2009, 6:36 PM
- Categories:
- Audi, Chevrolet, Diesel, General Motors, Opinion, Plug-ins and Electric
- Technorati Tags:
- Audi
, Car For Idiots, De Nysschen, Volt, Volt for Idiots
July 3, 2009
Nothing says "I
really care about the planet" quite like a race car.
By Scott Doggett, Contributor
The American Le Mans Series, contributor of countless tons of greenhouse gases for sport, says it has formed "a relationship" with The Nature Conservancy, a nonprofit organization renowned for its wildlife conservation and environmental regeneration efforts.
"As the Global Leader in Green Racing, the Series believes it is as important to lead with off-track programs as much as it is to lead with on-track innovation that emphasizes energy conservation and sustainability within a highly relevant platform applicable to today's automobile and transportation industries," the race series' organizers said in a press release Thursday.
The relationship has several components: the racing organization, teams and fans can donate money to the conservancy's adopt-an-acre reforestation project in California (which, of course, they could do before the relationship), and they can purchase T-shirts that read "Growing a Greener Tomorrow ... Faster." The shirts will be at American Le Mans Series races and on its Website with a portion of the proceeds going to the conservancy.
As if that weren't innovative enough, the Series says it will soon announce a Green Park program - "a media-driven event" (that usually means that it is being done to attract media coverage) "for each of its race markets."
The program involves planting trees in areas affected by the ALM Series races, specifically a "city park, local children's hospital, track, etc., along with construction of environmentally sustainable playground equipment provided by Lowe's Home Improvement Stores and Michelin."
So in the great American spirit of paying someone else to clean up after you, the race series has taken a page from the playbook of hundreds of other businesses and decided to plant trees in the neighborhoods affected by the emissions it causes.
The series is also promoting use of cleaner fuels and this year is even letting a hybrid race car run.
It's all better than doing nothing.
Continue reading...
- Posted by
- Permalink | Comments (0)
- Scott Doggett July 3, 2009, 12:01 AM
- Categories:
- Alternative Fuels, Biofuels, Diesel, Emissions, Ethanol, Fuel Economy, Opinion
- Technorati Tags:
- American Le Mans Series
, Emissions, Global Warming, Green Racing, Race Cars, The Nature Conservancy
June 30, 2009
Magazine says hybrid is the most disappointing Honda it has tested "in a long time."
By Scott Doggett, Contributor
The new Honda Insight posted a lackluster "Good" overall road-test score in Consumer Reports' testing for the August issue, and fell short in ride quality, handling, interior noise, acceleration, rear-seat access and visibility.
"The Insight is the most disappointing Honda Consumer Reports has tested in a long time," said David Champion, senior director of CR's Auto Test Center. "The Insight is a noisy, stiff-riding car with clumsy handling that is nothing like the Fit on which it is based. Also, Electronic Stability Control is only available on the highline EX version."
About the only thing CR seemed impressed with was the vehicle's fuel efficiency. The Insight achieved an excellent 38 miles per gallon overall in CR's fuel-economy tests.
In a ratings chart of small hatchbacks and wagons, the Insight was rated 21st out of 22 vehicles, with a road test score of 54 points. It was followed by the Dodge Caliber, which scored 49.
All vehicles in the test group are Recommended by Consumer Reports except for the Insight.
CR only recommends vehicles that have performed well in its tests, have at least average predicted reliability based on CR's Annual Car Reliability Survey of its more than 7 million print and Web subscribers, and performed at least adequately if crash-tested or included in a government rollover test.
Full tests and ratings of the test group appear in the August issue of Consumer Reports, which goes on sale June 30.
Continue reading...
- Posted by
- Permalink | Comments (0)
- Scott Doggett June 30, 2009, 1:15 PM
- Categories:
- Emissions, Fuel Economy, Honda, Hybrid, Opinion, Toyota
- Technorati Tags:
- 2010 Honda Insight
, Consumer Reports, Hybrid, Inside Line, Toyota Prius
June 12, 2009
By John O'Dell, Senior Editor
Like every other alternative fuel, hydrogen has its fans and foes, its pluses and minuses, its ups and, recently, its downs.
After being the favored ground transportation fuel of the future for most of the last eight years as the Bush administration pushed development of hydrogen fuel cells for automotive use, nature's most abundant - albeit hard to isolate - element has been cast aside by the Obama administration.
The new president's Nobel-winning energy secretary, Steven Chu, has proposed in his 2010 departmental budget to eliminate funding for automotive hydrogen programs - that's $100 million - and instead to focus hydrogen research on fuel cells to generate power for homes, businesses and other stationary power users.
For transportation, his choice of fuel research programs to back is no surprise, he's long been a supporter of biofuels and electric cars.
-----------
Honda says its FCX Clarity (below, right) is production-ready, lacking only a fueling infrastructure and lower-priced components that can only come with increased production of such cars.
----------
That's got the hydrogen car crowd - and we confess to a great fondness for fuel cell vehicles ourselves - up in arms and questioning the validity of Chu's apparent decision to "pick winners" by concentrating DOE research finding on biofuels and battery-electric, or plug-in, cars while announcing that his team doesn't see any short-term chance for hydrogen to emerge as a widely available and used fuel.
But Chu, powerful as he is sitting atop the nation's official energy policy agency and operating with the endorsement and backing of the president, isn't all-powerful. He has to answer to Congress, and Congress is subject to lobbying.
So the pressure politics have begun.
Short-Sighted?
With DOE budget hearings about to start, the chairman of the Senate's energy and Water Appropriations Committee - the committee that sits in judgment over the energy Department budget - has come out swinging.
A fan of hydrogen, Sen. Byron Dorgan recently called the DOE's budget recommendation to eliminate automotive hydrogen research funding "a very short-sighted recommendation." Hydrogen and fuel cells "are part of this country's future," said the North Dakota Democrat.
Backing Dorgan in support of restoring at lest some hydrogen programs funding for automotive research are automakers with huge investments in the technology.
They include Toyota and Honda, no slouches when it comes to making informed choices about technologies, as well as Daimler and our own General Motors Corp.
(We say "our own" because as part of the taxpaying public, we now share ownership of the faltering car company with the rest of America.)
Unlikely Allies
GM, in case you've been living in a cave or up in space for the past few weeks, is in bankruptcy now and the government, as its majority owner, has a rather big stake in the company's survival and future success.
Granted, GM hasn't been all that great at picking the proper trends and technologies as it looked to the future.
But this time the General is on the same team as Toyota and Honda rather than turning up its nose and sniffing that the Japanese car companies don't know what they are talking about.
Continue reading...
- Posted by
- Permalink | Comments (2)
- John O'Dell June 12, 2009, 5:15 AM
- Categories:
- Biofuels, Daimler, Ford, Fuel Cell, General Motors, Honda, Hybrid, Hydrogen, Opinion, Plug-ins and Electric, Toyota
- Technorati Tags:
- DOE Budget
, Fuel Cells, Hyrdogen Research Cuts
June 1, 2009
Downsizing Won't Kill Automaker's Initiatives, but Demand for Quick Profits Could
As General Motors Corp. begins reshaping itself in a complex, government-assisted bankruptcy process that leaves taxpayers as its major investor, one thing remains clear -- the automaker's future depends on its ability to develop cars that are both fuel-efficient and desirable.
To do so in an era of economic uncertainty marked by sluggish car sales, wildly fluctuating fuel prices and consumer confusion about the best car-buying strategies as we wait for the new generation of advanced technology vehicles to appear is going to require a degree of discipline that so far has been woefully lacking at GM and other domestic auto companies.
So it was heartening to see this morning that GM accompanied its filing for a pre-planned Chapter 11 reorganization
with the promise that even as it pares expenses to the bone it would "continue and increase its investment and leadership in fuel economy and advanced propulsion technologies."
----------
Chevy Volt "extended range EV' is one of the cars on which GM is betting its future.
----------
The "leadership" claim is a bit much -- marketing never stops.
But the rest of that vow, contained as it was in a statement undoubtedly edited and approved by the Obama administration, shows that GM so far is on the right path, and is pursuing it with government backing.
The Chevrolet Volt, GM's gamble on a potentially game-changing fuel-efficiency technology, will continue on schedule for launch in late 2010, according to this morning's statement.
Additionally, GM said it will continue development of conventional gas-electric hybrid technology, with 14 models due in the market by 2012, and will continue outfitting cars and trucks with flex-fuel systems so that by 2014 a full 65 percent of its vehicles will be capable of using ethanol or other alternative fuels, such as biodiesel.
We know GM also has been working on battery-electric and fuel-cell electric drivetrains and expect that R&D effort to continue as well.
Go Long
There will be many stumbling blocks to be overcome in the GM bankruptcy, but with the purse-string controlling government so far signing off on the automaker's intent to make fuel-efficiency and the development of petroleum-free powertrains a centerpiece of its recovery effort, things are getting off to a good start.
If the Feds succumb, though, to the cult of immediacy that has hamstrung so much of American industry for so long -- the demand by investors and market analysts for ever-increasing growth and profitability at the expense of solid long-term planning -- then all bets are off.
Continue reading...
- Posted by
- Permalink | Comments (0)
- John O'Dell June 1, 2009, 8:00 AM
- Categories:
- Alternative Fuels, Biofuels, Chevrolet, Diesel, Ethanol, Flex-Fuel, Fuel Cell, Fuel Economy, General Motors, Hybrid, Hydrogen, Opinion, Plug-ins and Electric
- Technorati Tags:
- Chevrolet Volt
, GM Bankruptcy
May 28, 2009
We've suggested several times now that increasing the national fuel tax would be a more efficient way for Uncle Sam to prod people into smaller, more fuel-efficient cars than the politically preferred method of using fuel economy standards to force automakers to build 'em with no incentive for us to buy 'em.
