Eric Peters' blog at the National Motorists Association explores efforts to make breathalyzers mandatory on all U.S vehicles. Peters zeros-in on the Driver Alcohol Detection System For Safety (DADSS), a $10m taxpayer-funded partnership between the  industry-funded Automotive Coalition for Traffic Safety (ACTS) and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. DADSS is hot for new, "less intrusive" breathalyzers; specifically gizmos that measure blood alcohol content (BAC) through the driver's skin (via steering wheel-mounted sensors). While acknowledging America's 9k annual drunk driving deaths, Peters is not pleased at the prospect of treating every motorist like a convicted drunk driver, He's also displeased that consumers would be expected to shoulder the additional costs of this new "standard equipment." More proof that freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose.

The National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) was supposed to present new roof-strength rules to Congress by July 1. The Detroit News reports that the NHTSA wants more time. A letter from chairman of a Senate Commerce subcommittee on auto safety apparently prompted the hurry-up-and-wait. "We encourage you to extend your deadline to ensure a proper rule making that would maximize safety and significantly reduce deaths and injuries for passengers and drivers in vehicle rollover accidents," wrote Mark Pryor. One might assume that Pryor is concerned that the NHTSA proposal to strengthen roof-crush strength to 2.5 times the vehicle wait might create top-heavy vehicle which would roll over more frequently. Nope. Pryor is simply demonstrating his party's fealty to the trial lawyer lobby, by opposing language which would limit rollover lawsuits in state courts. Whether or not those limits are valid is subject to debate. That requiring stricter roof-crush standards would increase car prices and rollover frequency while reducing efficiency is not. Here's hoping these facts sink-in during the NHTSA's extra deliberation time.

Ford has announced that the current Euro-spec Focus arrive stateside in 2010 as a 2011 model. What's more, it'll be an American-made product, And for once, we don't mean Mexico. Automotive News [AN, sub] says the current Focus plant in Wayne, MI will likely build the new-to-us small car. If all goes according to plan (i.e. the SUV market never recovers and the United Auto Workers play ball), Ford's Louisville KY factory may also switch over to the new Focus (from Escape/Mariner production). All in, we're looking at an annual production capacity of 280k units. AN's confirmed sedan and five-door versions of the new Focus, with rumors circulating of possible C-Max MPV. With this machine, Ford returns to a "world car" strategy for its C1 platform; the 2010 US-spec model will be the same car sold in Europe, South America and Asia. This global product alignment will bring new features to the stateside Focus, like direct-injection engines and a six-speed gearbox. We'd like to think that a hot ST or RS version might also be sold stateside, but then we also daydream about Paganis.

John McCain's initial proposal to alleviate pain at the pump: a summer gas tax holiday. With "option A" laughed off the table, the Wall Street Journal reports that McNasty wants a buck from every [documented] American to fund a $300m prize for a killa battery. The money would go to anyone who develops battery technology that can deliver power at 30 percent of current costs. Oh, and it has to have "the size, capacity, cost and power to leapfrog the commercially available plug-in hybrids or electric cars." Apparently, "from now on, we will encourage heroic efforts in engineering, and we will reward the greatest success." Meanwhile, the Arizona senator suggests toughening fines for CAFE violators, increasing ethanol "incentives" and offering U.S. automakers a $5k tax credit for every zero-carbon emissions car they sell. McCain called current incentives "the handiwork of lobbyists, with all the inconsistency and irrationality that involves." As all of his proposed incentives are offered to automakers (American automakers, at that) rather than consumers, should we expect them to exhibit the same inefficiencies that McCain is railing against? Yes, we should.

USA TODAY reports Saudi Arabia offered to boost crude oil production by over 9.7m barrels per day (bpd) in July. That's if– and only if– the market requires it. Anyway, say the Saudis, under-supply isn't the problem. "I am convinced that supply and demand balances and crude oil production levels are not the primary drivers of the current market situation," Saudi Oil Minister Ali al-Naimi announced at the global energy summit in Jiddah. King Abdullah joins both John McCain and Barack OBama in blaming "speculators who play the market out of selfish interests." The Saudis remind us that they have already boosted production twice this year (by 300k bpd in May, and 200k bpd in June), and neither increase has had much effect on climbing prices. American and British diplomats expressed disappointment with the Saudi position, having hoped for a promise of specific production increases. Echoing US sentiments, British PM Gordon Brown said that with a clear production increase "instead of uncertainty and unpredictability, there is greater certainty, and instead of instability, there is greater stability." But the Saudis aren't alone in looking away from production levels for the cause of high oil prices. The joint statement issued by the Jiddah summit is deliberately vague, reflecting deep divisions over the causes of the oil price shock– and the cure.

While energy ministers and diplomats wrangle over the supply side of high oil prices, Americans are already tackling the demand side. USA Today reports that Americans drove 22b fewer miles in November – April compared to the same period in '06 – '07. That's the biggest drop since the Iranian Revolution in 1979 – '80. Sticking with the stats, miles driven has fallen by one percent, down to 2005 levels. Way back then, there were eight million fewer [documented] U.S. citizens. So… U.S. drivers are cutting back by considerably more than the one percent average. According to Federal Highway Administration data, the sharpest declines are taking place on rural roads. Marilyn Brown says Americans have concluded that the "the era of cheap energy is a thing of the past." The Professor of energy policy at Georgia Tech says she thinks "the difference between now and 1979, when prices were comparable when you adjust for inflation, is there's a sense of sustained pain."

