OK, yes. All you folks who believe that we must free the country from its dependence on foreign oil and stop the planet from over-heating need an electric vehicle (EV). Well, you want one. I mean, it’s not like you’re walking at the moment is it? And if you are, chances are you can’t afford or don’t want a car, whether it sucks oil from the desert or burns coal through a cord. The problem—for me—is the link between “we” and “need.” Whenever people start telling me what I need, I get the sneaking suspicion that I’m about to lose something I’d like to keep. I reckon most people who drive gas-powered cars are just as skeptical of EVs as I am of demagoguery. Question: does that matter?

The chattering classes couldn’t care less. Never mind the environmental effects of amping-up power plants to cater to plug-in nation. EV boosters talk of gas-powered cars and “oil addiction” as if driving a “normal” car makes their drivers sociopaths. At best, they consider Americans who view EVs as glorified golf carts—which, in the main, at the moment, they are—as morally blind. But really, anyone who resists the call of the plug is lazy, selfish and greedy.

Of course, it’s not their fault. They’re hapless victims of a vast conspiracy between the oil companies and Detroit. Big Oil and Big Wheel lured them into gas-guzzling cars and OMG SUVs to satisfy the mega-corporations’ selfish, planet killing greed. (Yup, there’s them words again.) Well guess what? We’re from the federal government and we’re here to help you trade in that gas guzzler for a cheap, clean-running electric vehicle. Whether you like it or not.

Yes you—and by “you” I mean the government—can force drivers to switch from gas to electric propulsion. All the feds have to do: make it financially onerous (i.e., painful) for motorists to drive a “normal” car.

At one end of the spectrum, Uncle Sam could simply outlaw gas-powered automobiles. Federal Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) regulations already dictate the type of vehicles that automakers must/can build. Tweak the rules here and there, allow for a “transition” period, and we can kiss that pesky gas pump goodbye.

Alternatively, the feds could simply tax the living NSFW out of gas-powered cars. Gas tax hikes, registration fee increases, carbon penalties, road pricing, etc. could create the exodus that simple political correctness will not. Given the U.K.’s experience with cigarette tax (nearly seven bucks a pack), any such “incentive” to leave gas behind would have to be a truly ridiculous tariff. But it would work.

In fact, it is working. Slowly. Which is the only way it can work, politically. If politicians tried to jump from point A to point e in one go, the public would hand them their hats. Instead, we get CAFE’s point B. What’s the bet that EVs and plug-in electric vehicles are given sky-high CAFE-complying mpg ratings? Raise the CAFE standards high enough, and EVs are a dead cert. Lest we forget who created the electric car [hint: the California legislature].

The “cash for clunkers” legislation is point B: XXXL vouchers for plug-in or fully electric hybrid vehicles. If enacted, the bill’s incentives would represent the “pull” side of pulled pork. Anyone remember the Department of Energy’s $25b re-tooling “loans” for American automakers gearing-up fuel efficient vehicles? Same sandwich.

Point Q: the California Clean Air Resource Board’s flirtation with the idea of outlawing black paint, to reduce the energy needed to keep them cool. Still, it’s a question of slope angle, not slipperiness.

OK, so I’m wearing a tin foil hat and yes, I’m anti-EV. Sorry. It’s not because I have a Scott Burgess-like love of a rumbling V8 in the morning. Although God knows I do. Nor is it insensitivity to the planet’s plight. Although I think about the planet in terms of millions of years rather than last week. And I’m not a Bedard-like reactionary who sees changing a toilet paper roll as an affront to common sense. It’s simply this: EVs are a cynical attempt to avoid reality.

EVs defenders tout plug-in automobiles as a bridge to an oil-free future. (To wit: Chevy’s tagline from gas-efficient to gas free.) I call bullshit. EVs are the rolling equivalent of Chrysler and GM’s “viability plan.” It’s a bridge to a place that I don’t believe exists. In the EVs case, we’re talking about a world where America trades-in over 100 years of gasoline-fired prosperity for what? Nuclear power powered vehicles?

Hang on; that works for me. Tell you what. Once the feds build a bunch of nuclear power plants, once they prove that switching to battery power can reduce pollution and oil imports, then I’ll buy an EV. Only how come I don’t feel like I won’t get a say in this?