Based on present gasoline use, a $1 per gallon tax increase would raise $100 billion to $150 billion a year for the federal government and still keep U.S. gasoline prices lower than in most other developed nations.
The suggestion has raised objections from critics who say the middle of a deep recession is no time to be raising taxes.
We could kick ourselves for not thinking of this solution on our own, but why not delay imposition of the tax but announce it now?
The idea was raised a few days ago by Michael Levine, a researcher and senior lecturer at New York University School of Law, and Mark Roe, a Harvard Law School professor, in an article published in The Financial Times and reprinted in the Harvard Law School newsletter.
They suggest that if Congress and the administration were to show some political spine and enact a gas tax hike to be phased in over several years after a delayed start, the knowledge that it was coming would begin pushing consumers toward the kinds of green vehicles the government wants to promote while the delay would help get us through the present economic downturn.
Continue reading...
- Posted by
- Permalink | Comments (12)
- John O'Dell May 28, 2009, 12:25 AM
- Categories:
- Opinion, Tax Incentives
- Technorati Tags:
- Fuel Tax
, Gasoline Tax
May 18, 2009
As federal regulators, automakers, enviros and state air quality officials get set to sit down together to work up a national plan for reducing greenhouse gases by improving fuel-efficiency, there's going to be a lot of talk about the federal CAFE -- corporate average fuel economy -- standard and the mileage vehicles will have to get to meet the goals.
----------
We'll pay for fuel economy one way or another. Let's pick the best way.
----------
We've lived with CAFE for decades now and while we agree that it has helped push automakers into improving vehicle fuel economy, it also is easy to see that it hasn't helped enough.
That's because some automakers find it cheaper to pay the annual fines for not achieving their CAFE numbers than to spend the money it would take to do it. Others insist that building cars to meet CAFE would ruin what they stand for -- high performance, heavyweight luxury and the like -- and destroy their ability to market their vehicles here.
The plan that the feds and the automakers will now start kicking around seems to be based on California's controversial effort to achieve a 30 percent reduction in automotive greenhouse gas emissions, and it often is rendered in journalistic shorthand to say that it will require passenger cars to hit an average of 42 miles per gallon and trucks to achieve 26.2 miles per gallon by 2016.
Continue reading...
- Posted by
- Permalink | Comments (2)
- John O'Dell May 18, 2009, 10:14 PM
- Categories:
- Emissions, Fuel Economy, Legislation, Opinion
- Technorati Tags:
- CAFE
, Emissions, Fuel Economy, Greenhouse Gases, National Auto Policy
Auto Industry Lines Up To Praise National Program Idea, Now the Hard Work Begins
By
John O'Dell, Senior Editor
The auto industry, tired of being seen as the bad guy whenever fuel economy and emissions regulation is on the table, is wasting no time lining up in support of tomorrow's White House announcement on development of a national carbon emissions and fuel efficiency program.
A cynic might think this doesn't bode well for the ultimate result of the rulemaking process that President Obama will outline at a press conference in Washington Tuesday morning: That the auto industry figures it has enough clout left to wring the life out of any effort to significantly improve fuel economy.
But we think it simply shows that an industry on life support and dependent on government largess here and overseas has finally read the writing on the wall and realizes that this is as good as it is ever going to get and that if it doesn't play ball it will have no say in the rules it eventually will have to live by.
Automakers also have been caught in a trap of their own making. They've been fighting California, the national leader in establishing greenhouse gas controls on motor vehicles, insisting that individual states shouldn't be able to set carbon emissions rules and that a national standard is needed.
Now the Obama administration has stepped to the table and said, as the president is wont to: "Okay, let's develop a national rule."
To oppose that would be political suicide.
In that vein, the two lobbying groups representing almost every car maker that does business in the U.S. have jumped on board and are voicing support for the so-called National Program for Autos.
Continue reading...
- Posted by
- Permalink | Comments (0)
- John O'Dell May 18, 2009, 6:00 PM
- Categories:
- Alternative Fuels, BMW, Chrysler, Emissions, Ford, Fuel Economy, General Motors, Honda, Hyundai, Kia, Land Rover, Legislation, Mazda, Mercedes-Benz, Mitsubishi, Nissan, Opinion, Plug-ins and Electric, Porsche, Renault, Subaru, Suzuki, Toyota, Volkswagen
- Technorati Tags:
- National CAFE Plan
, National Program For Autos, Obama CAFE Plan
April 29, 2009
Be afraid. Be very afraid.
The idea of a pay-per-mile federal driving tax appears to be gaining ground, despite White House opposition. Without a groundswell of public outrage to tamp it down it could spread through Congress quicker than an outbreak of swine flu.
The chairman of the House Transportation Committee, where a bill to impose such a tariff would ultimately be considered, said this week he thinks Congress needs to quit studying and start acting on a proposal to charge us for every mile we drive.
The idea behind the tax is to raise money for the federal highway fund, which now is dependent on revenue from federal gasoline and diesel fuel taxes.
In the absence of a fuel tax hike, that revenue stream has been shrinking rather dramatically as our vehicles' fuel economy has increased and gasoline purchases have fallen as more of us stay home to conserve funds in the midst of a raging global recession.
Congress historically has been too cowardly to raise the federal gas tax, but some - including Transportation Committee Chairman James Oberstar, a Minnesota Democrat - think a mileage-based tax would work.
"It's going to have to be done," he said during a committee meeting earlier this week, "it's something we have to do [so] why not just move ahead...I am at a point of impatience with more studies."
Continue reading...
- Posted by
- Permalink | Comments (1)
- John O'Dell April 29, 2009, 2:24 PM
- Categories:
- Fuel Economy, Legislation, Opinion, Tax Incentives
- Technorati Tags:
- Driving Tax
, Fuel Tax, Gas Tax, Pay Per Mile Tax, Vehicle MileageTax, VMT
April 1, 2009
Note: The quote about Ford and Honda in the third paragraph was from an article in The Los Angeles Times, and was incorrectly attributed to Rush Limbaugh.
The gospel according to Rush Limbaugh now includes another chapter in what we'll call the green car conspiracy.
Here (from a transcript on the Excellence in Broadcasting network Web site) is what Limbaugh had to say on Tuesday about why vehicle manufacturers are scrambling to design and produce fuel-efficient, cleaner vehicles:
"The Ford and Honda hybrids due out this month are among dozens planned for the coming years as automakers try to meet new fuel-efficiency standards and please politicians overseeing the industry's multibillion-dollar bailout."
(That's probably news to Ford, which has just said 'no' to bailouts, and Honda, which doesn't qualify. And it might be news to the million motorists worldwide who've purchased Priuses and prodded Ford to introduce the Fusion Hybrid (left) and Honda to market the Insight Hybrid.)
And why are the auto companies kowtowing? Because the president is in cahoots with environmentalists who stay awake nights trying to figure out how to get us back to the good, old days when a gallon of gas cost more than $4.
Ah, but the evil-doers in Washington, D.C. (and their cronies in Sacramento) can't fool steely-eyed consumers when it comes to hybrids.
"Nobody's buying 'em," Limbaugh said. "Nobody wants them! The manufacturers are making them in droves to satisfy Obama! Sorry for yelling. Nobody wants them!"
(As of March 30, Americans had purchased 1.3 million hybrids since the first one -- a two-seat Honda Insight -- was sold in December 1999. Hybrids accounted for 2.51 percent of the market in March. That's the fourth-best monthly market-share showing ever, even with the lower gasoline prices. To be fair, though, hybrid sales did fall by 44 percent in March from a year earlier, and that's a worse showing than the 37 percent drop in the overall market.)
Continue reading...
- Posted by
- Permalink | Comments (10)
- Greg Johnson April 1, 2009, 2:56 PM
- Categories:
- Ford, Fuel Economy, General Motors, Honda, Hybrid, Legislation, Opinion, Toyota
- Technorati Tags:
- Ford Fusion
, Legislation, Prius Toyota
March 31, 2009
Late last year, Republican and Democratic members of a House committee urged then President-elect Barack Obama to consider using some of the money in his proposed economic stimulus plan to pay motorists
to take older, dirtier vehicles off of the roads in return for cash that could be used to buy cleaner, more-efficient models.
Obama, it turns out, was listening.
Sandwiched in between the monumental news about General Motors and Chrysler, the president on Monday proposed a fleet modernization program that would include a "generous credit to consumers who turn in old, less fuel-efficient cars and purchase cleaner cars."
Obama said that he will "work with Congress to identify parts of the (Economic Recovery Investment Act) that could be trimmed to fund such a program, and make it retroactive starting today."
We think that makes some sense. A so-called "cash for clunkers" program could stimulate new vehicle sales and help improve the nation's fuel economy picture and reduce tailpipe emissions.
Continue reading...
- Posted by
- Permalink | Comments (0)
- Greg Johnson March 31, 2009, 10:57 AM
- Categories:
- Emissions, Fuel Economy, Legislation, Opinion, Tax Incentives
- Technorati Tags:
- Economic Recovery Reinvestment Act
, Emission, Fuel Economy, Stimulus Bill
March 30, 2009
Successfully Restructuring Auto Industry Isn't Something That's Entirely Up to Detroit
There's an old Caribbean folksong in which a son calls his father's effort to explain the birds and bees "as clear as mud, but it covered the ground."
That pretty much describes the Obama administration's early direction to General Motors and Chrysler as it rejected the automakers' initial restructuring plans this morning and said they'd be given financial support for a limited period to come up with better plans.
In both cases, the President said in his televised address on the auto industry restructuring this morning, that means a plan to be economically viable while building and selling "the fuel efficient cars and trucks that will carry us to an energy independent future."
