Once upon a time, Honda represented everything that Detroit was not. Efficient, lean, reliable and most of all, innovative. While The Big Three soldiered-on with the same powertrains for decades on end, Honda constantly renewed, redesigned and released cars that genuinely improved their customer’s lives. Profits and widespread admiration followed… until the Honda hybrids came along. Then Honda, long regarded as the technology leader, got its ass kicked by Toyota. What happened?

The 1999 Insight was an absolute masterpiece of technology. Honda coupled a 70 hp. 1.0L engine (with an air fuel ratio of 25.8) to a 13 horsepower electric motor. It was ‘Wow!’ technology back in the Clinton Era. At only 1847 pounds, with a wind whispering 0.25 Cd, the Insight generated exceptionally high fuel economy numbers (70/61) for their customers. What customers? This was an especially difficult question to answer as the Insight was not ready for prime time.

The ‘Integrated Motor Assist’ technology wasn’t the problem. Simply put, the Honda was a niche vehicle. At the turn of the century, with gas at a buck a gallon, the high-tech fuel-miser niche that was so small that the Insight literally offered a zero carbon imprint on dealer’s lots.

Honda optimistically projected 6500 sales for for the model year 2000 Honda Insight. Dealers unloaded a measly 3805 units during the hybrid’s first full year of release. And that was the high water mark. Worse, the sales failure killed the Insight’s evolution. For seven full years, the model’s design and technology became stuck in neutral, with limited modifications. That was where the real tragedy for Honda took shape.

While Honda was initially content with having a long model run and a limited market, Toyota had other plans.

When the first generation compact Prius was released in Japan in 1997, Toyota’s Corolla had officially become the world’s best-selling vehicle. The Prius was designed as a hybrid-only model from Day One. Toyota fully redesigned the Prius in succeeding generations to accommodate the changing nuances of the hybrid buyer.

At first the Prius failed. It racked-up just 5562 U.S. sales in 2000. Even as gas prices rose, both Toyota and Honda were besieged with anti-hybrid issues and innuendos. Both companies had to deal with the financial fears associated with battery packs. Warranties were extended, and some customer assistance was offered.

But Toyota– not Honda– used adversity as a PR tool. Before long Toyota was highlighting battery failures in 56 degree below zero Arctic weather and proudly proclaiming that no other battery had ever needed to be replaced. It wasn’t factually correct (a.k.a. complete bullshit) but the story played well with the general public.

By 2003, Honda was putting the same technology in the Insight (with minor modifications) into the Honda Civic. They gave the conversion more torque, an extra 300cc’s of displacement and a bit more engine heft. Speaking of heft, at 2700 pounds, Honda’s CVT transmissions would now power a vehicle that was nearly 850 pounds heavier than the Insight.

It didn’t take long before Consumer Reports and a rash of owner review sights began to highlight the very expensive and frequent transmission work requireed to keep the Honda Civic hybrid on the road. After a few battles, Honda upped the transmission warranty to 100k and agreed to replace or modify components in the hopes of avoiding the inevitable. Unfortunately, with cases of third and fourth transmissions being replaced within 100k, the Civic Hybrid began to lose serious traction with the public.

While these Civics sat with their Taurus quality transmissions, the Prius was garnering reliability awards from J.D. Power, Consumer Reports, and was quickly becoming the de-facto poster child of a mass ‘hybrid’ market. Honda had abandoned a sheetmetal design projecting their hybrid model’s green, high-tech, Space Age credentials (albeit in a less-than-practical two-seater) for a mass market clone car. The Prius’ shape morphed in the exact opposite direction, from flat-line Echo cardiogram to an Insightful hybrid statement.

With gas prices in the upswing, the Prius’ aspiring hypermilers and the eco-conscious consumers were soon joined by those simply looking at the economic proposition of ownership. By 2005, with a second ground-up redesign, the Prius passed 100k annual sales, heading for over a million hybrids sold worldwide by 2007. In the same year, Honda would sputter-out only 32k Civic Hybridss, 3400 Accord Hybrids), and three of the now defunct Insight. Honda now had a full fledged failure on it’s hands.

Beneath the skin, much of Honda’s failure in the hybrid market can be traced to the same shortsightedness and bad customer support that’s afflicting the Detroit Big 3. The depressed valuations and bad owner reviews for the past Honda Hybrids will undoubtedly make the 2010 Honda Insight a far tougher sell.

Should Honda offer a stronger warranty on their new vehicles? Should they simply recall the defective transmissions and offer a longer warranty for current owners? It’s easy to say yes. But every automaker has to draw their own line is between taking care of the customer, and taking care of the bottom line.

As these pictures demonstrate, Honda is determined to take-on the Priora of the world with a kick-ass hybrid. That isn’t afraid to look like a knock-off of its direct, perhaps only competitor. Priced to go. With (one hopes) brand-faithful reliability. Even so, Honda will need to figure-out how to take on a rival who kept their product exclusively focused on a very unique and evolving customer. As Honda and The Bailout Big 3 are learning, the road to redemeption is long and perilous, with persistence, determination and humility providing the best chances of success.

The biggest surprise at last Friday’s Consumer Reports’ press shindig: no plug-in electric – gas hybrid Chevy Volt. Not a mock-up. Not a mention. Oh, GM was there– with two hydrogen fuel cell Chevy Equinoxes. So never mind all that talk of “reinventing the automobile.” At “The Future of the Car,” the car of the future’s just like your current ride, only cleaner and, mostly, a lot less practical.

The major message from manufacturers’ reps at the scenic East Haddam, CT auto test site: incrementalism. Brett Hinds bragged about Ford’s EcoBoost (formerly Twin Force). Ford’s Advanced Engineering Design and Development Manager called their 3.5-liter V6 twin-turbocharged direct injection engine “a near-term solution… with improved fuel economy and less CO2.”

Diesel loomed large– in more ways than one. Audi’s Christian Bokich claimed that European manufacturers had refined diesel engine efficiency for two decades. He alluded to racing TDI Audis recently at American Le Mans and Sebring. But the Audi Q7 TDI, which will launch next year, is a porky (>5000 lbs) torquey (406 lb-ft) gas-guzzling (25 mpg highway) SUV.

Not to be outdone (as if), Rob Moran of Mercedes said MB is planning an ’09 release for a gas – electric hybrid S400 (with lithium ion batteries) and a diesel hybrid. According to Rob, despite the higher cost of diesel over gasoline, oil burners offer a 15 percent lower cost of ownership. According to Consumer Reports’ literature, fuel accounts for about 26 percent of the cost of new car ownership over five years. Never mind.

BMW’s Dave Buchko (he of the TTAC press car ban) quoted an Environmental Defense Fund report that concluded that BMW’s fleet average for CO2 emissions dropped by 12.3 percent between 1999-2005– despite bigger engines, bigger, safer cars with “six airbags instead of one, ABS, ESC, etc.”

Two new offerings glossed BMW’s green sheen. Their new 2.0-liter, four-cylinder twin-turbo 123d belts out 204hp/290 lb-ft while sipping 45/50 mpg (Euro-only, Euro specs). And the new 335D, a 3.0-liter variable twin-turbo 265hp and 425lb-ft@1750 rpm inline six, rates 23/36 mpg (USA specs). Buchko reports he achieved 37 mpg on the way back to headquarters last Friday, at 75 to 80 mph (tsk-tsk). Both cars were a hoot to drive around CR’s aggressively windy, hilly test track; the engines felt very refined. Alas, no clutch stateside on the 335D.

Nonetheless, burning a gallon of diesel emits about 15 percent more carbon dioxide than gasoline, so diesel mpgs exaggerate their greenitude (BMW in particulate).

The somewhat ad hoc nature of the event was belied by the presence of a three-wheeler that looked like it’d lost its way to Boston’s Larz Anderson Auto Museum’s annual microcar show, and two backyard battery electric conversions.

Floor the 1989 Jetta EV conversion and it feels like someone’s [barely] pushing. The other: EV: a 1981 DeLorean (of course). When the absence of commercial non-hybrid battery electrics was noted in the discussion, Jennifer Watts of the Electric Drive Transportation Association said, “We’re all looking to see how the Tesla performs.” (Join the club.) She also mentioned A123, an MIT battery-building spinoff [still] hoping to supply the Volt’s cells. Unfortunately, these pose no apparent threat to ICE.

Honda’s hydrogen fuel cell FCX Clarity has the understated elegance associated of an Audi inside and out. The FCX’s crisp steering and handling, and responsive acceleration, comes with just a hint of a whine from the power plant. If you live in LA and you’re lucky enough to be Jamie Lee Curtis, you can lease one for $600/month for three years. The range is 280 miles, similar to an RX-8. The EPA fuel economy is 74 mpg equivalents on combined cycle.