TTAC’s own David Holzman writes:

I was struck when I did my old Beetle review by how much worse the steering and handling felt than I remembered. The ’67 Imperial also seemed a lot floaty-boatier than I would have expected. Thus, I found very interesting your implication [in the Piston Slap question about the Explorer] that ride could deteriorate badly in less than a decade. Are old car reviews doomed to vastly underrate the cars relative to how they drove when new—unless they’ve recently been overhauled?

Read More >

You’d kinda hope that the Presidential Task Force on Automobiles (PTFOA) would negotiate with Chrysler, GM, the United Auto Workers and GM’s bondholders down to the wire. After all, the actual deadline for the yes/no decision on the next round of bailout billions is March 31. So it kinda makes sense to hold their feet to the fire until the very last minute, forcing them to satisfy the conditions laid down by the first, $17.4b federal bailout. But nooooooo. Six days out from the deadline, the leaky ass quango known as the PTFOA has let slip the fact that they will, indeed, bless (a.k.a. “loan”) Chrysler and GM with $22B of your hard-earned tax dollars. Maybe more! But that’s OK, ’cause THIS TIME there will be strings! Timelines! Deadlines! The Wall Street Journal reports . . .

Interviews with task-force members indicate that the administration doesn’t want to let General Motors Corp. and Chrysler LLC slip into bankruptcy protection, a course advocated by some critics of the industry. Instead, the task force is expected to say that it sees viable futures for both GM and Chrysler, but only if there are sacrifices from their managements, unions and GM’s bondholders. The team will also lay out a firm timeline for action.

And now, the NSFW about how hard the PTFOA worked to get to the point where they’re happy to use federal money to [continue to] prop-up America’s zombie automakers.

In session after session in a warren of offices at the Treasury Department, the team has sat through tutorials on dealer financing, studied basic data and debated the future of U.S. car sales. They have spent days trying to understand the complexities of the hundreds of companies that supply the car companies with axles, seats and other parts.

Perhaps if they’d hired someone who already knew how the industry worked, they could have avoided those terrible all-nighters. As if that’s not enough of an insult to any industry worker’s intelligence, there’s more!

“It’s like a Rubik’s cube, trying to untwist it and trying to get all the colors to line up,” [Steven Rattner, a former journalist-turned-investment banker] said in an interview. “So we’ve learned a lot about how car dealers work, and how companies get paid when they sell a car to a dealer, and why there are a certain number of dealers more than are optimal. Have we learned everything? Of course not, but I think we are learning what we need to learn to do this job.”

So industry vets can work for forty years to gain enough knowledge to run a small business—successfully—in the automotive trade. But an investment banker and his boyz can get a handle on the entire industry in what, a month? Boy, they must be smart!

Mr. Rattner dismisses the idea that his team may not have enough auto expertise to tackle the job. “We are not trying to run car companies,” he says. He compares the work to what he and others have done in the private sector. “This is the type of investment decision that many of us on this team are used to making.”

Pride. Fall. Goeth. Rearrange. But don’t take my word for it. Here’s the WSJ’s report on the meeting between the PTFOA and Fiat, re: Fiat’s small car “alliance” with Chrysler.

Mr. Bloom focused on minute aspects of the business strategy, and Mr. Rattner, on how the deal would be structured. People on the Fiat team came away thinking that the task force’s questions betrayed a limited understanding of the industry. “It’s fair to say we walked out of the meeting and were a little unsettled,” says one member of the Fiat team.

If you’re thinking about forgiving the political appointees’ ignorance and laud them for, at least, standing apart and stepping back from the current meltdown, you know, to take the long term view, think again.

Several auto experts who’ve met with the panel say they’ve been struck by the group’s focus on trying to determine exactly when car sales will rebound. “They are absolutely concerned with the short-term, so it’s hard to see them grasping the medium or longer-term issues,” says Daniel Roos, an automotive expert at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who briefed the team in Washington on March 6.

I guess they’re listening to Deutsche Bank’s auto analyst, Rod Lache, who told the PTFOA to ignore the data. “This is a policy decision, not an economic one. One way or another, GM will have to be saved.” Of course they will! Because it’s all about jobs! jobs! jobs! Well, one job, anyway.

At the Chrysler Dodge truck assembly plant, located in nearby Warren, Mr. Rattner says, the importance of the task force’s work hit home. “At the end of all the numbers we are generating,” he says, “there are real people.”