America's automakers, Obama said, should "lead the world in manufacturing the next generation of clean cars."
He covered the necessary ground, but without much clarity in terms of just how those goals are to be achieved. That's to be left it up to the automakers and the administration's auto industry restructuring team.
Continue reading...
- Posted by
- Permalink | Comments (5)
- John O'Dell March 30, 2009, 9:11 AM
- Categories:
- Chevrolet, Chrysler, Emissions, Fuel Economy, Fuels & Technologies, General Motors, Opinion
- Technorati Tags:
- Auto Industry Recovery
, Fuel Efficiency, Green Cars
March 18, 2009
Few motorists would dispute the National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission's claim that the cost of traffic congestion - in wasted time, wasted fuel and vehicle wear and tear - is tremendous.
The commission estimates the cost at more than $78 billion annually and Chairman Robert D. Atkinson on Tuesday told members of the House Budget Committee that it is getting worse.
The federal Highway Trust Fund's average annual revenue is falling woefully short of the $100 billion needed to keep pace with repairs and increasing traffic, he said.
Atkinson's testimony summarized findings in the Feb. 26 transportation funding commission report that bluntly stated: "The federal Highway Trust Fund faces a near-term insolvency crisis, exacerbated by recent reductions in federal motor fuel tax revenues and truck-related user fee receipts."
But we disagree, as we have in the past, with the commission's proposed solution to funding decline - a so-called vehicle mileage tax, or VMT, that would have motorists pay per mile driven.
The federal funding formula historically has relied upon taxes imposed on petroleum-derived fuels, and, by contributing mightily to the cost of gasoline and diesel fuel, those taxes provided an incentive for people to demand fuel-efficient vehicles.
A straight miles-traveled tax that replaces fuel taxes could kill consumer demand for green vehicles: the driver of a Hummer would pay the same as the driver of a Prius to travel from, say, Boston to New York.
Continue reading...
- Posted by
- Permalink | Comments (1)
- John O'Dell March 18, 2009, 3:56 PM
- Categories:
- Legislation, Opinion, Tax Incentives
- Technorati Tags:
- Federal Fuel Taxes
, Highway Trust Fund, Pay Per Mile Tax, Vehicle Mileage Tax
March 12, 2009
The issue of "patchwork" regulation comes up in every discussion of the controversial California plan to impose its own greenhouse gas emission regulations on automakers.
We've disagreed with the auto industry's stance since the beginning, arguing that so many states representing so much of the auto market use California's air quality standards instead of the federal regs that the state's greenhouse gas rules would become a defacto national standard anyhow.
Now comes Walter McManus, director of the automotive analysis division at the University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute, to argue that, heck, the auto industry already operates its own patchwork quilt of state-by-state market mixes and sales strategies.
Why would it be any more difficult to mix and match vehicle offerings to meet individual state's GHG goals than to meet the industry's own marketing goals for each state, he asks.
Although now an academic, McManus hasn't always lived in an ivory tower.
For nine years, during the height of the buildup to SUV and big-pickup madness, he was an economist for General Motors Corp, helping devise the company's sales strategies and forecasts and researching advanced technologies.
He knows whereof he speaks.
In his commentary this week, McManus says that while they argue that federal approval of California's effort to impose its own rules would create harm by requiring them to shift product mix from state-to-state, "shifting product mix (or managing demand to match supply) is one of the key reasons the automakers have geographically based sales strategies.
"With or without a nationwide standard" for greenhouse gas emissions, he writes, " the automakers will continue to use (at least) 50 different sales and promotion strategies. The point is that now they use that strategy to promote and sell large fuel inefficient vehicles."
Continue reading...
- Posted by
- Permalink | Comments (2)
- John O'Dell March 12, 2009, 3:00 AM
- Categories:
- Emissions, Fuel Economy, Legislation, Opinion
- Technorati Tags:
- Califoria Greenhouse Gas Standards
, Pavley Standards
March 9, 2009
Every once in a while a tidbit comes across the news wires that makes us shake our heads in wonder.
Such was a news item disseminated Friday by Dow Jones' MarketWatch, reporting from the Wall Street Journal's ECO:nomics conference in Santa Barbara.
The report said that AutoNation Chief Executive Mike Jackson, bemoaning American consumers' renewed loyalty to big, thirsty trucks, SUVs, large cars and muscle cars now that gas prices have fallen into $2-a-gallon territory in much of the country, said his company has a huge inventory of unsold hybrids "that nobody wants."
How many's that, you ask?
According to the report, Jackson said it was 600,000!
Rather amazing when you consider that since the very first two-seat Honda Insight hit these shores in December of 1999, the total number of hybrids sold, by all manufacturers, has just topped 1.3 million.
Toyota's Prius, the most popular model by far, accounts for 675,000 of that total.
Did He Really Say That?
Jackson was pounding the pulpit, as he has been for some time, in favor of a gas tax hike to help spur demand for more fuel-efficient vehicles that will help wean the nation from its imported oil habit when, the report said, he started bemoaning the pileup of hybrids at AutoNation's 250-or-so dealerships across the country.
Then the bomb: There are "way too many Toyota Prius hybrids sitting on his car lots across America," the report said of Jackson's AutoNation.
Jackson (right)
told the audience, according to the report, that those unsold Priuses stretch "as far as the eye can see" and he then "estimated he had some 600,000 hybrid cars 'that no one wants.'"
We could understand if he was quoted saying there are 600,000 cars out there that nobody wants, given the state of the economy these days.
But to say that AutoNation alone had 600,000 unsold hybrids?
That's more than 2,000 per lot and it seemed to us that somebody was off just a little bit, or there was one heck of a news story hiding out there in AutoNation's dealerships.
Tracking Down the Story
We didn't hear what Jackson actually had to say because we weren't invited to attend and report on the WSJ event, so we sent an e-mail to Jackson's chief spokesman, Marc Cannon, seeking enlightenment.
Did Jackson really say that, we asked. Or was he misquoted?
And if he did say it, was he exaggerating for the sake of drama or does AutoNation really have an inventory equal to half of all hybrids ever sold stacked up on its lots?
Continue reading...
- Posted by
- Permalink | Comments (1)
- John O'Dell March 9, 2009, 3:00 AM
- Categories:
- Hybrid, Opinion
- Technorati Tags:
- AutoNation
, Hybrid Sales, Toyota Prius
March 3, 2009
The Devil's in the Dollars With '09 Chevy Silverado and GMC Sierra Dual-Mode Hybrids
GM's hybrid pickups can tow and turn in good mileage -- for trucks -- but cost thousands more than conventional models.
(Note: Please see updated cost-comparison information, here.)
By Josh Sadlier, Associate Editor
There's something undeniably impressive about a 5,341-pound pickup that can accelerate to 29 mph solely on electric power. That's just one of the neat tricks packed into GM's new-for-2009 two-mode hybrid trucks, the Chevrolet Silverado 1500 Hybrid and the GMC Sierra 1500 Hybrid.
Equally impressive are EPA fuel-economy estimates of 21 miles per gallon in the city, 22 on the highway and 21 mpg combined for the two-wheel-drive models, a 4-6-mpg improvement over their conventionally powered GM brethren and an unprecedented achievement for full-size trucks.
That's the good news.
The bad news is the bottom line. These crew-cab-only hybrids start at $38,000 and change, although a $2,200 federal tax credit will help -- a little.
Big Price Spread
Their closest non-hybrid relative, the Silverado 1500 Crew Cab LT with a 4.8-liter V8, goes for just over $31,000, and if you miss the hybrids' standard dual-zone climate control and Bluetooth, they can be added to the LT for a pittance.
In other words, unless gas prices get really high and stay there, there's no economic argument to be made in the hybrid trucks' favor.
The $7,000 price difference (before tax credits) would take 12.5 years to earn back if gas stayed at $2 a gallon, and 7.8 years to recoup with gas at $4 a gallon. Payback periods for trucks purchased with the hybrid tax credit would be 8.6 years with $2.50-a-gallon gas and 5.4 years with gas at $4 a gallon.
What's more, the conventional LT's 10,600-pound towing capacity dwarfs the hybrids' 6,100-pound rating.
Dull Interior
You can't argue that the hybrids are more pleasant inside, either, unless you're talking about the absence of engine noise in electric mode.
Continue reading...
- Posted by
- Permalink | Comments (5)
- John O'Dell March 3, 2009, 5:01 AM
- Categories:
- Chevrolet, Fuel Economy, General Motors, Hybrid, Opinion
- Technorati Tags:
- 2009 GMC Sierra
, 2009 Silverado, GM Hybrid Pickups
January 28, 2009
When the neighboring Port of Los Angeles and Port of Long Beach in Southern California finally decided that it was time to stop poisoning the air with clouds of soot from the hundreds of aging diesel trucks that haul freight to and from the docks all day, there was a lot of screaming.
----------
Trucks line up to go to work at Southern California ports.
----------
The ports' plan to require trucking firms to use new trucks fueled with natural gas or modern clean diesel was unfair, placed a tremendous financial burden on the trucking firms and would never work, opponents said.
But the ports - the busiest in the nation - held firm, put their policy into play and offered to help with a $20,000 per truck incentive for trucking operations that bought the clean rigs.
Well, not only did it work, it is working too well.
The Los Angeles Times reported this week that the ports, which expected to have to subsidize about 1,000 trucks, have received bills from trucking firms for more than 2,200 trucks in the first three months of the program and expect to be hit for subsidies for as many as 7,500 this year. More tan 100 trucking companies have ordered new rigs under the program.
That's tough, because the ports' incentive fund has run out of money, the state is too broke to ante up any more and under the previous administration the federal government had refused additional funding as well.