GMInsidenews.com is quoting sources lacking even the thinnest euphemisms who whisper that Pontiac and GMC both could be on the chopping block. "At the moment," writes "nsap" of GMI, "the GM Board of Directors is leaning toward killing GMC as the brand is made up entirely of rebadges. The Board is also taking into consideration that GMC is mostly trucks and SUV's, both market segments that slowly dwindling." HUMMER is for sure dead (duh), and Saturn may get bumped to the PBG channel if (when) this all takes place. Not only does GMI fail to indicate a source, they attach a disclaimer. "Please remember that all of the above are RUMORS and should not be taken as solid fact." The only thing this rumor has going for it is that it makes a lot of sense. Neither brand really does anything Chevrolet can't, and in bad times that means they're expendable. BUT (caps lock off) GM can't kill anything without killing an entire channel (Buick, Pontiac, GMC)– and facing thousands of lawsuits. Unless they're in bankruptcy.

After losing its "best-selling vehicle in America" badge, Ford's F-150 has hit another pothole. Automotive News [sub] reports that the beleaguered Blue Oval Boyz are postponing the release of the all-new 2009 model by two months. The coompany says the delay will Ford can burn through its massive overstock of the outgoing model. Both F-150 plants will lose a shift this year, and one of the two will idle for most of the third quarter. These cutbacks are just part of the Ford's production slowdown. The Wall Street Journal reports that Ford will cut overall production by 25 percent in the third quarter, and by as much as 14 percent in Q4. "Ford has taken decisive action to respond to this accelerating shift in customer demand away from large trucks and SUVs to smaller cars and crossovers, and we will continue to act swiftly moving forward," says FoMoCo CEO Allan Mullaly. Ford also says its pre-tax earning will be worse in 2008 than 2007, and that cash burn will be higher than previously expected (by them, maybe). With $40b in liquidity, $23b in debt and $16b as good as spent to keep the turnaround on track until 2009, these cash burn issues are troubling, to say the least. Ford's stock reflects these concerns, currently down nearly 7 percent on the day. Paging Captain Kirk!

Much digital ink has been spilled over Chrysler's "refuel America" promotion. The deal locks fuel prices at $2.99 per gallon for the first 12k miles for each of three years (subject to acres of fine print). Consumer Reports took a closer look. Over the first three years of ownership, the cheap gas gives Chrysler a competitive cost of ownership. After five years, your Chrysler will have cost you between $1k and $8k more than its competitors.  That's driving 12k miles annually, based on CR's "real world" mileage ratings and total ownership cost analysis. It gets worse. The cost of owning a gas-carded Chrysler is higher than buying the same vehicle with the optional zero percent interest rate. The Hemi-equipped gas hogs, for example, cost over $6k more with the gas card during five years of ownership. Little wonder then, that under ten percent of Chrysler buyers are choosing the gas card. The upshot? CR suggests that if you must buy from the Pentastar, take the low interest rate. "However," they say, "we would recommend you consider all vehicles in the segments, as there simply are better choices available based on our testing and analysis." Ya think?

If you think Tesla's wealthy and influential client list is getting impatient to see delivery of their single-speed supercars, imagine how Martin Eberhard must feel. The co-founder and mastermind of the EV roadster was supposed to receive the #2 Tesla,. It appeared for a while that Tesla had skipped over its godfather in favor of delivering to everyone else. Now AutoblogGreen (ABG) reports that Eberhard's Tesla has arrived from the UK. Unfortunately, it suffered "significant" front-end damage at the hands of a company lacky. Or did it? Tesla's Daryl Siry told ABG that #2 was damaged on its final shakedown before delivery. Eberhard claims "It is news to me that this happened on the day the car was to be delivered." Adding insult to, well, insult, Autoblog founder Jason Calcanis notes on his blog that he will be receiving the #16 Tesla in six weeks. Calcanis jauntily contemplates giving away a Tesla on his holier-than-thou "human-powered search engine" Mahalo.com. For good measure, current Tesla Chariman Elon Musk recently declined to correct Fox Business News' Liz Claman when she called him the "creator of the Tesla" in this so-bad-it's-almost-funny pimpatorial segment. Dude, Elon, give the man his car and his props before this whole thing goes Tango Uniform.