You knew this would happen.  Whenever things go wrong or come to an end we can’t help but look back and try to figure out why. To look for that one pivotal event that changed the course of events forever. So what did it for GM? When did it happen? After careful analysis I pinpoint their demise to the 3.8L V6 (a.k.a the 231) of the 1970s.

First, the runners up and why they didn’t make the final cut.  The Corvair certainly garnered a lot of bad press for being “Unsafe At Any Speed.” For all of its bad points, including the gas fired heater, it just wasn’t that bad of a car. Furthermore, it was a niche vehicle and never sold in enough numbers to really cause any permanent damage to the then-mighty GM.  Remember, in the 1960s GM was responsible for selling over 50% of the vehicles in the US.  Many look back at the Corvair as nothing more than an experiment that didn’t work.

Fast forward to the early 1970s. GM introduces the Vega, its response to the fuel efficient imports, just in time for the oil embargo of 1973. To say the Chevy Vega was ill-conceived is an understatement. First, the GM hierarchy dismissed the warnings of their engineers that an aluminum engine block needs cast iron liners. Then they outsourced cheap Japanese steel that turned to aluminum foil after just a few winters. It was clearly a losing situation for GM as they got bogged down spending millions sidelining cars to replace engines and recalling others to replace fenders.

So why didn’t the Vega make the final cut? Truth be told it just wasn’t the meat of the market for GM then. Furthermore, the public was just starting to accept little cars that ran on four cylinders and many didn’t believe a four cylinder could be durable enough to hold up in the long run anyway.

Which brings us to our winner: the 3.8-liter V6. Or the 231, as it was more commonly known back then (it was more common to refer to engine size in cubic inches not liters). It quietly appeared on the scene then gained wide spread use in 1978. That year saw a major redux across the A-body line: Oldsmobile Cutlass, Pontiac Grand Prix and the Buick Regal. These were General Motors’ bread and butter products and they were wildly successful. And it is here that GM makes its final, fatal collision; the corporate Titanic hitting the metaphorical iceberg.

GM sent these cars out of the factory with a multitude of quality glitches of which 231 engine issues were no small part. The oil pump was poorly designed, causing the oil pressure to sink dangerously low. By the time the consumer figured out something untoward was happening, the engine was apt to have blown a bearing or, worse, seized up. Game over. If your 231 engine didn’t throw a bearing, there were transmission “issues.” Cracked springs in the suspension. Rear wheel cylinders that fell off of their backing plates. All of this pushed many in the public towards their GM repair shop, and then, imports. The rest, as they say, is history.

Looking back, GM should have jumped in and cleaned up this multifarious mechanical disaster with honor and swiftness. At the time, they had enough cash to make all their customers whole. It would have been an extremely expensive PR disaster, but pretending there wasn’t a problem sealed their fate with hundreds of thousands of former loyalists.

GM tried to run from the warranty claims. Worse, they continued producing the 231 well into the 1980s. In the years that followed, it was mostly more of the same. GM sent out V8s with soft camshafts, torque steering X-cars and Fieros a quart low on oil. As the quality issues stacked up, GM’s market share deteriorated.

In the 1990s, they had one last chance. Cash rich from the SUV craze, GM could have re-invested the profits into their cars to make them mechanically-bulletproof world-beaters. Sadly, they squandered on brands and products and deals they didn’t need. And so here we sit in 2009, trying to bail them out, trying to figure out how to turnaround a submerged leviathan.

The astute reader will have noticed that I’ve left out the Chevrolet Monte Carlo, the other model built off the A-body and a major player in 1978. The Monte Carlo also had a 3.8-liter V6. But that engine was derived from a Chevrolet design: it had 229 cubic inches, not 231. Those two cubic inches helped make the 229 much more sprightly. And durable. If GM had used the 229 in the rest of their divisions . . .

Imagine that: two measly cubic inches could have changed the course of GM forever. Then again, I doubt it. When a company can’t recognize, admit and correct its mistakes, it’s a rudderless ship bound to hit something, eventually.