The General currently boasts more than 100 fuel cell vehicles on the road. GM’s Dan O’Connell noted that 40 customers have driven GM’s fuel cell vehicles roughly 350k miles. The Equinox SUVs “average close to 50 mpg equivalents, and have a 170 mile range.” The Equinoxes feel a little bloated, and they kick you in the pants when you first hit the gas.

O’Connell said that real world fuel cell reliability is improving, costs are falling, and it’s all Big Oil’s fault. “I’ve seen little evidence of motivation to delivery hydrogen on the part of oil companies,” he asserted.

Spencer Quong of the Union of Concerned Scientists, (who did not attend the event) told TTAC that the auto manufacturers have made huge progress on fuel cells over the last ten years. But “they’ve picked all the low-hanging fruit,” and success is by no means assured. “We’re hoping in ten to twenty years you’re going to see a cost effective vehicle.”

If global warming is as urgent as experts would have us believe, the CR green car hoe-down indicates that manufacturers are fiddling while Rome burns (ice caps melt, etc.). If not, well, get a new four-banger Bimmer and party on!

We recently pitted the next gen Toyota Prius against the forthcoming Chevrolet Volt. The contest was theoretical, predicated on the arrival of the Volt in 2010 (and performing as advertised). Meanwhile, there’s no question about the reality (and viability) of Honda’s new hybrid sedan. It’s set to hit the showroom floor in April 2009, around the same time as the new Prius. While the Volt waits in the wings, the Toyota – Honda gas – electric rivalry will be an epic showdown.

Honda has stumbled around trying to find the right hybrid formula since 1999 when it introduced the gas – electric Insight. The ultra-light two-seater scored a record-breaking 70mpg on the [old] EPA highway test, but broke no sales records. The ensuing Accord hybrid was D.O.A. The follow-up Civic hybrid sells reasonably well, but it’s a wallflower compared to segment-buster Prius.

It looks like Honda’s finally found the right formula. Spy shots reveal a distinctly familiar shape: a combination of Prius flattery, Honda’s fuel-cell Clarity and the relentless pursuit of aerodynamics. Equally important, Richard Colliver, exec Veep of American Honda recently revealed that a base Honda hybrid will sticker at $18,500. If true, it will undercut its Toyota competitor by a healthy $3k.

Honda’s hybrid (“Hh”) is based on the Fit platform, stretched a few inches. Since the Fit already offers excellent space utilization, the Hh may give the Prius a run for the money in terms of interior volume. But what’s going on under the hood is more intriguing.

For now, Honda is stuck with its IMA (Integrated Motor Assist) “mild-hybrid” technology. The system essentially negates electric-only drive, except for 26 seconds every fifth Tuesday of the month. Further tweaks may increase that slightly, but forget about silently sneaking-up on unsuspecting blind pedestrians.

Honda’s trump card is rationalizing IMA production, bringing the hybrid premium of the system, batteries and all, down to about $1500 (as compared to a conventional drive-train). That makes the target $18.5k price look a bit less of a bargain, compared to a $14k Fit. What, a profitable hybrid right out of the starting gate (I’m looking at you, Volt)?

As usual, Honda achieves much with little. The technically-similar Civic hybrid’s 42mpg EPA combined rating is only eight percent less than the (current) Prius’ 46mpg. That wasn’t close enough to overcome the $22.6k Civic hybrid’s cloak of invisibility. But I’m guessing the lighter/more aerodynamic Fit-based hybrid will yield a (current) Prius-like 46 mpg EPA combined rating. Meanwhile, the new Prius will be deemed a flop if it’s combined rating doesn’t break the half-century mark.

Let’s put those numbers in perspective. Incremental efficiency gains at these sippy-cup levels become increasingly insignificant– unless gas prices really explode. At four-bucks a gallon, a 51mpg Prius saves $119/year (@14k miles). Even at six dollars, the annual fuel savings would be all of $180. It would take 25 (or 17) years to amortize the Prius’ higher price. You’d have to be a committed Peak-Oiler to justify the Prius’ premium on fuel savings.

So what will the latest Prius have going for it above the upstart Hh? It might still be a bit roomier, and have a smoother ride. But if four adults and their luggage can be comfortably accommodated in the Honda, that may be good enough for many hybrid intenders.

The Prius’ presumed higher EPA numbers might offer a smidgeon of green bragging rights, but the Honda’s shape has “hybrid” written all over it, so who cares? The Honda guarantees hyper-mileage and Green-creds, all at a lower price point.

What the Honda hybrid lacks is any viable upgrade/expansion into the plug-in future. Its IMA system is not socket friendly. Toyota will offer a Li-ion plug-in Prius to fleets in 2010, and to the public in 2011.

It would be a mistake to under-estimate the importance of plug-ability for the serious eco-road-warriors. For green halo seekers, nobody’s going to know whether your Prius is a plug-in or not, except for the port and attending badges. An aftermarket in fake plug-in ports (and badges) is as assured as the current market for fake Buick Lucerne portholes.

Is there a winner in this dual-mode duel? You bet: the consumer. Toyota’s plans to double Prius annual production to 480k, and Honda’s plans to sell 200k annually of its keenly-priced new entry, mean that street prices will be mean. Transaction prices of Priora historically have tracked gas prices. If the current pull-back in oil prices lasts into next year (my guess), expect to see the return of hybrid incentives, bigger than ever.

And then the real hybrid showdown begins, and history has a chance to repeat itself: GM’s latest Johnny-come-lately, technologically-ambitious, expensive/unprofitable, fully-fledged (one hopes) entry into the segment arrives (a.k.a. Volt). It will take on the well-established, low-cost, high-mileage competition from Japan– just like in the sixties, seventies, eighties, nineties, aughts…

Back in 1783, Paris was all abuzz with the exploits of the Montgolfier brothers’ balloons. Using a simple bag and a lot of hot air, men (and sheep) were able to fly (or at least float). One of the observers was none other than Ben Franklin, who was fascinated by the display. An onlooker was less impressed “What use is it?” America’s founding dirty-old-man smiled and replied, “Of what use is a newborn baby?"

To get your head around some of the fancier experiments going on in auto-land you have to keep in mind that what we’re seeing now is the proof of concept. Practical applications may be a long way off, and require extensive infrastructure creation or modification. The important thing is not to confuse technological issues with infrastructure challenges.  

History shows that if the technology catches on, the framework will catch up (and quickly). I remember getting excited when I upgraded to a 1200 baud modem. I thought I was on the cutting edge. Broadband was less than a decade away. On the auto front, Henry Ford started selling Model Ts when the USA had less than 100 miles of paved roads. In short, pay very little attention to grousing about lack of stations to re-fill/charge prototypes. If they take off, the infrastructure will be there in less than a model cycle.    

For example, Honda's hydrogen fuel-cell Clarity is being rolled-out in what is essentially a beta-test. There is no way to judge real-world sales success from a handful of 20K ($600 x 36) leases. There are hardly enough filling stations to support the test. But Honda wants some basic real-world information about how the car handles in real-world traffic (and attendant publicity of course). We won’t really know whether the whole hydrogen fuel-cell thing is the tip of the iceberg– or the next turbine car– for at least five years.

Slagging the Clarity for being a power-shuffler is legit, if a bit obvious. Energy has to come from somewhere, even for electric cars. Fuel cells and hydrogen cars need some means to produce their fuel (natural gas or electricity being the most likely sources). Electrics (and plug-in hybrids) need to connect to a grid somehow. There is no such thing as a free lunch.  

While complaining that “green” vehicles use power is slightly disingenuous, bitching about the availability (or lack thereof) of green power sources to motivate them is significantly less so. It's a legitimate beef that should be part of any up-front discussion of alt powered vehicles. Expanding the electric grid to handle fuel cell or EV-powered cars won’t be cheap or easy, but it's doable. Finding enough cropland to “grow our own” gasoline may not be.    

When digging through all the auto-related “greenery” it's best to try to figure out what axe each commentator has to grind. Old-school gas-burner types seem to favor the infrastructure argument (being short-sighted goes with the territory). Occasionally they shift into the “battery disposal” mode. The “greens” are much worse, quite enough to make Eyore seem cheerful. Their problem is that there is no getting around the fact that doing work requires power, which requires energy, and that is always going to be less than perfectly efficient (if they can even bring themselves to admit we need to move things and people).  