The ports have had to dig into their own diminishing operating budgets for $44 million to help cover the initial 2,200 subsidies.
One trucking company operator interviewed by the newspaper said that he's ordered more than $15 million worth of new clean-emissions trucks, at an average of $130,000 each, and is counting on the subsidies to help pay for them.
"It's like no good deed goes unpunished," Total Transportation Services owner Vic La Rosa told the Times.
Continue reading...
- Posted by
- Permalink | Comments (1)
- John O'Dell January 28, 2009, 3:00 AM
- Categories:
- Diesel, Emissions, Opinion
- Technorati Tags:
- California Ports Clean Trucks Program
, Clean Diesel, Port of Long Beach, Port of Los Angeles
January 23, 2009
Although we see CAFE - the federal minimum average fuel economy standard - as a necessary evil to control automakers' natural tendency to build 'em to be faster rather than fuel efficient, we'd rather see government using its powers to craft measures that would push consumers to demand fuel sippers instead of horsepower hogs.
If that means gas taxes or fuel economy-based registration fees, so be it.
But telling the auto industry that it has to meet ever-increasing fuel economy averages regardless of what the market wants is the political version of ordering high-rises to be built of wet sand.
We bring this up because in his confirmation hearing this week, Ray LaHood, the former Illinois GOP congressman who was picked by President Obama to serve as Secretary of Transportation, told the Senate Commerce Committee that Obama won't "have to push me very hard" to get DOT to increase CAFE standards beyond the 35 mpg level approved by Congress in 2007.
LaHood made the comment as he was promising the committee he'd do all he could to get the first fuel economy rules in place by April 1, the deadline for implementing the initial phase of the new CAFE standards for the 2011 model year.
As part of the '07 Corporate Average Fuel Economy legislation, automakers are supposed to improve average fuel economy by 25 percent between the 2011 and 2015 model years, with the rest of the increase to 35 miles per gallon to come by the 2020 model year.
You'd think American car and truck buyers, having been stung by $4-a-gallon gas last summer and being told by many analysts to expect it to happen again and again going forward, would run screaming from the room if anyone tried to sell them a vehicle that didn't get great mileage.
Continue reading...
- Posted by
- Permalink | Comments (5)
- John O'Dell January 23, 2009, 3:44 PM
- Categories:
- Fuel Economy, Legislation, Opinion
- Technorati Tags:
- CAFE Standards
, Fuel Economy, Ray LaHood, Secretary of Transportation
January 15, 2009
By Scott Doggett, Contributor
In an impressive display of boneheaded thinking, Oregon Governor Ted Kulongoski is hankering to replace the state's gasoline tax with a tax based on miles driven.
Kulongoski wants motorists in the Beaver State to pay 1.2 cents for every mile they drive regardless of whether their rides chug gasoline and spew rivers of greenhouse gas, or run on electricity supplied by happy hamsters spinning wheel-generators.
Under his plan the owner of a 48-mile-per-gallon Toyota Prius would pay the same $1.20 for a 100-mile trip that consumed just a tad over two gallons of gasoline as would the owner of a 15-miles-per-gallon Jeep Grand Cherokee that sucked down almost seven gallons of fuel.
Don't laugh. Officials in North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, Georgia, Colorado and Minnesota are of like mind, as are members of the federal commission tasked with financing the nation's transportation infrastructure.
The reason: Gas taxes used to maintain roads and bridges are shrinking as fuel-sipping cars and trucks are increasingly replacing vehicles with ruinous drinking habits. And motorists who once thought nothing of driving to the Kwik-E-Mart every time an urge for Chunky Monkey arose are giving their wasteful ways second thought.
Together, these actions lowered gasoline consumption and its resultant tax revenues a full 10 percent last year.
In turn, the drop in tax revenues has prodded Kulongoski and others to consider raising the gas tax or to develop other revenue streams, lest they find themselves up to their necks in potholes with no money to fix them. With gas consumption expected to continue its retreat, Kulongoski et al believe it's time to chuck the gas tax and come up with a brand-new, mileage-related tax.
As Adrian Moore, a member of the federal infrastructure commission, succinctly put it the other day, "the gas tax is broken, so any increase in the gas tax is just a Band-Aid."
But a mileage tax?
Continue reading...
- Posted by
- Permalink | Comments (5)
- Scott Doggett January 15, 2009, 2:01 AM
- Categories:
- Emissions, Fuel Economy, Legislation, Opinion, Tax Incentives
- Technorati Tags:
- Emissions
, Fuel Economy, Fuel Efficient, Gas Tax, Gasoline Tax, Global Warming, Greenhouse Gas, Incentive, Mileage Tax
January 5, 2009
As concerns about global warming, energy independence and plain old traffic congestion grow and the automobile continues to be demonized, it seems that we are, as usual, approaching possible solutions to our problems in a posterior-backwards manner.
----------
San Francisco authorities want to reduce traffic pouring into downtown on weekdays.
----------
What kicks off this cogitation is the recent proposal by officials in San Francisco to introduce congestion pricing to attempt to reduce greenhouse gases and time wasted sitting in traffic jams by reducing the number of cars that cram into the downtown area on weekdays and make the city the second-most congested in the nation.
There's nothing inherently wrong with requiring motorists to pay for the privilege of bringing their vehicles into intensely crowded city centers - it is being done all over Europe.
But in Europe, one can get to those same city centers quite easily without a private car: Most countries have decent-to-superlative mass transit systems, both inter- and intra-city.
That's not the case in the U.S., and as we hear and review more and more pitches for ways to get Americans to abandon their cars, at least for a portion of the time most now spend in them, it's become clear that for any such scheme to work, we must first provide public transit alternatives.
San Francisco is one of the relatively few cities in the U.S. in which it is easy to get from point A to point B without a car. More important, people can get into San Francisco from outside the city via mass transit.
It might work there - leaving aside the impact on people's pocketbooks.
But try getting around - or into and out of - Los Angeles or a host of other large metropolitan areas that did most of their growing after 1900. By plan or happenstance, most ended up being developed to serve a populace enamored of the private automobile and public transit, such as it is, is spotty at best.
Continue reading...
- Posted by
- Permalink | Comments (0)
- John O'Dell January 5, 2009, 3:00 AM
- Categories:
- Emissions, Mass Transit, Opinion, Transportation Alternatives
- Technorati Tags:
- San Fransisco Proposes Congestion Pricing
December 30, 2008
Automotive News ranks the maiden journey of the Detroit Big Three CEOs to Washington to beg for bailout funds as second on its list of the 10 top automotive blunders of the year.
But Fortune magazine, even though surveying things with a bit more detachment, puts that ill-fated trip at No. 1 on its list of the year's top blunders in all business segments.
We tend to agree with Fortune, which calls its list the "dumbest moments" review.
Having to go hat-in-hand to D.C. to ask Congress for help was bad enough, but to fly there in private corporate jets and then to have the gall to complain that you are running out of money - well, it takes a stunning degree of political and public relations naiveté to do that.
There are, of course, valid arguments for sending your top dogs out on private jets. They can work undisturbed while in the air, get to where they are going in the minimum amount of time, arrive fresh and clear-headed and ready to go to bat for the company, and get home and back to the grind without having to loiter at the airport for hours waiting for a scheduled commercial flight.
But if they had to fly, for Pete's sake, couldn't they at least have jet-pooled? Did no one in their PR departments warn them, or are they so full of themselves they just couldn't see how insufferably pompous they looked?
(If you are wondering, for its top automotive industry blunder, Automotive News picked the fact that GM and Chrysler waited until they were nearly out of cash before seeking federal aid. We think that was probably a wise move - it would have been difficult to persuade Congress to act while there still was money in the bank.)
Fortune wasn't satisfied with lambasting GM's Rick Wagoner, Chrysler's Bob Nardelli and Ford's Alan Mulally for flying to D.C. to seek an auto industry bailout.
For its second-dumbest business blunder of the year, it again picked on the automakers-in-chief, this time for choosing to use their companies' hybrid cars for cross-country drives to D.C. on their second, and ultimately successful, trip to implore Congress for a financial rescue.
That ranking we don't agree with.
It seems that Fortune's gripe is that Chrysler's Nardelli made the drive in one of the company's Dodge Aspen two-mode hybrids, a car that had just been ordered dropped from the company's 2009 lineup.
We think the three should have drawn straws and carpooled in the hybrid from the company run by the guy with the short straw, but we don't think that the trip rates as the second-dumbest move made in the business world last year.
Not even close.
- Posted by
- Permalink | Comments (6)
- John O'Dell December 30, 2008, 1:39 PM
- Categories:
- Chrysler, Ford, General Motors, Opinion
- Technorati Tags:
- Auto Industry Bailout
, Top Auto Industry Blunders, Top Business Blunders
December 15, 2008
Depending on how you chose to look at it, California's air regulators have struck -- or triumphed -- again.
We're going with "triumph."
----------
Aerodynamic, fuel-efficient, clean diesel trucks will someday be the norm on California highways.
----------
Just one day after giving the green light to the nation's toughest greenhouse gas emissions limits, the California Air Resources Board late Friday approved the nation's strictest regulations on emissions from diesel big-rigs.
The short version: Older, dirtier diesel engines will gradually be phased out starting in 2012, so that by 2023 every diesel truck operating in California -- whether the 400,000 registered in the state or the estimated 500,000 that traveling in from other states -- will have to have engines no older than the 2010 model year.
Starting a year earlier, in 2011, trucks also will have to be fitted with the newest diesel emissions filters to slash emissions of smog-causing and toxic pollutants.