What makes a car a true classic? Being one of the handsomest and most enduring designs of its time? Staying in production for twenty years? Having a long-stroke in-line engine with a classic OHC hemi-head? Winning a big race at the ’Ring? Having illustrious heads of state as loyal owners? Or just slapping a chrome “Classic” badge on its flanks? How does this Rambler stack up? Has it earned its chops, or is it an impostor? Read More >

In 1979, Chrysler was staring down the barrel of bankruptcy. ChryCo’s charismatic CEO stepped forward, publicly lobbying for $1.5B worth of federal loan guarantees. Lee Iacocca captured the American taxpayer’s respect and trust—to the point where the automaker’s ad folk made Lee the company’s pitchman. “If you can find a better car, buy it!” he dared. They did and they didn’t. Either way, Iacocca’s communication skills were beyond reproach. Contrast that with today’s mumbling, bumbling Motown CEOs, who’ve managed to alienate well over half of the American public, who no longer want to buy Detroit’s cars OR provide them with a second (third) chance. And no wonder. The CEOs have demonstrated an abject inability to call a spade a spade, or sell the spadework that must be done (which is largely grave digging by now). Wagoner, Nardelli and Mulally’s failure is what it is. But what about the little guy in all this? Who speaks for them?

I’m not talking about Detroit’s unionized workers or their white collar counterparts. As much as I sympathize with their plight—caught-up as they are in a poisonous corporate culture not of their own making—they are hardly a downtrodden, voiceless minority. Their Motown overlords have Washington’s ear. The fact that Chrysler and GM have scored over $50 bn in federal handouts of one sort or another (loans, retooling loans, finance company bailouts, etc.), while Ford has arranged a $9 bn line of credit, speaks for itself. Detroit’s dealers, captive finance companies and suppliers are also well represented. But what of everybody else in the American automotive industry?

I refer to the foreign nameplate automakers and their workers. Other than some gentle murmurs of encouragement, we’ve heard nothing from Toyota, Honda, Nissan, Hyundai and the rest of America’s so-called transplants re: Chrysler and GM’s federal trough snuffling. The transplants should be a force to be reckoned with; they currently account for more than half of all automotive sales within our borders. They aren’t technically bankrupt, or facing bankruptcy. Yet their tax money (like ours) must now pay for Detroit’s chronic mismanagement.

The transplants’ productivity and success, their ability to create goods and services that American consumers want at a price that makes the company a profit (in accordance with all U.S. laws and regulations), is now subsidizing Detroit’s ongoing incompetence.

Of course, it’s worse than that. This is not a general taxpayer bitch and moan thing. It’s a government using tax money to distort the will of the American consumer by propping-up a dead competitor trading thing. In a severely contracting market, no less. I know: jobs! jobs! jobs! But what about the jobs! jobs! jobs! of all the productive, hard-working non-Detroit autoworkers laboring within U.S. borders?

The current economic meltdown has forced Toyondaissan to curtail American production, cancel scheduled factory openings and lay off thousands of workers. Would those curtailments have been as severe if Chrysler and GM had been “allowed” to go belly-up? Of course not. Common sense tells us the transplants would have scooped-up a [yet] larger share of the suddenly smaller pie, supporting American jobs and American communities. There’s no getting around it: the federal bailout is taking food of the tables of American workers.

There’s plenty of room to debate the advisability of encouraging foreign nameplates to manufacture cars in the U.S., relative to, say, Detroit-based automakers. (Who’ve shown no reluctance about importing vehicles into the U.S. market.) We’ve engaged in that discussion here on TTAC many times. But where is the voice of the transplants and their workers in this debate?

Again, there are thousands of workers and dozens of communities spread throughout the U.S. who build cars for Toyota, Honda, Nissan and Hyundai. Workers who manufacture a quality product for American consumers. Workers who pay their taxes. Workers who are NOT sucking off the federal teat, either directly or indirectly. Who speaks for them? Are they not outraged by their own government’s willingness to put their jobs at risk to support a business model that’s broken beyond repair?

If they’re not, they should be. Last year, they went to bed and woke-up in a world where free and fair competition, combined with the sweat of their own brow, assured their family’s future. Now, who knows? A cabal of corrupt financiers blew a hole through U.S. banking regulations designed to protect the average wage earner from economic ruin. These insiders opened the door; the feds have come traipsing in, paving Detroit’s road to hell, forcing American autoworkers to compete against their own government.

It’s time for them to tell Washington that these enormous, unrecoverable “loans” to Chrysler and GM are a cancer on their beliefs. I understand the transplants’ desire to keep a low profile and wait for the dust to settle. But America’s traditional values are at stake. Their workers must step up and say no to Bailout Nation.