All “green” systems have trade-offs. Hybrids don’t take gasoline completely out of the equation, but remove fairly little in "end user" capabilities. Electrics pretty much eliminate pollution at the sharp end (and one power-plant scrubber is much cheaper than 100,000 catalytic converters), and offer massive torque. But have significant range and weight issues. Hydrogen can be used in a standard ICE engine or to run an electric motor via fuel cells.

In either case, end use pollution is virtually gone. The biggest obstacle is cost both from making the fuel and the power source. The other issue with fuel cells versus batteries: the cells can go farther, but are not as energy efficient as batteries. Cells take more energy to store the same power, but use less space and weight. That’s the reason we went to the moon on fuel cells, not batteries.    

The one absolutely game-changing effect most of this distant tech promises is fully electrical drive. Forget about the environment for a moment. Imagine getting rid of gears and gaining maximum torque from a standstill. Still not convinced? How about individual motors in each wheel? If you can’t do some seriously crazy things with that, you aren’t trying. Of course, most of the really fun stuff is a good ways away, but it will happen.

We are living in an interesting era. Right now, there are multiple alternatively-powered cars nearing practicality. Some will succeed. But if you’re trying to pick the “winners,” look for problems of production, not logistics. If they need it, it will be built.   

High gas prices are a bit like the weather: everyone’s complaining but no one’s doing anything about it. Actually, that’s not true. At the sharp end, consumers are buying more fuel efficient vehicles. They’re driving less. We’ve even heard talk of gas-conscious automobilists driving more slowly. Now THAT’S serious, and, to mind, reprehensible. So, while the mainstream media is full of helpful advice on how to use less gas (e.g. take those gold bars out of your trunk), I hereby present TTAC’s unconventional guide to saving fuel this summer.

1. Let someone else drive. I know: Hell is other people. But we’re talking about freeing America from its dependence on foreign oil, stopping the oceans from overrunning the coasts (whatever happened to that idea?) and saving enough money to buy better quality alcohol. Which reminds me: designated drivers don’t usually drive your car…

Of course, that dodge won’t work during the day. In that case, don’t have a car– even if you do. In all cases, common courtesy says you should offer to help pay for gas. But before you do the right thing, hide your credit cards and carry no more than $10 in cash. By the same token, avoid car pools. They are official arrangements where someone is always calculating costs.

2. Don’t go to work. Let’s face it: work sucks. And half the time you’re there, you’re doing nothing more than schmoozing with people you can’t stand or sitting in meetings where nothing that gets discussed actually gets done. Telecommute.

The trick with this strategy is to start small. Ask the boss for an afternoon off– ONE– to work from home. Send him enough email cc’s so that he knows you’re not not working. Then make it formal. Then gradually increase it to a full day. Then two. Then three.

And make sure you show up on days when you’re NOT scheduled to be in the office. That way the boss knows just how dedicated you are (i.e. he’s never quite sure if you’re supposed to be there or not).

3. Get everything delivered. If humans weren’t warm-blooded, we wouldn’t need to eat so damn often. But hey, we didn’t get to the top of the food chain (never mind Camaro-ownership) by basking in the sun all day long. Darwin rules. As does your local grocery chain’s delivery service, which will gladly drop off all your basic foodstuffs after six hours spent registering on the internet.

In fact, pizza lover, virtually everything you need to survive in this life can be delivered to your door: your children, dry cleaning, alcohol, hookers, everything. Alternatively, stop buying so much shit in the first place. A 1080 HDTV with a PS3 (rent games and movies via snail mail) and a maximum cable bundle will help in that regard. Hey, sometimes you gotta spend money to save money. I mean, the environment.

4. Add a fuel surcharge. This is the flipside of bumming rides, and it’s surprisingly effective.

First and foremost, don’t let anyone passenger in your car without kicking-in for gas. Guilt trip them on saving trees or limiting foreign entanglements or personal penury. It may sound mean– OK it is– but deduct a small percentage from your children’s allowance to teach them about environmental responsibility. Call it the Revenge of the Soccer Mom.

If you’re the boss, tack on an optional (small print) customer charge to cover your gas costs. If you live close to either coast, call it a “carbon offset fee.” If you’re an employee, ask your boss for a gas allowance. Again, start small. “These fuel prices are killing me. Do you think the company could kick in $10 a week for my gas?” Get the accountant in the habit of paying for your receipts…

5. Get the taxpayers to pay for your gas. There are lots of part-time government gigs– both elected and appointed– that come with free gas (if not a free car), from city councilor to “private consultant.” Most drivers won't consider this option because it means spending thousands of hours telling people exactly what they want to hear (i.e. lying) despite the fact that they're ill-informed or deeply misguided. But there is a hidden payoff: public service puts you in the unique position where you can lecture people about the evils of Big Oil knowing that these same people are paying your fuel bills.

And now I throw it to you, TTAC’s Best and Brightest. What other “unconventional” methods can beleaguered motorists deploy to take the sting out of soaring fuel costs? Although I’ve restricted myself here to the [barely] plausible, feel free to wander into the realm of the ridiculous. Remember: our country’s future, indeed, the safety of our entire planet is at stake! Not to mention your beer money.

The great hybrid showdown is coming. GM Car Czar Bob Lutz has thrown down the gauntlet: “We are headed for the OK Corral.” In fact, GM has staked its reputation on the Volt, intending to “leapfrog the Prius” and evoking America’s Apollo moon-shot program. Meanwhile, Toyota continues its domination of the alt power mindspace, finalizing their third generation Prius. While we prepare for the clash of the hybrids, let’s take a closer look at the contenders…

In the serial-hybrid corner: the Chevrolet Volt. Actually, GM prefers to call its gas -electric plug-in an “extended-range electric vehicle” or E-REV.

The Volt will feature a rechargeable 16kw lithium-ion battery pack. Its 120kw/160hp electric motor provides the motive power. A 53kw generator driven by an efficiency-optimized (non-E85) three-cylinder gasoline engine kicks-in when the batteries are depleted to a 30 percent state of charge (SOC). The Volt’s generator will then cycle as needed to keep the batteries within a targeted SOC range. Fuel economy– after initial charge depletion– is a projected 50mpg.

The Volt’s target price started at $30k. More recently, GM’s Car Czar declared that the Volt would sell for about $48k. The winner of TTAC’s annual Bob Lutz award reckons $40k might be possible “without making any profit.” For comparison purposes, we’ll assume an MSRP $44k.

GM has confirmed that the Volt’s first year production run will be limited to 10k units. After de-bugging, the number will rise to 100k and possibly beyond– depending on demand, how large a financial loss GM is willing to accept and for how long.

Even if the Volt’s batteries perform to specifications, GM’s initial promise of a forty-mile EV range has evaporated. GM now says continuous highway-speed driving will deplete the E-REV’s battery in “closer to 32 miles.” And that’s probably at the low end of typical highway speeds (as per the EPA highway cycle). A brisker freeway run, elevation gains, extreme temperatures and the use of heater, A/C and other electrical peripherals will all take their toll on the Volt’s range. It could easily descend into the twenties or… less.

Toyota will introduce their gen3 2010 Prius in January 2009. It will use a refined version of Toyota’s parallel Hybrid-Synergy drive (HSD), whereby electric and mechanically-transferred gasoline-engine propulsion are used individually as well as in various blended forms for propulsion.

Toyota has clearly stated goals for the gen3 Prius: reduced HSD-specific costs, weight reductions and most importantly, a targeted gain in efficiency of 15-20 percent. This should result in combined EPA mileage numbers of 53 – 55mpg (2008: 46mpg). Since average user mileage for gen2 Prius runs 42-44mpg, gen3 Prius should deliver real world mileage of 50+mpg.

The new Prius will have a more powerful electric motor and increased battery capacity, extending its limited EV-only range. Other refinements: improved aerodynamics, further efficiency gains in the Atkinson-cycle gas engine; and improved regenerative braking and hybrid system control.

For the first two years of production, Toyota will stick with the tried-and-proven NiMH batteries. In 2010, li-ion cells will go into volume production at Toyota’s battery supplier Panasonic. With the higher energy density of the li-ion pack, it’s safe to assume that the EV-only range of the base Prius will increase, perhaps double. This should further increase fuel efficiency, possibly to about 55mpg.

Additionally, there will be a plug-in Prius. Fleet tests start in 2010. If all goes well, volume production will begin the following year. Early versions will have a NiMH pack that will provide an EV range of about seven miles and an EV top speed of 62mph. When the definitive li-ion plug-in Prius arrives, its EV range could be some twenty miles.