Trucks and trailers also will have to be shod in low-rolling-resistance tires and sport aerodynamic bodywork to help them slip through the air with less resistance, improving their fuel-efficiency and cutting down on their greenhouse gas emissions.
Continue reading...
- Posted by
- Permalink | Comments (3)
- John O'Dell December 15, 2008, 3:00 AM
- Categories:
- Diesel, Emissions, Fuel Economy, Legislation, Opinion
- Technorati Tags:
- California Air resourcesboard
, California Diesel Truck Regulations, Diesel Exhaust
November 14, 2008
In an editorial posted today
, Automotive News
(subscription required) reports than Congress should consider the cost of a General Motors failure if it thinks a bailout of the troubled automaker is expensive.
Let's be clear, the publication states: The alternative to government cash for GM is not a dreamy Chapter 11 filing, a reorganization that puts dealers and autoworkers in their place, ensuring future success.
No, even if GM could get debtor-in-possession financing to keep the lights on (which it can't), Chapter 11 means a collapse of sales and a spiral into a Chapter 7 liquidation.
GM's 100,000 American jobs will die, Automotive News states. Health care for a million Americans will be lost or at risk. Hundreds of GM's 1,300 suppliers will die. Their collapse could take down Ford Motor Co. and Chrysler LLC, perhaps even North American transplants. Dealers in every county of America will close.
The government will face greater unemployment, more Americans without health insurance and greater pension liabilities.
Criticize Detroit 3 executives all you want, the publication states, but the issue today is not whether GM should have closed Buick years ago, been tougher with the UAW or supported higher fuel economy standards.
In the next two to four months, GM will run out of cash and turn out the lights. Only government money can prevent that. Every other alternative is fantasy.
The editorial states that "Ford, which borrowed big two years ago and thus has more cash today, may skip a bailout and the strings attached. Cerberus, which bought Chrysler last year, doesn't deserve money. Government cash might help sell Chrysler to a strategic owner."
A few paragraphs down the editorial concludes: "The stark fact remains: Absent a bailout, GM dies, and with it much of manufacturing in America. Congress needs to do the right thing--now.
- Posted by
- Permalink | Comments (2)
- Scott Doggett November 14, 2008, 10:56 AM
- Categories:
- Chrysler, Emissions, Ford, Fuel Economy, General Motors, Legislation, Opinion
- Technorati Tags:
- Auto Industry Bailout
, Automotive News, Chrysler, Congress, Ford, Fuel Economy, Fuel Efficiency, General Motors, GM
November 12, 2008
It's easy to forget amid the chatter surrounding General Motors' probable bailout that its forthcoming star car--the Chevy Volt--has already been granted subsidies from American taxpayers.
That would be the $7,500 tax handout every American Volt buyer will receive, assuming GM survives long enough to sell the much-hyped plug-in hybrid to American taxpayers.
Another subsidy is in the works, in the form of a mileage rating of 100 mpg that would allow GM to make and sell that many more low-mileage vehicles under the fleet-average mileage rules, the Wall Street Journal reminds in an opinion piece published today (subscription required).
Even as GM teeters toward bankruptcy and wheedles for billions in public aid, the Volt continues to absorb a big chunk of the company's product development budget.
This is a car that, by GM's own admission, won't make money, the Journal notes. It's a $40,000 car that will be unsalable without multiple handouts from government.
GM Vice Chairman Bob Lutz (pictured with Volt) has said it a thousand time if he said it once that Volt owners won't ever have to use the vehicle's small gas generator to recharge the battery powering the car's electric drivetrain if the car is recharged every 40 miles or less.
But as the Journal reports, hardly mentioned is the fact that gasoline goes bad after a few months. So if the Volt is used as intended, for daily trips of 40 miles or less, its tank will have to be drained periodically and the gas disposed of.
- Posted by
- Permalink | Comments (2)
- Scott Doggett November 12, 2008, 12:09 AM
- Categories:
- Chevrolet, Emissions, Fuel Economy, General Motors, Hybrid, Legislation, Opinion, Plug-ins and Electric
- Technorati Tags:
- Bob Lutz
, Chevrolet Volt, General Motors, GM
November 10, 2008
We're about green, but also about cars and the joys (when it isn't rush hour) of driving, and we have to admit that we were not among those who greeted the 55 mph national speed limit with open arms when it was initially adopted in 1974.
So we're not dismayed with word that the Government Accountability Office, in a new report, says that renewing the artificially low limit would mean only "modest" fuel savings.
That's largely because, the GAO reports - borrowing on lessons learned in the 1970s and '80s - that "reducing the speed limit does not necessarily mean that drivers will comply."
A report in 1975 found that in about half the states the number of drivers violating the 55 mpg speed limit far exceeded the numbers adhering to it.
The limit was modified in 1987 to allow speeds of 65 mph on rural interstate highways, and it was repealed in 1995.
The new report was prepared in response to a query by outgoing Sen. John Warner, a Virginia Republican, who is fond of citing Department of Energy estimated that a national 55 mph speed limit would save from 175,000 to 275,000 barrels of oil a day.
Indeed, driving slower does save fuel as wind resistance - or drag - increases dramatically with speed.
But once again creating a nation of frustrated highway scofflaws is hardly worth the savings.
We consume about 21 million barrels of oil per day, so the savings projected by the DOE would be in the range of 0.8 to 1.3 percent.
Granted, every little bit helps. But plowing federal funds into development of plug-in hybrids, battery- and hydrogen fuel-cell electric vehicles and other modes of personal transport propulsion that won't consume petroleum and would still enable us to move about would be a better use of government time and energy.
In its response to Warner, the GAO seems to agree, commenting that oil conservation could better be served by other options.
"The speed limit is only one tool among many for potentially conserving fuel," the report says. "Certain realities, such as congestion on our nation's roads, how people drive and maintain their vehicles, and emerging technologies, are other potential considerations as the nation looks for options to conserve fuel."
John O'Dell, Senior Editor
- Posted by
- Permalink | Comments (6)
- John O'Dell November 10, 2008, 4:03 PM
- Categories:
- Fuel Economy, Opinion
- Technorati Tags:
- 55 MPH speed limit
November 7, 2008
By Scott Doggett, Contributor
In Washington's infinite wisdom, the tax incentives that have bolstered U.S. sales of the most fuel-efficient hybrids are gone or soon will be at a time when experts agree the vehicles could play an important role in reducing America's addiction to foreign oil and in stopping global warming.
----------
Honda's 42-mpg 2008 Civic Hybrid; its tax break ends next month.
----------
Tax incentives tied to Toyota's 2005-2008 model-year Prius, which gets a phenomenal EPA-rated 48 miles per gallon in the city, 45 mpg on the highway and 46 combined, expired in October 2007.
That same month saw the tax credit for the 2007-2008 Toyota Camry Hybrid vanish, despite the fact that model gets an EPA-rated 34 mpg combined.
And soon we'll witness another mystery: In the final minutes of next month, as people around the world usher out the old year and celebrate the new, the U.S. tax incentive for the 2006-2008 Honda Civic Hybrid (42 mpg combined!) will dissolve at the stroke of midnight.
But the strangeness won't end there.
Beginning next spring, Honda will offer a hybrid achieving a claimed 60 mpg. What tax break will Uncle Sam provide buyers of this gas-sipper, the 2010 Honda Insight? None whatsoever.
None, as in the 2,200 fewer taxpayer dollars than he's offering buyers of the 2008 Chevrolet Tahoe Hybrid right now, despite the fact that big ol' honkin' SUV achieves only 21 mpg combined.
Continue reading...
- Posted by
- Permalink | Comments (3)
- Scott Doggett November 7, 2008, 3:01 AM
- Categories:
- Alternative Fuels, Chevrolet, Emissions, Ford, Fuel Economy, General Motors, Honda, Hybrid, Legislation, Mazda, Mercedes-Benz, Mercury, Nissan, Opinion, Saturn, Tax Incentives, Toyota
- Technorati Tags:
- 2007-08 Nissan Altima Hybrid
, 2007-08 Saturn Aura Green Line, 2007-2008 Toyota Camry Hybrid, 2008 Chevrolet Malibu Hybrid, 2008 Ford Escape Hybrid, 2008 GMC Yukon 1500 Hybrid, 2008 Honda Civic Hybrid, 2008 Mazda Tribute Hybrid, 2008 Mercury Mariner Hybrid, 2008 Saturn Vue Green Line, 2009 Ford Escape Hybrid, 2010 Honda Insight, Fuel Economy, Fuel Efficient, Tax Break, Tax Credit, Tax Incentives
November 5, 2008
Perhaps with all the talk we've been hearing lately pitting the middle class against the upper class -- the 95 percent against the 5 percent -- a ballot initiative bankrolled by a Texas billionaire didn't have a snowball's chance in Houston Tuesday.
Or perhaps all the recent talk of the economy taking a flying leap into Great Depression Land got voters to focus on the bottom line, which in this case said: "Fiscal Impact: State cost of about $10 billion over 30 years to repay bonds."
Whatever it was, millions of Californians went to the polls Tuesday and an overwhelming majority of them voted no on a statewide ballot initiative that would have benefited very few of them while throwing a tremendous amount of money behind an automotive fuel that isn't particularly green and would have made T. Boone Pickens even more filthy rich than the 80-year-old oil tycoon already is.
With 85.2 percent of the precincts reporting at the time this was typed, 60.2 percent of the voters voted against Proposition 10 while 39.8 percent in favor of it.
This lopsided defeat occurred despite the fact that Pickens and others -- all with very deep pockets who stood to gain handsomely had the natural-gas initiative passed -- spent at least $23 million backing it, in large part with television commercials that flooded living rooms throughout the state in recent weeks.