It seems straightforward enough: federal vouchers for old clunkers. Takes old heaps off the road. Stimulates new car sales. Done. Of course, we are talking about a government program here. And that means that H.R. 1550, the “Consumer Assistance to Recycle and Save Act of 2009,” has quickly become a cat fight amongst interested parties (manufacturers, dealers, dismantlers, after-market parts makers, trade protectionists, etc.). If passed, 1550 will surely evoke the law of unintended consequences. At the moment, the bill’s been referred to the House Transportation and Infrastructure committee, so that august body can breathe their magic upon it. Ahead of that joyful event, 1550 contains some HIGHLY contentious sections. How about a stricture for the new car purchase that stipulates different minimum levels of highway fuel economy depending on whether the vehicle was manufactured in the United States or “North America” (i.e., Canada or Mexico)? Yes, way.

The money shot: Section 3 mandates a $4K voucher for “passenger automobile assembled in the United States with a minimum highway label fuel economy of 27 miles per gallon.” The same four grand goes to “passenger automobile assembled in North America with a minimum highway label fuel economy of 30 miles per gallon.” I guess our neighbors to the north and south must. Try. Harder.

If the new “passenger automobile assembled in the United States” achieves that same [higher] 30 miles per gallon highway mpg standard, the US vehicle gets an extra grand: a $5K voucher. Oh, and if that “passenger automobile assembled in the United States” happens to be an electric or plug-in electric vehicle, the voucheree scores $7500. At the moment, the money would go to someone looking at a $100K+ Tesla Roadster or one of those NEV golf cart thingies.

AND if the new “passenger automobile assembled in the United States” only achieves 24 mpg highway, don’t worry too much. The feds would like to present you with a $3K voucher.

The bill also stipulates a lower minimum for trucks, ’cause we don’t want to leave out trucks, a domestic mainstay, do we? “Non-passenger” vehicles must achieve “only” 24 miles per gallon highway to qualify for that $5K voucher. [Look for some tall ass gearing if this passes.]

As for the imports—Saturn Astra, Toyota Prius, Honda Fit, etc.—their buyers are  SOL, voucher-wise. Which, of course, threatens to evoke a trade war. Which could well be the last thing the US economy needs right now [see: Great Depression].

As for the cost to dealers and dismantler of making all these sales, which should generate some kind of profit, 1550 throws in $50 per transaction. Hey, why not? It’s not as if the dismantling industry has a history of title washing or any sort of thing. And while we’re on the subject, who’s in charge of making sure all the clunkers are crushed, the toxic waste removed and the registrations destroyed? Uh . . .

At the moment, the Automotive Aftermarket Industry Association (AAIA) is 1550’s most vociferous opponent. Well they would be, wouldn’t they? Aaron Lowe, the org.’s vice president of government affairs for the AAIA, sent out a press release countering any suggestion that their opposition has anything to do with their members’ profits.

“Proponents of the Cash for Clunkers bill say that it will benefit the environment because it will take older cars off the road, replacing them with new, more fuel efficient vehicles… What will become of all these old cars? The answer you don’t hear from the backers of Cash for Clunkers is that these scrapped vehicles will more than likely be sent to landfills, creating more pollution, not less.”

The AAIA has created a website—fightcashforclunkers.com—to carry their banner forth. While there’s a debate to be had about the relative pollution of old vs. new, let’s file this one under Where’s MY NSFW Bailout?

The Cash for Clunkers program would earmark federal funds for car owners to trade-in their sport utility vehicles in exchange for vouchers to be used to obtain newer, more fuel efficient vehicles. On the surface the program may sound reasonable, but its consequences will increase the nation’s carbon footprint, create issues for those not fortunate enough to afford the cost of a new vehicle and be a waste of taxpayer dollars.

The Fight Cash for Clunkers organization… instead favoring tax credits to help upgrade, repair or maintain older vehicles, as well as tax deductions for interest on car loans and state sales tax.

Death would be too good for this bill. And the idea that the feds should do something, ANYTHING, to stimulate the US new car market is sadly, badly mistaken. The best thing our government could do for the UScar industry is to let Chrysler and GM go C11 and/or C7.  The resulting flood of new, highly discounted product will drive down prices and, perhaps, encourage buyers to trade-in their old cars for new.