Toyota has announced a 60 percent production increase for the gen3 Prius– from 280k units in 2007 to 450k in 2009 (worldwide). The car’s average transaction price should stay level, or possibly contract further. We’ll assume $22k for our comparisons. An educated guess at the price for the plug-in version: $30k.

Our comparison will encompass three primary criteria: owner economics, environmental benefits and “green cachet” (to both owner and manufacturer).

Hypothetical economic scenario one: six weekly round trips of 35 miles each. In this example, the Volt would never need a drop of gasoline (except for the occasional auto-programmed runs to cycle fuel and oil). If we inflation-adjust today’s electric rates, a recharge will average about one dollar. Annual “fuel” cost: $312.

A Prius would take 220 gallons of gas @ 50mpg to cover the same 11k miles. Assuming $4/gallon in 2011, annual fuel cost is $880. The Volt’s $22k purchase premium over the Prius would take 39 years to amortize. A $40k “subsidized” Volt would take a mere 32 years. These calculations don’t include interest, either on the higher purchase price of the Volt, or on the money saved (opportunity cost). 

Even if we slash electric rates in half, to 50 cents a charge, it would still take over thirty years to amortize the Volt’s higher purchase price. Comparing the Volt to the plug-in Prius is even less favorable to the Chevy: it would take 58 years to recoup the Volt’s $14k price differential.

Scenario Two: a short daily commute of twelve miles round trip (3744 miles annually) and an additional 3744 miles on long-distance trips @ 50mpg. The Volt’s total annual combined “fuel” cost is $400. The regular Prius’ annual fuel cost is $600. It would take 110 years to amortize the Volt. And the plug-in Prius, which can make the short commute all-electrically, trumps the Volt altogether, with fuel costs of $372. And it costs $14k less.

Scenario three: a long-distance commute with a daily round trip of seventy miles, plus 6k of long-distance miles (23.5k annual total). The Volt’s fuel costs run $1465 annually. The Prius’ are $1880, resulting in a 53 year payback for the Volt. And the plug-in Prius accomplishes the task with a $1488 fuel bill, only $23 more than the Volt (609 year payback!).

Scenario two and three point out the Volt’s two biggest weaknesses: its expensive and heavy battery pack becomes increasingly less cost-effective when its maximum range is not fully utilized (Scenario 2). And its serial hybrid drive is no more efficient (if anything, somewhat less so) at continuous highway speed than Toyota’s HSD (Scenario 3). The Volt’s efficiency losses of generation, conversion, battery storage, re-conversion to AC, and electric drive-motor losses equal or exceed the minimal efficiency loss of the Prius’ mechanical transmission.

All of the above scenarios point out the glaring economic disadvantage of the Volt due to its high cost. Its price would have to come down to $28k to justify a (barely) reasonable ten-year payback in the Volt-optimal Scenario One, and substantially less for the others.

Plug-ins clearly are not about the economics, because even the plug-in Prius (@$30k) has a payback of between 24 and 35 years versus the regular $22k Prius in the above three scenarios.

A comparison and analysis of the environmental-social benefits of hybrids versus plug-ins quickly becomes complicated, due to the variable sources of electricity (high or low carbon content). But the over-arching issue of total (cumulative) gas savings offers some simpler answers.

Aggregate gas savings are much more readily and cost-effectively accomplished through large numbers of conventional hybrids (Prius) than small numbers of somewhat more efficient but much more costly plug-ins. Toyota’s 2009 production of about 500k Priora (@ 50mpg) will save 120 million gallons of gasoline compared to a like number of 25mpg conventional mid-sized sedans, at little or no incremental cost.

But 100k Volts produced per year at an adjusted/equivalent 100mpg save only 36m gallons over the 25mpg car, and a mere 120k gallons over a like number of Priora; in both cases at an incremental cost of some $22 million. Smaller gains in economy spread over a large number of vehicles always delivers a much greater cumulative savings than a small number of super-high efficiency cars.

Even if plug-in hybrids are driven on cycles that maximize their EV range, greenhouse gas (GHG) reductions are surprisingly modest, and highly dependent on the carbon-intensity of the electric source. A new study by Carnegie Mellon shows that unless plug-ins are matched to low-carbon electric sources, GHG emission gains (compared to conventional hybrids) are minimal, and negative in some circumstances.

These and a number of other objective criteria clearly suggest that finite public (and private) resources are best spent in the expansion of existing high-efficiency hybrids, like the Prius and the upcoming new lower-cost Honda hybrid sedan, rather than exotic and expensive limited-production vehicles like the Volt– at least until li-ion battery prices drop dramatically. Meanwhile, GM does not have a Prius-like hybrid to sell, or in the planning stages.

Objective criteria are not the main reason for the GM’s “moon shot” investment in the Volt. When it comes to “green bragging rights,” the Volt may well out-score the Prius– at least for GM and its eager cadre of early adopters. If the final styling is both distinctive and has “it” (like the concept), if the Hollywood crowd adopts it as their newest green baby, if the words “plug-in” or “E-REV” supersede plain-old “hybrid” in green-speak, the Volt could become THE car of the green-tinged moment.

But let’s be clear: both eco-consciousness and the Toyota Prius have moved beyond fads, into fully blown trends. (Federal legislation sealed the deal.) The Chevy Volt and the Toyota Prius must ultimately compete in the automotive mainstream, where the Volt is at a supreme price disadvantage. Unless GM is willing to heavily subsidize the Volt for many years, no matter how good it is, the Prius will kick its ass.

Do you remember when you couldn’t leave the table– or have desert– without finishing your vegetables? Personally speaking, the parental requirement didn’t make me any more likely to eat or enjoy vegetables. The same holds true when it comes to green cars. I’m as sensitive about saving the planet as the next guy, if not more. But ever since “planet friendly” jumped to the top of the list of PR-friendly attributes– above performance and styling– I’ve been turning back into a child that hates his greens.

Take this year’s Geneva show. Please. Yes, there were some stunning cars. But apart from the flacks, hacks and enthusiasts who visited the Swiss city on the lake, the rest of us will never see these machines in flesh. O.K., maybe you live in a neighborhood where the guy next door rocks-up in a Maserati Granturismo S looking for some Grey Poupon. And Maser man may wave at a passing a Rolls Royce Phantom Coupe driver as he exits your mile-long drive.

Me? I’m left hoping for an early sighting of the new VW Scirocco. Unless my spam blocker was secretly set for new metal, the new Portuguese VeeDub was the biggest launch from a mainstream manufacturer at Geneva this year.

And there I was, all excited with VW’s press release days before the show. Wolfsburg promised to “take [Geneva] by storm with four new models.” And then I found out that, Scirocco aside, the psychological tempest in question involved a TDI hybrid Golf, a natural gas version of a TSI Passat estate and a diesel Sharan with longer gear ratios.

Again, I can appreciate new technology. Despite my pistonhead passion for lateral and horizontal G-forces, there’s still an engineer inside me that loves to pop the hood and see what’s what. And again, I’m all for saving polar bears by driving cleaner cars. But no matter how green it may be, I just can’t get excited by a new kind of oil burning VW Golf. Not with ten million units already out the factory door.

As for the Passat wagon, that model wasn’t exactly what I’d call thrilling on the day it was launched in Geneva. Time has not added to its emotional appeal. And don’t even try to get me down memory lane to remember when the Volkswagen Sharan minivan went on sale for the first time. Or the last time I saw one.

Of course, VW’s sister-under-the-skin was also on board for the “green is beautiful” shtick. Audi actually tried to convince people the TDI ΤΤ is a new car. Even someone as starved for diesels as I am (oil burners are not allowed in Athens) can’t see any more beauty in the new old Bauhaus design– even it has tree-pulling torque and a 50mpg sticker.

At least Audi had a new model launch, although the new A4 Avant looks exactly the same as the old one which you couldn’t tell from the one before that or the very first one (for that matter).

BMW fans were also starved of new car love. The Bavarian automaker’s Geneva stand offered no new Bangle shapes to offend the faithful. In fact, that dreamy look in their eyes was probably down to the effects of reading the support materials for Bimmer’s EfficientDynamics powertrain; a tome filled with so many technical details you get college credit just for cracking the binding.

And hello, Mr Fioravanti (call me Pininfarina). No matter how sleek and futuristic you make it, a faceless hatchback with nanotechnology windscreen (and no wipers!) is about as interesting as three black beach balls taped together trying to pass themselves off as Mickey Mouse. 

Where did all the drop-dead gorgeous concept cars go? I remember when designers debuted show cars made of exquisitely shaped foam, with no more mechanicals than four wheels. Aside from Cadillac’s engineless Provoq concept, it’s now the other way around. Automakers “debut” cars they’ve been making for years with an exotic engine.  