Conversely, Prop 10's opposition, cleverly named the No On Prop 10 campaign, raised so little money that it wasn't able to pay for a single TV commercial. The No people were outspent 179.9 dollars to 1. And still they prevailed?!
Continue reading...
- Posted by
- Permalink | Comments (0)
- Scott Doggett November 5, 2008, 2:40 AM
- Categories:
- Alternative Fuels, Emissions, Energy Companies, Fuel Economy, Legislation, Natural Gas, Opinion
- Technorati Tags:
- Alternative Fuel
, California Ballot, Natural Gas, Proposition 10, T. Boone Pickens
November 2, 2008
By Scott Doggett, Contributor
You can't always get what you want, but if you've got a big pot of money and a sweet-sounding environmental pitch, chances are you can get a proposition on a state ballot. In California, anyway.
And if there's enough money left in the pot to pay for volleys of TV ads after you've paid the people who gathered the signatures needed to put the proposition on the ballot, odds are it will become state law. In California, anyway.
And, because California is such a trendsetting state, if your proposition becomes law there, it stands a good chance of becoming law in other states as well.
Oil tycoon T. Boone Pickens knows this. It's why the Texas billionaire is bankrolling a proposition -- one that ostensibly would advance renewable energy and alternative fuels -- on California's November 4 general election ballot.
In truth, what it advances most is Picken's fortune -- while costing the state's taxpayers $10 billion.
To give you an idea of how little California can afford Pickens' proposition, consider that officials in Sacramento are expected to announce this coming week that the state's budget deficit has reached at least $10 billion.
The budget crisis is why Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger wrote to Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson last month informing him that "California may need to turn to the Federal Treasury for short-term financing." A bailout, in other words.
At a time when the locomotive that drives America's economic train can least afford it, Pickens' initiative would nearly double California's deficit.
And despite the crushing cost the proposition would levy on all of the state's taxpayers, the ballot measure would benefit very few while throwing a tremendous amount of money behind an automotive fuel that isn't very green compared to other alternative fuels that could benefit from that kind of spending.
Continue reading...
- Posted by
- Permalink | Comments (3)
- Scott Doggett November 2, 2008, 10:46 AM
- Categories:
- Alternative Fuels, Coal, Diesel, Emissions, Energy Companies, Fuel Economy, Honda, Legislation, Natural Gas, Oil, Opinion, Plug-ins and Electric, Solar, Surveys, Tax Incentives
- Technorati Tags:
- 2008 Honda Civic GX
, 2009 Honda Civic GX, Alternative Fuel, Arnold Schwarzenegger, California General Election, Carbon Dioxide, Climate Change, Diesel, Emissions, Fuel Economy, Fuel Efficiency, Greenhouse Gas, Natural Gas, Oil, Poll, Proposition 10, Solar Energy, Survey, T. Boone Pickens, Tax Incentives, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, Wind Energy
October 31, 2008
We just can't help but be amazed, over and over again, at how the Web has no memory. Everything that happens now is new and never happened before.
We bring this up because there's been a flurry of postings about Hyundai's top executive remarking the other day that the company plans to begin selling a fuel-cell electric car in 2012.
That sounded familiar so we went back through the archives and there, on March 25, 2008, was an item in Green Car Advisor
titled "Hyundai Wants Piece of Expanding Hybrid Market."
----------
Hyundai has been working on fuel cell vehicles for years and thinks they can go commercial as early as 2012.
----------It started out talking about how the South Korean automaker was planning to launch its first mass-market hybrid in 2009 in South Korea, then followed in the third paragraph with this: "A fuel-cell electric vehicle is expected in 2012, the company said."
We don't mean to toot our own horn, others had the same report back then. In fact, Hyundai had said as early as 2006 that it wanted to do a commercial fuel cell vehicle in 2012. But our sense of what ought to be headline and what ought to be footnote gets ruffled when we see the same headlines being recycled as fresh news.
Reminds us of the old Saturday Night Live skit in which comedian Chevy Chase, playing the show's news anchor, would solemnly announce week after week in tones usually reserved for outbreaks of war or pestilence that: "This breaking new just in: Generalissimo Francisco Franco is still dead."
In the real world, the Spanish dictator died in 1975, SNL's first year on the air, after a lingering illness. Chase was riffing on network news programs' efforts to keep the story going during Franco's illness by regularly reporting that he hadn't died yet. Chase kept the gag alive on SNL for nearly two years after Franco's death.
Our take on Hyundai Chairman Mong-Koo Chung's comments is that the news should have been "Wow, even in the midst of a global economic slump that threatens to last for years, Hyundai still sees possibilities in fuel cell vehicles and is willing to continue spending money developing them."
That, we think, is the real story.
Continue reading...
- Posted by
- Permalink | Comments (0)
- John O'Dell October 31, 2008, 5:02 AM
- Categories:
- Fuel Cell, Fuels & Technologies, Hyundai, Opinion
- Technorati Tags:
- Fuel Cell
, Hyundai, Hyundai Fuel Cell Vehicle
October 29, 2008
Ethanol producers' profits are withering
like a thirsty cornfield on a 100-degree August day and it looks as if there's a push to persuade
friendly members of Congress to ante up some bailout bucks for an industry already awash in subsidies.
----------
Using corn for fuel is being challenged by many.
----------
So it can't come as good news to all those red-state corn growers and ethanol producers that a major conservative think tank, the
Competitive Enterprise Institute
, has just come out in favor of killing the federal government's mandate that U.S. production of ethanol for transportation fuels double to 8 billion gallons a year in 2012 from 4 billion gallons in 2006.
The institute issued a report today maintaining - as have many others on both side of the political divide - that demand for corn-based ethanol has resulted in "radically higher food prices and a massive loss of forests and grasslands."
Continue reading...
- Posted by
- Permalink | Comments (1)
- John O'Dell October 29, 2008, 4:10 PM
- Categories:
- Biofuels, Ethanol, Opinion
- Technorati Tags:
- Competitive Enterprise Institute
, Corn Ethanol, Ethanol Impact on Food
October 10, 2008
The ongoing economic crunch may accomplish for alternative fuels what an ambivalent marketplace and bipolar political system haven't been able to do: Thin the herd and get everyone working toward the same goal.
So far, automakers and fuel and energy companies have been wandering all over the place in the search for replacements for crude oil and improvements in vehicle fuel economy.
Some favor a particular approach - Toyota Motor Co. and hybrids, for example.
Others, like General Motors Corp., sample everything, spending part of their R&D budgets on fuels like ethanol, part on hydrogen, a little bit on improvements to the gasoline engine and the rest on battery-electric vehicles.
But with an already cash-strapped auto industry staring at double-digit declines in annual new-vehicle sales for the next few years, money for ongoing projects is going to be harder to find than a tree-hugger at a McPalin rally.
Alex Molinaroli, head of Johnson Controls' hybrid battery unit, is one of a growing number of industry watchers who believe that automakers are soon going to have to exert some discipline, pick a technology for long-term alternative fuel and powertrain solutions, and stick with it.
Continue reading...
- Posted by
- Permalink | Comments (1)
- John O'Dell October 10, 2008, 3:01 AM
- Categories:
- Alternative Fuels, Batteries, Fuel Cell, Fuels & Technologies, Hybrid, Opinion, Plug-ins and Electric
- Technorati Tags:
- Electric Vehicles
, Fuel Cell, Transportation Future
October 3, 2008
In case you've been in a deep, dank cave with no wireless connection for the past few hours, the news du jour
is that the House has approved the Wall Street rescue measure that includes the original $700-billion in bail-out bucks plus wads of cash for renewable energy, biofuels and energy-efficiency programs.
The $17 billion energy package also includes a plug-in hybrids tax credit plan
with an estimated price tag of $1 billion. It won't expire until the auto industry has, collectively, sold 250,000 plug-in cars and trucks that run at least part of the time on all-electric drive from energy stored in rechargeable, on-board batteries.
While none of the major automakers has yet to offer a plug-in, just about all (Honda Motor Co. is a notable exception) are working on them, with General Motor Corp.'s Chevrolet Volt perhaps the best known of the bunch.
Reporters walking the floor of the Paris Auto Show this week, however, are seeing a lot more as European car makers seem to have embraced the idea
of electric cars and gas- and diesel-electric hybrids with a fervor usually associated with revival meeting preachers.
Continue reading...
- Posted by
- Permalink | Comments (0)
- John O'Dell October 3, 2008, 12:47 PM
- Categories:
- Chevrolet, Fuels & Technologies, General Motors, Green Vehicles, Honda, Legislation, Mercedes-Benz, Mitsubishi, Nissan, Opinion, Plug-ins and Electric, Renault, Smart, Subaru, Tata, Toyota
September 18, 2008
Concerned that Congress could adjourn for the rest of year without acting on a loan guarantee program, top executives for the three domestic automakers have stepped up their lobbying in Washington in the week before the closing gavel is scheduled to bang down on the '08 legislative session.
They are asking Congress to fund the full $25 billion auto industry loan guarantee program that was approved last year. Doing so would make it relatively easy for the car companies to obtain loans at 4-6 percent interest rather than at the double-digit interest rates ther shakey credit standings would otherwise justify.
GM Chairman and CEO Rick Wagoner made a solo appearance last week before the Senate Energy Committee to ask for the funding.
On Wednesday, though, he was joined by Alan Mullaly, his counterpart at Ford Motor Co., and Robert Nardelli, chairman and chief executive of Chrysler, in a meeting with Democrats in the House and Senate.
The loan package has been backed by both parties in Congress and is now endorsed by both Presidential candidates.
Continue reading...