Ryan writes:

I own a 2000 Mazda MPV, 165,000 miles, and it has been a wonderful vehicle up until this winter. Mechanically it is very sound, the motor, tranny and suspension are all very good. While it has been too cold to do anything about it, I have accrued the following list of problems though:

1. Radio went kaput (not a fuse, etc.); needs replacement.
2. Drivers door window gearing broke a tooth: will stick every 4″ when rolling up; needs replacement.
3. Passenger side door lock motor gearing stripped; needs replacement
4. Tires are now 75% gone.
5. Large crinkle in the front left fender (does not interfere with anything).

My wife is insisting that we replace the vehicle, so my options seems to be:

1. Fix everything with bone yard parts and sell (I was a mechanic in a past life, would do these repairs myself).
2. Fix nothing and try to sell.
3. Try to get it traded in for our next vehicle.
4. Donate and try to scarf a tax deduction.

Your thoughts would be appreciated!

Read More >

One of the dirty little secrets of automotive journalism is that media scribes get perfect cars to drive. You might not think that from the lousy reviews some cars get, but if journalists took their chances with true production cars, the reviews would be a lot worse.

Needless to say, automakers want to show off their cars to best advantage. But somewhere along the way, the definition of “best advantage” got more than a little stretched. It’s one thing to make sure the press cars are clean and the tires aired up. But vehicle preparation has become a virtual rebuilding of press cars to make them absolutely perfect in every detail, and, in many cases, better than perfect.

In the Detroit area, there are a number of prototype shops that “build” press cars. These shops normally build complete prototype vehicles for shows and for engineering evaluation. So fixing a few flaws in a production car is nothing special. Special paint jobs, closer panel alignment, and reduced door gaps are standard operating procedure.

One car maker, annoyed by press reports of wind noise, had a shop develop a special fixture to replace the window glass. Then the car could be pressurized, and air leaks easily spotted. A rework of the body flanges, door seals and related parts fixed the leaks. No more reports of wind noise on those models! Of course, the average buyers, without the benefit of this careful massaging, took their chances.

The same company introduced a slightly revised version of their full size van a few years back. The press releases bragged about the dramatically improved build quality, and the media agreed. But none of the reporters had seen the press’ vans at the shop, where not only were they completely repainted, every visible spot weld was filled and sanded, creating a flawless surface everywhere you looked. The cargo version of the van, with no interior trim, had lots of visible spot welds. A lot of man-hours went into that bondo job but the van sure looked nice when it was done.

Another company introduced a new sedan to challenge the BMW 3 series for sporty credentials. That meant that every press car had to handle and steer very well. Unfortunately, the first fifty cars off the line were so poorly made that proper wheel alignment couldn’t be achieved, steering gears were sticky, and the tire supplier sent tires that were out of round and out of spec in other areas. The prototype shop went on red alert. The factory sent over another fifty cars, and truckloads of components.

Subframes were swapped, steering gears were disassembled and blueprinted, and the wheel alignment guys worked around the clock. Eventually the shop was reduced to welding up and redrilling mounting holes to make sure that suspension geometry was correct. This was in addition to the usual repainting, refitting and other preparations. Somehow the shop got all fifty press cars together in time, and the car got great reviews. Unfortunately for the paying customers, it took a few years for the production versions to get as good as the press cars.

Why does this situation continue?

The press needs the cars, and the companies need the press. If the press blew the whistle (assuming they even cared enough to find out about the extent of the pampering their cars get), they wouldn’t get cars to write about, putting them out of business. If the companies don’t provide perfect cars, they get savaged in the press. It’s a classic case of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction), just like the days when the US and the USSR faced off with nuclear weapons. Neither group wants to change the rules.

The only way to get the right stuff about cars (other than reading thetruthaboutcars.com) is to listen to writers who get their cars from dealers, like everyone else.

At present, the only magazine that buys its own cars is Consumer Reports. Despite the puritanical editorial stance about fun and cars, they often have surprising insights about quality, performance, and dealer service. CR gets cars with wind noise, flawed paint, water leaks and other problems that somehow escape the notice of the buff books.