It's no secret that we treat GM's plug-in electric hybrid vehicle (PHEV) with a healthy dose deal of skepticism. But at least GM is actually trying to develop a production plug-in car. The PHEV strategy at Ford is considerably less admirable, being largely composed of procrastination and panhandling. When asked to speak at a Brookings Institute/Google symposium on the question "Plug-In Electric Vehicles 2008: What Role for Washington?," Ford's President of the Americas Mark Fields had THE answer: writing checks. To that end, Fields touted the "success" of the as-yet-unreleased Escape plug-in. Sure, only 20 of these wunder-autos will ever be made. But that's where your tax money comes into play! The feds should be "creating a new industry/government partnership to aggressively advance battery research, development and commercialization; injecting significant federal funds into advanced plug-in vehicle technologies and into facility retooling to produce these vehicles; enacting comprehensive climate change legislation; requiring regulatory policies that stimulate innovation, rather than just imposing new mandates; and, enacting one national standard for fuel economy – rather than allowing a patchwork of state and federal regulations." In short, you give us our entire lobbying wishlist, and we'll build a plug-in. Ah, modern capitalism.

If you can't wait for Toyota to launch a plug-in electric hybrid vehicle (PHEV) Prius, there are several companies who will convert your hybrid to a PHEV. Sure they may set you back $10k on top of your Prius purchase, but being the first one on the block with a plug-in is priceless, right? First, consider what might happen to your carbon footprint if your PHEV suddenly catches fire. CRN reports (via DailyTech) that a Prius outfitted with a Hybrids-Plus PHEV15 conversion kit caught fire and exploded last week during routine highway driving. The late Prius, part of a test fleet operated by the Central Electric Power Cooperative of South Carolina, and had been experiencing charger-related malfunctions. Because the A123-sourced lithium-ion battery was "largely intact and functioning" post-kaboom, the cause of the fire is listed as "unknown." A specialized EV forensic team (yup, they exist) is investigating. Pending their findings, those who have criticized the OEM's tentative approach to li-ion technology might want to take the opportunity to eat a little crow. And those OEM's who are banking on a rushed li-ion release (cough, GM, cough) might want to take this as a sign to run one or two extra tests. Just sayin.  (Hat tip to Jalopnik) 

VW has made big bucks in fuel crises past by offering diesel options where others had none. And though Wolfsburg has always charged a premium for its oil-burners, cheap-and-cheerful was the name of the TDI game back when it took an OPEC embargo to make Americans think about efficiency. Well, the 70's are over, man. VW's new Jetta TDI starts at $21,990 for the sedan, and $23,590 for the wagon. Er, SportWagon. That's five large more than a base sedan, and a $4,500 premium for the wagon. And not only are VW charging more for their diesels, they're also hyping non-EPA mileage ratings to claim 38/44 mpg in city and highway driving respectively. If, for some crazy reason, you want an apples-to-apples comparison to any other product on the market, the EPA ratings that everyone else seems to live with rate the Jetta TDI at 29/40 mpg. Factor in the fact that diesel prices have doubled in most markets over the last year, and you have a spin-free idea of how economical VW's TDI offering really is. Though the acolytes of Rudolph Diesel claim that battery replacement costs for hybrids give the TDI an edge, those costs are going down , while diesel prices continue to climb in most areas. The TDI will still serve well in those coastal enclaves where "powered by biodiesel" and grateful dead-affiliated bumper stickers offer TDI owners social status commensurate to the price premiums they paid. Otherwise, this baby has been priced right out of the market.

In yet another Lutzie-worthy display, "Maximum" Bob Lutz tells the Seattle Times that even though first-gen Volts will retail for $40k and generate no profit for GM, "for the first time, our well-thought-of Asian competitors will be left in the dust" by its magnificence. And who wouldn't be terrified at the prospect of competing with a $40k profitless wonder? But Lutz didn't only highlight the tensions between the Volt's aspirations to neo-Model T status, and its mounting sticker shock. He actually gloats about the project, saying "We are simply quite startled and amazed at how everything is working according to plan." Because apparently making money and offering an affordable PHEV were never part of the plan. But Lutz isn't totally delusional. He estimates that by 2020 or 2025 between a quarter and half of all new vehicles sold in the U.S. will be electric or hydrogen-powered, and that nuclear power is "the only real option" for this mass electrification. So why can't he stop spewing disingenuous optimism about the Volt project? When even the die-hard fanboys of gm-volt.com are starting to say things like "If they retail it at $40,000, the Volt is going to switch from a 'game changer' to 'another EV-1 disaster,'" what else can you do?

When we heard that "Bearish" Bob Nardelli got the top spot in Auburn Hills by boldly predicting that Chrysler was in deep shit, we reckoned that the former Home Depot CEO would be soon bordering on clinical depression. Well, more evidence has emerged that Nardelli "gets it" that Chrysler is swirling down the sales toilet, this time in the form of an email circulated to the Pentastar legions. The Detroit News reports that Nardelli's email "warned of worsening U.S. automotive sales and encouraged employees to stay focused." So what strategy did the bearish vicar (oh dear) offer to his troops to get them through the hard times? Little more than a Bush-esque "stay the course," as it turns out. Acknowledging Chrysler's overdependence on  tanking pickup and SUV sales are a problem, Nardelli says that "further action" would be taken only (when) if sales continue to dip. Nardelli did justify his hefty salary by saying he predicted the current unpleasantness way back in November of last year. Then again, Chrysler doesn't pay Nardelli to be a fortune-teller; his job is to actually turn the company around. Or something.