I understand car manufacturers have to satisfy new, highly stringent CO2 regulations or, more likely, pay the fines and whack-up prices. I understand that we’re [supposedly] in a time of transition, when various [over-complicated] powerplants are vying for future domination. I know that the press is infatuated with the pursuit, as it beats beating-up the people who pay the advertising that pays their salaries. But c’mon. Cars are about emotion, not reason.

Why can’t carmakers pay R&D and styling studios? Let’s face it: if a car manufacturer wants consumers to “eat” green cars, they have to be beautiful. Would the Chevy Volt get as much attention if it looked like a Malibu? (Will it?) Like the vegetables of my childhood era, shoving green cars down my throat just because they’re good for me won’t make me want to buy them.

In the world of hybrid-drive technology, far-sighted development can pay huge dividends. Just ask Toyota, whose sales of Hybrid Synergy Drive-powered vehicles passed the global million-unit mark last year. While Nissan is licensing Toyota's Synergy Drive for its Altima Hybrid, GM has passed on proven success in its pursuit of two-mode hybrid technology with BMW, Mercedes and Chrysler at their joint Hybrid Development Center in Troy, Michigan. Smooth move or just another example of GM throwing good money after bad? Yup, you guessed it.

The main reason for the cooperative approach on hybrid technology: the inherent complexity of the two-mode hybrid system and its correspondingly high development costs. At low speeds, the two-mode hybrid system operates in virtually the same manner as Toyota’s Synergy Drive and other “single mode” hybrids. The package uses one electric motor for drivetrain assist and another for power generation. It’s in the second “mode” of the system is where things get crazy… and expensive.

At higher speeds and heavier loads, an intensely complex twin-clutch system interfaces two sets of planetary gears with the two electric engines to create both stepped and continuously-variable transmission modes. The system moderately improves efficiency by routing power mechanically rather than electronically.

Coupled with “displacement-on-demand” technology (which shuts down cylinders under light power use), GM claims their system improves combined EPA fuel efficiency on full-size SUV's like the Tahoe/Yukon by as much as 25 percent. But the high development costs and technological complexity add about $10k worth of sticker shock over a stock Tahoe. It would take a whole lot of driving for an owner of a two-mode hybrid SUV to recoup the “hybrid premium.”

Even if GM sells tens of thousands of hybrid SUVs, it’s doubtful they will recoup their share of the investment in its development. But the only thing worse than overpaying for overcomplicated, under-performing technology is watching as your former development partners ditch you and innovate your technology into obsolescence. 

While GM has jumped right in to the market with two-mode Yukon/Tahoe models for '08 and is gearing-up for more models, BMW is planning on releasing only two two-mode hybrids. What’s more (or less), they’re only selling their X5/X6 two-mode hybrids stateside. Beyond that tepid effort, the chances increase daily that BMW will join Mercedes in washing its hands of two-mode technology entirely. Bimmer and Merc are jointly developing a lithium-ion battery based mild hybrid, touted as a cheaper and more efficient alternative to GM's two-mode unit.

Why wouldn't the Germans dump the two-mode system? With clean diesels on the way, and the BMW mild hybrid diesel coming down the pike, BMW and Mercedes are likely nursing a severe case of two-mode buyer’s remorse.

By any reasonable standard, GM should be too. Although part of the two-mode’s appeal lies in its advantages in truck, SUV and other high-torque applications which hold the promise of reinvigorating GM's flagging bread-and-butter truck sales, once again a simpler solution lies well within reach.

The General's recently released Duramax diesel V8 delivers a nearly identical 25 percent reduction in fuel consumption as the two-mode hybrid. Thanks to its particulate filter and NOX after-treatment system, the Duramax oil burner meets 50-state, 2010 emission standards. While the Duramax doesn't grab the green-friendly headlines which seem to motivate every GM efficiency development, it does provide 310 hp in a package the size of a small-block gas V8, with comparable noise vibration harshness levels, without the two-mode’s colossal price tag.

It is precisely on the point of profitability that GM’s green dreams have been faltering. Rather than cut bait and fish, GM is once again displaying copious quantities of its patented arrogance and preference for PR over hard graft and long-term thinking.

Not to put too fine a point on it, GM is ignoring the old maxim: when you’re in a hole, first, stop digging. The automaker is continuing to spread its hybrid efforts thin with its (rushed and compromised) mild hybrid Malibu. It continues to pursue the hugely expensive, untried and untested Volt electric – gas plug-in hybrid. And it refuses to abandon its two-mode snafu. Meanwhile, Toyota is plugging away at its Synergy Dive, steadily lowering costs, bringing the fuel efficient drivetrain within the price range of similarly capable gas engines.

GM remains held captive by its unrealistic goal of creating a truly revolutionary drivetrain. Like a degenerate gambler with a shrinking bankroll, GM seems convinced that ever bigger risks are the key to emerging from its decades-long neglect of fuel efficient vehicles. Rather than chasing the big score, GM would be far better off ceding the hybrid market. If it can’t satisfy new federal corporate average fuel economy regulations using traditional technology, it should join Nissan and license Synergy Drive from Toyota. That way it could concentrate its time and resources on restoring its branding and quality, and, thus, its fortunes.

Politicians around the world were up against the wall. The World Trade Organization (WTO) was slowly picking away at all their fancy ways of sidetracking public funds into hopelessly anachronistic and inefficient agricultural subsidies. And the agribusiness beats the mil/industrial complex when it comes to lobbying skills. Even French politicians, famous for ignoring the plight of their people, tremble at the thought of another tractor phalanx of mad farmers pulling up in front of the National Assembly and launching putrid brie at their doorstep. Enter Peak Oil.

The WTO rulings are in place to regulate reasonable and equal trading practices between nations. But they cannot proscribe internal actions designed to protect the national infrastructure against potential disruptions. Running out of oil is one such potential downer. Enter a substitute that "solved" two problems at once:

1) How to keep moving money to the agribusiness without the WTO getting pesky.

2) Providing a palliative against Peak Oil. "See, we'll be driving on corn on the cob instead. Nothing has to change."

Well, now maybe it will have to. Bioethanol is a wildly inefficient way of propelling anything, whether aqua, auto or aero. Even in the most benign scenarios, the energy efficiency is pretty much 1:1. Add the fact that you're converting land from growing crops for food to growing fuel for cars, and you have a potential problem on your hands. To wit: rising food prices.

Turns out ethanol is bad in so many ways you don't even want to BEGIN thinking about it. Fortunately, we have people who are willing to do both the thinking and the research for us. The journal Science has just published two papers indicating that clearing land for biofuels will aid global warming.

Wouldn't you know it, the very thing that is going to cure us will kill us faster? Researchers from Princeton University, Woods Hole Research Center and Iowa State University (smack dab in the heart of E85 country) have all concluded that over 30 years, the use of traditional corn-based ethanol will produce twice as much greenhouse gas emissions as regular gasoline.

In the words of the report’s lead author, “this is not good news.” Surprise! There are hidden environmental costs to producing biofuels. "The land we're likely to plow up is the land that we've had taking up carbon for decades," Tim Searchinger at Princeton pronounced. "We can't get to a result, no matter how heroically we make assumptions on behalf of corn ethanol, where it will actually generate greenhouse-gas benefits."

Meanwhile, the governementos of the world are sleeping soundly in the knowledge that they have done a good thing, keeping rotting agricultural produce off the Capitol steps and letting people motor as usual.

Over at the Casa Blanca, the chairman of the White House Council on Environmental Quality isn’t surrendering the federal tit without a fight. James L. Connaughton says biofuels' benefits remain tangible.

"Like any issue, there are ways to do it right and there are ways to do things wrong, and the same is the case to biofuels. We move as rapidly as we can to second-generation [biofuels] because those offer the best opportunity for a low environmental profile."

And the Executive VP of the Biotechnology Industry Organization couldn't agree more. "It is much more logical to produce biofuels that recycle carbon,” Brent Erickson insisted. “Even if a short-term carbon debt is created. Even if it's 167 years, you're still better off than burning oil that can never be paid off."

He could have added that biofuels also offers the best opportunity for an abysmal energy ROI. Kind of like buying Eli Manning out of the Giants because you need someone to throw warmups to your starting High-School quarterback.

Michael O'Hare, who really knows his biofuels, is glum. Yes, another academic, from Berkeley of all places. What does he know?

"The bottom line of these complicated chains of events is that using crops for biofuels anywhere induces land use changes somewhere, and while the effect isn't a simple acre-for-acre replacement, and we don't know exactly how big the land-clearing carbon hit should be for a generic gallon of biodiesel or bioethanol, betting now is that it is most unlikely to be small enough to view crop-based biofuels as green substitutes for petroleum."