- Posted by
- Permalink | Comments (1)
- John O'Dell September 18, 2008, 12:24 PM
- Categories:
- Chrysler, Ford, General Motors, Legislation, Opinion
- Technorati Tags:
- Auto Industry Bailout
, Auto Industry Loans
September 11, 2008
In an event that gives off all kinds of mixed signals, the federal Department of Energy this week dedicated a solar energy system atop its headquarters.
The building is a few blocks from the Capitol, where Congress has failed eight times this year to pass an extension of the federal investment tax credit program that has helped subsidize the nation's nascent solar and wind energy businesses.
While Democrats generally back the stalled solar industry investment tax credit extension, congressional Republicans have been blocking it and the Republican in the White house, while favoring alternative energy in speech after speech, has failed to nudge his party to move on the issue.
Meantime, the Energy Department, whose top administrator is appointed by the president, is boasting this week that the sun now will be providing about 20 percent of the power needed to run its headquarters complex.
Continue reading...
- Posted by
- Permalink | Comments (0)
- John O'Dell September 11, 2008, 2:45 AM
- Categories:
- Alternative Fuels, Legislation, Opinion, Solar, Tax Incentives
- Technorati Tags:
- Solar Energy
, Solar Tax Credit Stalled
September 9, 2008
By John O'Dell, Senior Editor
As has been noted here and in our longterm vehicles blog, Edmunds' 2007 Honda Civic GX doesn't generate a lot of news. It's a competent daily commuter with carpool lane access and relatively cheap fuel that is plentiful in some places (ie: Utah, Southern California, parts of Oklahoma) and hard to find in others.
But as a leading player in the alternative fuels arena, Honda's natural gas car it ought to help generate discussion about energy resources.
As we approach a pivotal presidential election (correction - they're all pivotal, this one is going to be a real game-changer in terms of the directions we're heading on many fronts), we need to start talking about oil and gasoline prices and availability versus energy security.
Do we simply want to make more oil available so it and the fuels derived from it are cheaper - "drill, baby, drill," as those suited cheerleaders at the GOP convention were shouting last week - or do we want to figure out ways to free ourselves from oil's tyranny?
Continue reading...
- Posted by
- Permalink | Comments (5)
- John O'Dell September 9, 2008, 3:00 AM
- Categories:
- Alternative Fuels, Emissions, Fuel Economy, Honda, Natural Gas, Oil, Opinion
- Technorati Tags:
- 2007 Honda Civic GX
, Alternative Fuel, Energy Security, Natural Gas Fuel
August 22, 2008
The New York Times
reports today that the politics of energy are convoluted and volatile in Congressional campaigns across the U.S. this summer, as candidates search for a Goldilocks approach that is neither too hot nor too cold, and that voters will believe is sincere.
The pandering and waffling of candidates is producing a convergence of sorts around the idea that more is better, the Times reports, that an expansion of energy production from all sources and places will somehow fix things, lower prices and restore stability to the economy.
But the more complex components of the energy debate, from climate change to conservation, often get mostly lost in the drumbeat of simplified answers, leaving some voters more confused, or torn, than ever. The article is well worth the time it takes to read.
- Posted by
- Permalink | Comments (0)
- Scott Doggett August 22, 2008, 5:16 PM
- Categories:
- Alternative Fuels, Emissions, Energy Companies, Ethanol, Fuel Economy, Opinion
August 14, 2008
By John O'Dell, Senior Editor
The feds have released preliminary estimates of average mileage for 2008 model-year cars and light trucks and figure that the so-called fleet average fuel economy hit a record of 26.8 miles per gallon (based on data through March).
That's up .07 percent from 26.6 mpg for the '07 MY fleet, and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration - which is in charge of crunching the numbers - expects the average to be even higher when final numbers are in this winter.
Breaking the national fleet into its constituent parts, NHTSA found that for the first half of the model year, passenger cars averaged 31.2 miles per gallon and trucks averaged 23.4 mpg
The CAFE for light trucks is impressive because it represents a 1.7 percent hike from a flat 23 mpg in the '07 model year.
While improvements in engine technology have resulted in a bit of fuel economy improvement in the truck fleet, most of the boost comes from the decline in full-size truck sales and the increase in sales of more fuel-efficient small SUVs and crossovers.
The numbers are still way below the fuel efficiency averages -- 35.7 mpg for passenger cars and 28.6 mpg for trucks -- that the government wants to set as fleet averages for the 2015 model year. But at least they're up after years of stagnation..
The increase, spurred by a massive shift toward smaller cars this year as fuel prices have soared, points out the impact high gas and diesel prices can have - and raises questions about the wisdom, from a fuel economy perspective, of promoting policies that would significantly lower fuel prices.
Continue reading...
- Posted by
- Permalink | Comments (3)
- John O'Dell August 14, 2008, 11:36 AM
- Categories:
- Fuel Economy, Opinion
- Technorati Tags:
- CAFE
, Fuel Economy, Gas Prices
August 6, 2008
With violence in the Gaza escalating last week and chances of an Israeli-Palestinian peace deal crumbling, who'da thunk the lead story on an prominent Arab newscast Sunday night would revolve around a Nissan commercial
promoting the fuel efficiency of one of its cars?
But Saudi Arabia's MBC TV began its Sunday night news broadcast with an outraged report about a Nissan commercial for its Tiida (pronounced Tee-da), a somewhat-sporty economy car that goes easy on the gas.
The advertisement, which has been airing in Israel, depicts wealthy Arab oil barons cursing and otherwise assailing the Tiida, enraged that the car is so fuel stingy.
"You destroyed my home! May God destroy your home!" one shouts at the little white car with a tan interior. "Hawks should peck at you day and night," says another.
It's entirely possible that some Israelis have found the commercial amusing and that possibility angered some Saudis, but that's only a hunch.
After showing snippets of the commercial, MBC proceeded to interview a Saudi representative, who was asked why he thought Israel would broadcast the commercial.
Continue reading...
- Posted by
- Permalink | Comments (2)
- Scott Doggett August 6, 2008, 6:27 PM
- Categories:
- Fuel Economy, Nissan, Oil, Opinion
- Technorati Tags:
- Commercial
, Israel, Nissan, Saudi Arabia, Tiida
August 4, 2008
Portland, Ore., encourages mass transit with convenience and cheap fares. It costs $2.05 for the 11-mile trip from downtown to the Portland International airport on the city's electric trains.
B
y
John O'Dell, Senior Editor
There are a lot of people trying to get us to give up on the ides of independent, personal transportation - i.e., the private automobile.
But I've come away from a two-day "Meeting of the Minds" program in Portland, Ore., with a new example of just how difficult it will be to kill the spirit of independence that has made ownership and use of private vehicles in the U.S. as sacrosanct as the right to vote.
The upshot of
the program
, convened to examine ways of making our cities more sustainable, was that we are rapidly approaching the point of no return - some pessimists believe we stepped over the threshold years ago.
Change Is Needed
We have got to make some radical and rapid changes in the way we approach transportation if we wants our urban core, indeed our entire society, to survive the 21st Century.
It was largely an urban planning and policy wonk crowd, so while there was some enthusiasm for hastening the arrival of plug-in hybrids, (Toyota Motor Co. was a principal sponsor) there was little discussion of other green transportation alternatives that would leave people with personal vehicles.
Instead, the focus was more on things that could be done to get us out of cars, or at least out of single-occupant cars, and into carpools, transit buses, trains and other means of mass transit.
Pay to Go
Suggestions abounded for carbon taxes, higher gasoline taxes, toll roads and other plans that would have us pay for the privilege of driving. Such disincentives probably would make most of us greener drivers, simply by making us cut down on the amount of driving we do in order to have a few bucks each month for things like food and rent.
I'm not opposed to such ideas - after all, if we don't change the way we do things, we sooner than later may not be able to do things at all.
Continue reading...
- Posted by
- Permalink | Comments (0)
- John O'Dell August 4, 2008, 9:23 AM
- Categories:
- Opinion, Surveys, Transportation Alternatives
- Technorati Tags:
- Car Pooling
, Mass Transit, Meeting of the Minds, Zipcar
July 28, 2008
By Scott Doggett, Contributor
Researchers seeking equitable alternatives to the lump-sum pricing practice of U.S. auto insurers may have stumbled upon a partial solution to global warming.
By linking payments to miles driven, the researchers suggested, motorists who do the greatest amount of driving each year would pay the most for insurance - all other things being equal - and those who drive the least would pay the least.
"Drivers who are similar in other respects - age, gender, location, driving safety record - pay nearly the same premiums if they drive 5,000 or 50,000 miles a year," Jason E. Bordoff and Pascal J. Noel wrote in a paper released today by The Brookings Institution.
"Just as an all-you-can-eat restaurant encourages more eating, all-can-drive insurance pricing encourages more driving," they wrote.
The current pricing system, as they see it, is inequitable because it forces low-mileage drivers to subsidize the insurance costs for high-mileage drivers, and low-income people drive fewer miles on average.
Their solution: pay-as-you-drive (or PAYD) auto insurance.
If all motorists paid for accident insurance per mile rather than in a lump sum, they would have an extra incentive to drive less, the researchers concluded. They estimated driving would decline by 8 percent nationwide, netting society the equivalent of about $50 billion to $60 billion a year, largely from reduced congestion and accidents.
But - and this is what really interests us - they also estimated the driving reduction would reduce carbon-dioxide emissions by 2 percent and oil consumption by about 4 percent.
Continue reading...
- Posted by
- Permalink | Comments (6)
- Scott Doggett July 28, 2008, 6:43 PM
- Categories:
- Courts, Emissions, Fuel Economy, Legislation, Opinion
July 17, 2008
By Scott Doggett, Contributor
That's our sensational headline for 2008, but there's more than a smidgen of truth in it.