Well, doesn't that throw a wrench in the spokes of politicos and car honchos alike? Not to mention members of the green mafia who have been seduced by the notion they were supporting agriculture over oil wars.

It's worth restating. All those of us now alive have enjoyed an extended period with ridiculously effective energy readily available at an unbelievably low price. There are no viable substitutes to the energy efficiency of petroleum, and demand is outstripping supply, and faster than we'd like to think. What next? Sorry, but there is no easy answer.

I recently passed a highway billboard offering "A cure for your addiction to oil." It was another example of my tax dollars hard at work: an oversized ad for Madison Metro, the Wisconsin's city bus company. Yes, where once fuel conservation was the moral equivalent of war, it now seems to require a 12-Step program. With the price of sweet, light crude flirting with a $100 a barrel price tag, we're all supposed to get "on the wagon." I mean bus. So, off we got to Auto Owners Anonymous.

I find my group crowded into the bus dispatcher's office of the Madison Metro central garage. Metaphorically speaking, think Louis De Palma's cage from Taxi where the drivers line up to be the butt of insult jokes. The dispatcher's office is where the Q&A session goes down, before we're introduced to rows of engines and transmissions and then meet some two hundred city buses. 

A hand goes up. "What kind of gas mileage does a bus get?" It's a patently ridiculous question. Although fuel prices are high, the go-juice needed to run a fleet of buses is only a small fraction of their total operating costs. Tax revenues account for the lion's share of Madison's Metro budget, not fares. But I suppose the high cost of gas is on everyone's mind. Maybe that's because there's a big sign on the back of our local buses asking traffic-trapped motorists if they're "Feeling the pinch at the pump?"

"Oh, about six miles per gallon. The new hybrid buses coming in this year should get about eight or nine."

Discretion being the better part of withstanding politically correct peer pressure, I thought, "Six MPG for a bus in city traffic? Get outta here!" Rivet counting research engineer that I am, I couldn't keep quiet.

"Are you sure? One of your publications spoke of a system average of 30 passenger-miles per gallon. Assuming a load factor of seven to ten passengers, you are likely in the three to four mpg range."

Madison Metro's CEO directed me to the National Transit Database. Transit districts getting government support are required to report their fuel usage, ridership and budget to this central clearing-house. The data is freely available to those willing to spend a chunk of their precious life paging through it. My counselor suggested that I look at Indianapolis, Indiana for comparison.

I looked up the 2003 figures for Madison Metro and Indianapolis along with PACE, the suburban Chicago bus network. The diesel-powered bus mpgs were 3.8, 4.5, and 3.9. The average numbers of passengers per bus were 7.4, 8.1, and 9.6. Taking into account that gasoline has less energy than diesel, the gasoline-equivalent passenger mpgs were 25.3, 32.9, and 33.3. The average trip length was 3.1 miles in Madison, 5.0 miles in Indy, and 6.4 miles for PACE.

Only seven passengers on an average bus? On what planet? Every time I get on the bus, it's standing-room only. Heck, there must be 60 people fighting for my oxygen. And if a bus gets three mpg, I reckon I'm getting 180 mpg on the ride home. What kind of car gets fuel efficiency like that?

But you can't fight the numbers. Car drivers get chastised for driving alone, but buses operate with empty seats too.

I know this for a fact because my employer offers a driving cessation program called "Transportation Demand Management." In other words, I get a free bus pass (discounting taxes). And I've actually used the pass for the five-mile trip home when my wife borrows my car. It's standing room only when I get on. But by the time I get off, I'm the only passenger left, and the bus has a good part of its route yet to finish.

When that bus returns to make another rush-hour outbound trip, either "Out of Service" or running its route, it's probably carrying few to none passengers. Figuring-in off-peak service… I guess the seven passengers per bus average isn't so incredible after all.

Anyway, the Madison Metro bus' estimated 25 mpg ain't bad. It's probably better than a lot of people get from their ride, especially on a three-mile trip. That said, it's not out of reach for a Civic or Corolla driver, and you don't have to pay for the bus driver's pension. Oh wait, you do, either way. Never mind.

The signs on the sides of Madison Metro buses show people enjoying expensive warm-weather vacations, asking "What would you do with the $7k a year you could save by taking Madison Metro?" Even after therapy, I'd take that $7000 and make lease payments on a nice, roomy SUV so I won't have to park my backside in a too-narrow transit seat and travel to work in bodily contact with a stranger. Clearly, I need more help.

Chevrolet hopes their plug-in electric – gas powered Volt will become America’s sweetheart. Yet GM’s boldly going where the fully electric vehicle (EV) has gone before. Forget the EV-1. I’m referring to the Baker Electric of 1899. Thomas Edison’s first car (as an owner) was a commercial success, with an effective range of around 100 miles. Today's prototypes, upon which manufacturers are presently lavishing hundreds of millions of dollars, can double that. So what’s the big deal?

The big deal: mass producing a comfortable, affordable electric vehicle (EV) that meets current safety standards, with sufficient performance, durability, driving range and recharge times to make it a viable alternative to existing, highly-developed gas or gas-electric powered alternatives. And that’s without considering recharging logistics.

Simply put, Americans depend on their cars to do too much to depend on current EVs. Even using the latest Lithium-Ion battery technology, electric cars work best for short commutes and errand runs in sleepy suburbs. Unless you can plug-in and recharge at a gas station in ten minutes, the average American owner will have to stash the EV on the weekend and break out the “real car.” Without credible highway capability and/or a quick recharge option, buyers with only enough money for one car will be making a petroleum decision. 

Yes, the auto industry’s best and brightest are on the case. Still, absent some miracle battery or materials breakthrough, it will be a long time before America sings the car body electric.

Of all the challenges obscuring America’s electric car future, safety is the biggest stumbling block. Simple physics tells us that the EV’s enemy is weight. Build a tiny EV out of balsa wood and the range issue disappears. Meanwhile, here in the real world, feather light, safe, mid-sized, mass-produced and affordable doesn’t compute.

To wit: the Tesla Roadster is a relatively minuscule, hugely expensive, light weight (carbon fiber) automobile with zero luggage space– and it still struggles to travel 200 miles on a single charge. Even with bleeding edge battery technology, a mass-produced (steel-bodied) mid-size car equipped with the requisite safety structures and devices (i.e. without Tesla’s airbag waiver) doesn’t stand a chance of matching a gas-powered car’s range or convenience. However, remove that barrier…

And you’re in the developing world, where safety takes a back seat to… everything. Which is why the development of the mass-produced EV will occur off-shore.

India’s Tata Motors recently unveiled the revolutionary $2500 Tata Nano. When Tata unveiled their "people's car," they claimed the machine passed frontal and side impact tests– without specifying whose tests they passed. It’s highly unlikely the Nano could meet American or European safety standards. More to the point, Tata immediately announced plans to build an electric Nano.

Ask any golf cart owner; cheap, small and light are the foundations for a successful EV. The Nano will make a perfect EV. It's small and light, thanks to a cardboard front axle and door panels made from ice chips. The machine’s target market isn’t overly-concerned with airbags, cupholders, leg room, highway cruising speeds or huge cruising distances. It's all about purchase price and operating costs. 

At the same time, Israel has just announced that it’s partnered with Renault-Nissan to build electric cars. In smog-soaked Tel Aviv, electric cars will shift much of the city’s transportation energy needs to from petroleum to cleaner energy generation sources, like solar, wind, and nuclear power (in Israel’s case, not using petroleum has other political benefits, too). The government’s action guarantees the economies of scale that will make it worthwhile for Renault to test the EV waters. Equally important, the gov’s inclusion will assure the lowering of any safety-related regulatory hurdles.

Phase one of EV mass production will begin in India, Israel, Africa, China and other “developing” countries, where driving conditions are right, the safety requirements are less substantial, and the government is willing to interfere with the market to make it worth a manufacturer’s efforts. And speaking of governmental interference…

Gasoline production and distribution in the developing world tends to be incredibly inefficient, expensive and corrupt (e.g. Zimbabwe’s ongoing gas rationing crisis). If these countries use electric vehicles, their citizens can generate motive power any number of ways on the local level: solar, wind, coal, burning garbage, whatever. So why wouldn’t they “skip” right to electric powered vehicles, and enjoy the economic prosperity that mobility brings? While realpolitik argues against this kind of energy “democratization,” the possibility exists.

America will not be left on the EV sidelines. Once millions EV batteries are field tested, once manufacturers are churning-out large numbers of electric vehicles and their related components, the economies of scale will bring the cost down substantially– and spur more development. At some point, we’ll have our EV cake and put it in a large, comfortable, safe and practical automotive package, too.

In '78, OPEC put America's balls in a vise. Responding to the Oil Crisis, Washington enacted a “gas guzzler tax.” The law levied a federal surcharge on the price of any new automobile that burned fuel at the rate of 21.5 mpg (combined), but less than 22.5 mpg (combined). The worse the car’s EPA mpgs, the higher the tax its buyer had to pay. The effectiveness of the federal gas guzzler tax is beyond debate. Literally. No one claims the purchase tax did anything whatsoever to reduce America’s oil consumption. And yet it’s still with us. What’s more, it’s about to make a comeback.

In case you were wondering, the federal gas guzzler tax rate hasn't changed since 1988. The surcharge still starts at $1k; rising to a maximum of $7,700 for vehicles that get less than 12.5 mpg combined. Did I mention that SUVs and pickup trucks are exempt?

Yes, there is that. When the gas guzzler tax was born, SUV and light truck sales accounted for less than 25 percent of total new car sales. According to Automotive News, the genres now account for 52.5 percent of all American automobile sales. 

So if the federal gas guzzler tax was such a great idea back when oil supplies were tighter than a figure skater’s leotard, why not close the loophole now, what with global warming threatening to exterminate billions of humans? Surely that’s a better plan than concocting a cockamamie scheme to force automakers to change their vehicle mix to satisfy an arbitrary average fuel consumption figure? Why not penalize buyers of gas guzzlers and, by doing so, incentivize fuel misers?

Obviously, the domestic manufacturers of said gas guzzlers– automakers who continue to depend on the four-wheeled big ‘uns for their survival– oppose any move to close the SUV/CUV loophole and reinvigorate an otherwise moribund measure. But Detroit’s political power ain’t what it used to be– as witnessed by their failure to win the “debate” over raising federal Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) requirements. So if "the people" are serious about forcing the country's motorists to switch to more fuel efficient vehicles…

They’re not. The vast majority of American motorists aren’t even up for higher gas taxes– never mind an “SUV tax” down on the showroom floor. Hence CAFE. CAFE maintains the illusion of free choice while “doing something” about the “problem” of low mileage vehicles. It hides the gas guzzler surcharge by passing it on to manufacturers in the form of fines and/or technological costs, which the carmakers then pass on to the consumer. The feds get their money, the carmakers get theirs, and everyone feels virtuous.

There is, of course, a fly in the ointment: California.

The Golden State is truly, madly, deeply committed to taking gas guzzlers off the road. After unsuccessfully attempting to do so by hijacking federal tailpipe regulations, they’ve now decided to think outside the witness box. They’re introducing their own, additional tax on gas guzzlers. 

Once again, CA legislators will vote on a plan that would levy one-time registration fees of up to $2500 on low-mileage vehicles. Some “cleaner” SUVs, pickups and minivans would be exempt. Buyers below twice the federal poverty level and businesses with less than 25 employees would be exempt. And  buyers of fuel-efficient cars (e.g. the Toyota Prius and Honda Civic) would get hefty “rebates.” Everyone else has to pay for the privilege of paying more at the pump.

No matter how they tweak it, AB493 is a greater a threat to Detroit than California’s ongoing attempt to supercede federal CAFE regs by classifying CO2 as an atmospheric pollutant. That effort was an arcane, back door maneuver destined to fail. This is a full-on assault that challenges environmentally sensitive consumers to put their money where their mouth is.

And it’s going down. A previous version of the bill was only narrowly defeated in June, when auto industry lobbyists convinced seven LA Democrats to abstain from the vote. (Note: abstain, not oppose.) While you can easily argue that the feds should reserve the right to set air quality standards (which they only “lent” to CA anyway), a state sales tax is, clearly, their own business.

So will it work? Will people stop buying gas guzzlers if they cost an additional $2500? Thanks to the SUV loophole, the federal gas guzzler tax has nothing to teach on this matter. We certainly know that onerous automobile taxes in various New England states have created hundreds of thousands illegal, out-of-state registrations. But the simple answer is no. As car salesman will say, $2500 is only $1.37 per day over five years.

Which probably means California is, like the planet, just getting warmed-up. Gas guzzler tax supporters fully embrace the European model, whereby any and all taxes aimed at motorists are a good thing, and those aimed at low-mpg models are great. But the plain truth is that no matter how they’re applied, punitive motoring taxes create an automotive underclass, and enlarge governmental powers. Two fundamentally un-American concepts.

A marketing guru once told me that many companies sell themselves based on their weakest attributes. By playing up what the market perceives as their limitations, the company seeks to reverse “misconceptions” which prevent greater popularity. The strategy is what Hitler called “The Big Lie:” a falsehood of such size and splendor that no one can believe that someone had “the impudence to distort the truth so infamously.” This explains why Ford Canada used the slogan “Quality is Job 1” while building the Tempo and Escort. It also illuminates automakers’ greenwashing.

The Big Lie is that automakers are environmentalists. Excuse me for stating the obvious, but cars are not now– nor will they ever be– good for the environment. You can argue about the relative amount of damage they cause. You can debate about the various ways to minimize their impact on world ecology. But every time I see the TV spot featuring a Ford Escape Hybrid frolicking with Bambi’s family in a pristine forest, it makes me want to hurl my TV through a window.

If you believe the ad, the Ford Escape Hybrid’s gas-electric hybrid engine emits nothing but organic, non-toxic pixie dust (at least until the internal combustion engine kicks-in). Even if that were true, it’s well worth noting that The Blue Oval Boyz sold just 17,551 Escape Hybrids (34/30mpg) year-to-date– as compared to 118,321 Explorers (13/19mpg).

In their rush to cover themselves in a Teflon-coated mantle of green, automakers are no dopes. They know that their key audience (their customers) are easily distracted by bright shiny objects. We’re good for the planet because of THIS. You don’t have to buy it, but THERE IT IS. They use The Big Lie to distract their critics (and customers) from The Big Picture.

While I’m no fan of Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) legislation, at least the federal rules put automakers’ products into their proper perspective; highlighting the sum total of their vehicles’ environmental impact. Well, almost. No account is made of the pollution generated by creating and distributing these products. But I digress…

Honda provides my favourite example of green-tinged auto industry hypocrisy. This past year, Honda’s F1 group gave their race cars “Save the World” livery: a satellite image of planet earth and the signatures of thousands of people who visited myearthdream.com to pledge they’d reduce their carbon footprint. 

What could be less environmentally-friendly than an F1 race car? F1 cars burn 60 litres of fuel to run 100 km, with hugely fat tires that need replacing on an hourly basis. And they are NOT emissions tested. What’s more, each car requires a massive support team and a globe-trotting entourage that makes the President’s traveling toadies look like a mobile coffee klatch.

The hypocrisy is going to get a lot worse before it gets even worse. The LA Auto Show confirms the trend: the automakers have replaced their previous pursuit of unbridled horsepower, techno toys and drop-dead glamor with the single-minded promulgation of their environmental responsibility– or at least the perception of environmental responsibility. Ironically enough, the underlying message they’re sending is actually the absolution of responsibility, not its embrace. 

The LA Auto Show’s “Green Car of the Year Award” illustrates the point. The award's implicit rational: drivers can buy carbon footprint absolution, instantly divesting themselves of liability for the overall environmental impact of their personal choices. The fact that this year’s winner is not even a “car” but a great honking SUV tells us that hype has rolled over any reasonable analysis of individual consumption like a Tahoe Hybrid flattening a carelessly discarded Styrofoam cup.

Don’t get me wrong: there’s nothing wrong with making, promoting and buying vehicles that do less environmental damage than others. But any examination of these vehicles’ impact without considering the myriad of issues surrounding their creation, fueling and use is foolish.

So why are all these “green” automakers playing us for fools? Because we are fools.

Once again, carmakers are simply giving people what they want. Americans are the world’s most pampered people. I’ve got not problem with that– right to the point where it’s easier for the Earth-aware to buy a Escape Hybrid than change their transportation habits.

It’s a lot easier to commute to work in a gas – electric Ford cute ute than set up a carpool in a less exotic machine, deal with the hassles of mass transportation, change jobs for one with more telecommuting, move house to reduce journey times, etc.

In short: As long as it’s considered possible to change the world without changing habits, that’s what people will do. The rule applies equally to buyer AND seller. In that sense, just as we get the politicians we deserve, we get the hypocritical environmental advertising we desire. Sad, but true.