Last year Ann Arbor, Michigan-based Ecology Center released the first-ever consumer guide to toxic chemicals in cars and child car seats -- and what they reported was sickening.
The odor you inhale when you slide into a new car? It might very well be bromine, chlorine, lead, other harmful chemicals or a witches' brew of them. They've been linked to birth defects, impaired learning, liver toxicity, premature births and, no doubt, cancer.
If you think the government protects you against such things, think again. Some of the vehicles on the road today are veritable toxic dumps on wheels. And many drivers are exposed to these chemicals through inhalation and contact with dust every day.
In case you missed last year's report, Ecology Center found the most toxic vehicles were the Nissan Versa, Chevy Aveo, Scion xB 5dr and the Kia Rio. The least toxic vehicles were the Chevy Cobalt, Chrysler PT Cruiser, Honda Odyssey and the Volvo V50.
Next Tuesday -- July 22 -- Ecology Center will release its second annual consumer guide to toxic chemicals in cars and child car seats, and if you're thinking of buying a new car anytime soon, you'll want to check it out. The guide will be posted at www.healthycar.org a little after midnight on the 22nd.
Continue reading...
- Posted by
- Permalink | Comments (2)
- Scott Doggett July 17, 2008, 1:39 PM
- Categories:
- Acura, Audi, BMW, Cadillac, Chevrolet, Chrysler, Daimler, Dodge, Emissions, Fiat, Ford, Fuel Economy, General Motors, Honda, Hyundai, Jeep, Kia, Legislation, Lexus, MINI, Mazda, Mercedes-Benz, Mitsubishi, Nissan, Opinion, Pontiac, Porsche, Renault, Saab, Smart, Subaru, Toyota, Volkswagen, Volvo
July 10, 2008
So you think it would be a blast to make sports cars, especially sexy roadsters that can go zero to sixty in under four seconds and do it with the stealthy silence of a cat on the prowl.
That was supposed to be a question, but it's hard not to like the sound of that sentence, particularly the sub-4-secs 0-60 part. Ah, how purrfectly sweet that life must be.
A piece in Fortune will snap you outta that daydream in a gnat's heartbeat. It's on the making of Tesla Motors' Roadster and here's a taste of what you can expect:
[Founder Martin] Eberhard had cut a deal with Lotus for production of the Roadsters that included penalties if production didn't begin on schedule. It didn't. In October, Lotus hit Tesla with a bill for $4 million. That was just the start of the company's cash-flow problems. "We had bought 80% of the parts for hundreds of cars, but since we didn't have the remaining 20% of the parts (including a working transmission), we couldn't ship [the cars] and get paid for it," said [CEO Elon] Musk.
There's maybe 5,000 juicy words in all and the way they're arranged will leave your slack-jawed, drooling and sweaty.
Don't like looong stories? More a visual type? Then take a click at these Roadster picks. And dream on.
- Posted by
- Permalink | Comments (1)
- Scott Doggett July 10, 2008, 9:38 PM
- Categories:
- Emissions, Fuel Economy, Opinion, Plug-ins and Electric, Profiles, Tesla
By Scott Doggett, Contributor
Assuming the major impediment to creating electric vehicles for the masses can be overcome -- that being development of batteries that are lightweight, powerful, reliable, long-lived, cheap, non-toxic, fast-charging, and easy to recycle and eventually dispose of -- all that stands in the way of a world where the EV is king is the installation of millions of recharging stations.
As frequent visitors to this blog know, there are armies of brainiacs working on the battery problem, and a far fewer number of people working on the recharging-stations problem. Skeptics say EVs will stay niche until motorists feel confident there are enough recharging stations around to rejuvenate their batteries when they need rejuvenating. Gas-powered cars, they say, would have been doomed had it not been for gas stations. Right? Right.
But if recent events portend things to come, the Renault Nissan Alliance is taking serious steps to overcome the recharging-stations hurdle. Its solution: a mix of public-private and private-private pacts.
Its most recent success story unfolded Wedesday, when alliance CEO Carlos Ghosn and Portuguese Prime Minister Jose Socrates signed a memorandum of understanding that aims to lay the groundwork for use of electric vehicles in Portugal.
Continue reading...
- Posted by
- Permalink | Comments (1)
- Scott Doggett July 10, 2008, 6:14 PM
- Categories:
- Batteries, Emissions, Fuel Economy, Hybrid, Nissan, Opinion, Plug-ins and Electric, Renault
July 8, 2008
Ninety-five percent of motorists polled recently said that high gasoline prices have prompted lifestyle changes, and nearly as many said the near-record fuel costs have changed the way they drive or maintain their vehicles, the results of a survey released today show.
Forty-four percent of those polled reported driving more slowly or less aggressively to increase fuel economy, 35 percent indicated they were in the market for a more fuel-efficient vehicle and more than half said they would be shopping for another vehicle if the price of a gallon of gasoline reaches $5.
The respondents were generally optimistic that fuel prices won't rise much in the near future, with nearly three in four saying they believe the national average price for a gallon of regular-grade gasoline will be less than $5 during the Labor Day weekend (August 29-September 1).
Thirteen-hundred and 12 people participated in the survey, which was conducted by Edmunds.com, the parent of Green Car Advisor, June 20-25.
Additional survey results and commentary can be found at Edmund.com's Karl On Cars blog.
Scott Doggett, Contributor
- Posted by
- Permalink | Comments (0)
- Scott Doggett July 8, 2008, 5:33 PM
- Categories:
- Fuel Economy, Fuels & Technologies, Opinion
July 3, 2008
General Motors' leaders are not nuts, and yet to pour hundreds of millions into a race to launch an electric car - the Chevy Volt - guaranteed to lose money on every unit sold, begins to seem a peculiar strategy for a company in dire liquidity straits.
So says the Wall Street Journal, in a particularly cynical and yet possibly prescient piece. With each hectic advance in the development process, the expected sticker price to consumers has gone up. At last leakage, GM is saying now the Volt may need a sticker price of $45,000.
GM executives justify the costs and risks of the Volt as a way of changing the automaker's image in the minds of consumers and politicians, the article says. To commit a pun, the Volt is GM's vehicle for making a bailout of GM politically acceptable.
The company has already started signaling it expects Washington to provide a whopping $7,000 tax credit to Volt purchasers. In Europe and the U.S., under whatever fuel economy and emissions regulations prevail, GM also expects special favoritism for the Volt.
The goal is to re-enact the flex-fuel hoax, in which GM receives extra credit for making cars that can burn 85 percent ethanol, even if they never see a drop of such fuel.
The article is well worth reading, even if - as it likely will - it leaves you wondering, Does America's largest automaker have to stoop to this nonsense to stay afloat?
Scott Doggett, Contributor
- Posted by
- Permalink | Comments (0)
- Scott Doggett July 3, 2008, 8:01 AM
- Categories:
- Batteries, Chevrolet, Emissions, Fuel Economy, Fuels & Technologies, General Motors, Legislation, Opinion, Plug-ins and Electric, Tax Incentives
June 27, 2008
While $4-a-gallon gas has introduced the general public to issues like a gas-tax holiday, ethanol, hydrogen fuel cells and offshore drilling, its effect on individual Americans reminds New York Times
blogger Richard S. Chang of what one of his college professors once said about the '60s television show "Gilligan's Island."
He explains in his blog today that the entire show could be distilled down to one basic formula: Each episode, a new element is introduced onto the island (giant spider, butterfly collector, jungle boy, robot, magic mind-reading seeds, meteorite), and the plot/comedy is derived from how the castaways react to it.
As Chang puts it, escalating gas prices have turned the country into one big Gilligan's Island:
• Truckers, feeling the sting of diesel prices, have avoided brothels in Nevada
• Drivers in southern Texas are hopping the border into Mexico to buy gas
• A gas pump glitch in Cincinnati switched the price of gas from $4.10 to $1.40
• Two sisters in Utah marched, carrying signs and chanting for cheaper gas
• And the Amish are feeling the effects of high gas
Scope Chang's blog for details.
- Posted by
- Permalink | Comments (0)
- Scott Doggett June 27, 2008, 8:56 AM
- Categories:
- Fuel Economy, Opinion
June 18, 2008
Sen. Sam Brownback, a Kansas Republican, says he's part of a group of lawmakers preparing legislation to require that at least 50% of all new cars and trucks in the U.S. in 2012 and after be able to run on biofuels.
The goal, he said at a Senate hearing on the oil market, is to help ensure that the country is "not a hostage to oil."
The good senator, whose constituency includes a lot of farmers who have seen the interest in biofuels help push corn and soybean prices to new highs, needs to do a little more thinking and a little less grandstanding.
Congress can mandate all the flex-fuel or biofuel capability it wants, and GM, Ford and Chrysler can make all of their cars and trucks ethanol and biodiesel ready, but if there's no place for people to conveniently buy the fuels, it will do no good.
Continue reading...
- Posted by
- Permalink | Comments (5)
- John O'Dell June 18, 2008, 9:30 AM
- Categories:
- Alternative Fuels, Biofuels, Ethanol, Flex-Fuel, Opinion
June 3, 2008
True or false? Cars lined with pink fur get better mileage. That would be false.
Fill up early. Change air filters often. Turn off the air-con. Use additives. All are wise ways to save fuel, right?
Well … no. At least that's what a recent article in the Los Angeles Times says (click on Continue reading, below, to see it).
After reading that piece, if you feel an urge to pummel us with your petrol-pinching ponderings, please do.
Just don't tell us to keep our tires properly inflated. It's all we ever hear!
Continue reading...
- Posted by
- Permalink | Comments (0)
- Scott Doggett June 3, 2008, 11:29 AM
- Categories:
- Fuel Economy, Opinion