There’s something deliciously ironic about slogging through one of LA’s infamous rush hours to attend a “green” cars award ceremony. The multi-lane Harbor Freeway plays host to a long slow dance of cars and semis, tailpipes steadily churning out brownish plumes into a blue sky. The dominant hue is not green but red: the omnipresent brake lights mocking California’s long-abandoned promises of fast, efficient personal travel. It’s almost enough to persuade a driver to ride the bus. Like me, most just crank on caffeine and escape boredom via the stereo, instead.

Safely ensconced within the confines of the Convention Center, road rage gives way to the journalistic trough [fair disclosure] and a wander amongst enough exotic metal to give a 49er a heart attack. In my dreams, I can grab a fast steed from the floor and point it at a winding road and go. In reality, manufacturers employ Swiffer-wielding minions to dust the untouchables.

Anyway, back to this business of saving the planet. This year’s auto show has been transformed into an overhead cam version of Earth Day. Even our press room sponsor proclaims that it’s now “dedicated to a green future.” In past years, such unbridled vehicular earth worship from a tire manufacturer would be about as credible as Vogue promoting a positive body image to a bulimic support group. Today, auto industry types don’t as much play the green card as staple it to their forehead.

The third annual Green Car of the Year award comes courtesy of the Green Car Journal™; which is also the Green Car Journal Online™, GreenCar.com™, GreenCars.com™ and Green Car Online.com™. Whether or not Ron Cogan practices the TM that he preaches, the editor and publisher behind these ventures has fully grasped the marketing possibilities of cleaning-up the image of the [once and future] planet destroyer. Clearly. 

If you were expecting a sneering panel of hippy judges drenched in patchouli and incense, think again. In addition to such green luminaries as Jean-Michel Cousteau (eldest son of Jacques, the original Fish Whisperer) and Sierra Club executive director Carl Pope, both Jay Leno and Carroll Shelby voted in this year’s eco-electoral college. Not that the (former) champions of unbridled horsepower bothered showing up. Still, had they attended, the erstwhile eco-converts would have been flattered (not to say intoxicated) by the substantial media presence.

Mr. Cogan’s buff book has yet to find an alternative fuel that it doesn’t like. This year’s five nominees amped-up the hybrid hype, but good. GM dominated the entries, with its hybrid versions of the Aura, Malibu and Tahoe. Hybrid variants of the Mazda Tribute and Nissan Altima completed the list of contenders. 

The esteemed panel awarded the coveted prize to the Chevrolet Tahoe. Mr. Cogan burnished its halo with all the enthusiasm you’d expect from a man who jets around the world on someone else’s nickel to test “green” cars without disclosing the manufacturers’ contribution to his reports or carbon footprint. 

The cynicism is warranted. The powerplant installed in this belle of the enviro-ball Tahoe hybrid begins with a 6.0-liter V8. GM opted to graft its hybrid system onto a motor that’s substantially larger (e.g. thirstier) than either the 4.8 or 5.3-liter conventional motors used in other Tahoes.  Attach 400 pounds of batteries to this mammoth mill, and the resulting ecotank offers no improvement in highway fuel economy and slightly less towing capacity over the old-fashioned dino burner.

Employing a gasser 25 percent larger than the norm– instead of deploying a lighter motor of smaller displacement– only to weigh it down with nickel metal hydride, seems a lot more mean than green. Yet with battery acid on tap, apparently all is forgiven.

To be fair, not all of the runners-up deserve a slam. Both the Nissan Altima Hybrid and the Mazda Tribute Hybrid accomplish their missions: delivering relatively low emissions and strong fuel economy relative to their respective classes. If you want four-wheeled fodder for a general rant against gasoline-battery marriages, you won’t find it here.

Still, there’s no getting around it: this award is meant to be about “moving the bar forward” in the noble pursuit of slicing America’s overall fuel consumption through consumer choice. Unfortunately, the prize has delivered a less laudable lesson: how ecology-as-pop-culture can produce sub-optimal results. 

The recurring theme of the awards presentation: sacrifice is wholly unnecessary. But the belief that one can pilot a big block V8 for a grocery run while doing the planet a favor is just as absurd as it sounds. Irrespective of where you shake out on matters environmental, the message of burn-it-big-but-with-batteries is overtly hypocritical, an idea worthy of a spin-crazed carmaker, not an [alleged] environmental crusader.

For the majority of those with a desire to save fuel, swapping your ride for a smaller car remains the obvious and most effective solution.   

Once again, New York Times columnist Tom Friedman has addressed automotive issues. This time, Friedman weighs-in on the ultra-cheap car being posited for the rapidly-growing Indian market. The gist of Friedman’s proposal: tax the stuffing out of the cheap car and put the money into mass-transit. Like most of Friedman’s auto-related rants, this one combines a handful of valid points, a couple of keen observations, a soupcon of knee-jerk utopianism and enough muddled thinking to make it impossible to support his views.

Like most Western intellectuals familiar with (if not actual users of) their home town public transportation systems, Friedman believes government has a right (if not an obligation) to manipulate urban transportation patterns for its citizen’s well-being. If these pro-mass transit thinkers harbored any doubts about the costs or consequences of this intercession, the prospect of automotive pollution and global warming removed them. 

And so the New York Times scribe surveys India’s chaotic conurbations, imagines adding millions of private vehicles, and concludes that the Indian government should heavily tax cars to prevent this eventuality.

Never mind that taxing cars beyond the reach of the middle class is a fundamentally elitist proposition, reserving personal transportation for the small percentage of India’s “haves.” Preventing India’s urban areas from generating even MORE pollution serves the greater good. Besides, Friedman says that the money will (should?) get plowed back into mass transit, which is better for the middle class– and everyone else– than owning a car. 

Have a look at the picture. Why would any member of India’s middle class want to spend their hard-earned money on a car for commuting? Immobility would limit their ability to earn enough money to pay for the car. So unless a car aids an Indian consumer’s ability to commute, they won’t buy it for that purpose. In other words, congestion creates a natural limit to car ownership. An extra tax is both discriminatory and unnecessary.

Of course, Friedman is presuming that cars = commuting. Given gridlock, perhaps Indians will buy the new, cheaper car for something other than slogging back and forth to employment: commerce, shopping, trips to distant relatives, etc. For these tasks, mass transit is not the ideal solution. If mass transit WAS the answer, people wouldn’t buy a car. This is especially true at the economic margins, where India’s new, inexpensive car will find favor. Would Friedman discourage these sorts of trips for the greater good? Apparently so.

Whether or not you agree with that consequence of Friedman’s call for draconian private automobile taxation, Friedman’s argument fails to consider a key reason why a middle class Indian WOULD opt for a cheap car over mass transit (gridlock be damned).

To assure sufficient rider volumes and maintain political equilibrium, India’s mass transit network is widely affordable. Over six million commuters use the Mumbai Suburban Railway every day; it has the highest passenger density in the world. In a country with an entire class of people called “untouchables,” middle class Indians who have the means to buy the new inexpensive car do not now, nor will they ever, prefer to share mass-transit with tens of thousands of less fortunate souls.

It's not PC to say it, but Friedman’s plan for more Indian mass transit wouldn't keep India’s middle class off the roads. Increasing mass transit will simply increase the number of less wealthy people flooding into urban centers– exponentially. The consequences of this increase are unknown, but given that there are many types of pollution (including human waste), it’s entirely possible that a larger mass transportation system may not be in the environment’s best interest.  

It may pain a writer living in a "first world" country to admit it, but environmental concerns must be always be balanced against economic prosperity– if only because most citizens value the latter more than the former (sorry, that’s the way it is). In that sense it’s worth asking if traffic congestion actually HELPS India. The more urban congestion, the more business and people move away to outlying areas, where prices are cheaper and transportation more efficient. If it works for Atlanta, Houston, LA, London, Paris and Moscow, why wouldn’t– doesn’t it work in India?

Anyway, the whole frame of reference for this debate is seriously off-kilter.

Intellectuals who learned their history in the big city tend to forget that inexpensive personal transportation has the greatest impact outside urban areas. Out past city limits, cars open up an entire world of possibilities and, thus, raise the quality of life. For America’s vast rural population, Henry Ford’s Model T created new economic markets for labor and goods, fostered social mobility, improved public health and increased genetic diversity. By shrinking distances, a cheap Indian car would liberate time that the rural poor could use for more efficient economic endeavor and/or education. 

Any government looking to improve the well-being of its citizenry should think long and hard about raising the “floor” to automobile ownership. As should Tom Friedman.

[You can read Mr. Friedman's column here.]