One way this could change is for the buff books to buy their own cars. But the economics of the publishing business make this prohibitive. So, since the car makers need the press, perhaps they should set up a trust fund equal to what they spend on press cars and preparation. Buff books can requisition enough money to buy a showroom example, test it, sell it when they’re done and rebate the proceeds back to the trust fund. This would also give the manufacturer invaluable insight into resale values.

Which car maker will be first to step up and make a bold commitment to objective reporting?

I love my Accord. I love cornering so hard that the outer edges of my tires are always worn, despite good wheel alignment. I love gearing down with the stick, and feeling the surge as the VTEC spools up and hits the sweet spot. Love that sound! To be sure, it’s no Boxster, but it IS Salieri to the Boxster’s Mozart. I don’t want no stinkin’ hybrid. I’ll take my internal combustion straight, like my bourbon. I don’t want an EV. In my nightmares, Better Place has taken over, and I’m driving a podmobile with a short range and the slows.  But the twin specters of global climate disruption and peak oil are a dark cloud that follows me wherever I drive. I believe that we must replace fossil fuels with efficiency measures and renewables with all due haste or civilization will crumble in this century.

According to New Scientist, the lower 48 could become uninhabitably hot and dry by 2100. And so I grasp at any hint of deux ex machina. Magic batteries with high energy density and fast charging? OK! Carbon sequestration (oh, please, oh please!). Biofuels? Bring ’em on! High energy density liquids from cellulosic crops grown on marginal lands, or from pools of algae growing in the desert sun, or from sugar cane. Some concepts would even produce petrol. Liquid gold . . .

Or pie in the sky. A major problem with most biofuels is that when wild land is converted to crops, there is a carbon debt, according to an article published in Science last year. That’s because the soil, and the plants and trees that grow thereon store an immense amount of carbon. It would take 17 years of sugarcane production on an acre of Brazilian Cerrado, a type of savannah, to mitigate as much carbon emission as that land naturally stores in the wild state. For the tropical peat lands that have been converted to palm oil plantations, the carbon debt is 420 years. Converting central US grasslands to corn for ethanol incurs a 93-year note.

Nor can you simply convert croplands previously used for food to fuel, because if you do, it will become necessary to plow new land somewhere in the world to replace that food, incurring more debt, according to a second article in Science published concurrently.

Even growing sugarcane on the Brazilian Cerrado, where the carbon debt is a short 17 years is potentially a problem not a solution. The reason is simple. Experts anticipate tipping points in global climate disruption. One possibility: the earth’s reflectivity influences its heat balance. As arctic ice melts, exposing dark ocean, the earth absorbs more heat from the sun, hastening warming.

If the warming reaches a point where the melting of the permafrost begins to release the massive quantities of methane stored within, that gas, which has more than 20 times the insulating power of carbon dioxide, could make warming irreversibly worse. There are many other potential tipping points. And experts fear that we could begin reaching them within the next two decades.

To be sure, certain cellulosic crops such as switchgrasses could sequester carbon in the soil while being harvested for biofuels, although we still haven’t figured out how to break the cellulose down in an efficient manner. Algae production in closed artificial ponds in, say, the desert southwest may eventually produce truly ample feedstock per acre, according to some experts. And waste to energy could well become a bountiful source of liquid fuels. But all this is pretty speculative at the moment, and the inevitable question arises: how much might we produce?

Perhaps the most optimistic of respectable studies on biofuels’ potential in the US, “Growing Energy,” comes from the Natural Resources Defense Council. The study suggests that it might be possible by 2050 to shrink US demand for liquid fuels to the point where the various sources could almost meet the demand while neither displacing food production nor boosting crop acreage.

The problem is that when market forces come into play, it will become extremely hard to ensure that biofuels will be grown in a way that won’t add onerously to carbon debt and global warming. An article in the 27 March 2008 issue of Time noted that deforestation “closely tracks” commodity prices on the Chicago Board of Trade—and that’s despite increased law enforcement in Brazil beginning early in the decade.

Even Nathanael Greene of the Natural Resources Defense Council, a coauthor of “Growing Energy” who professes optimism about biofuels, conceded on his blog that “. . . it is definitely possible . . . that the amount of truly low-carbon biofuels we can drive through real politics and real markets is much smaller than we would hope.”

The Walking Eye writes:

Sajeev, I was reading (a recent) TTAC diesel engine thread and got to thinking about what it would take to slap a small diesel into my Cobalt. I’ve got the super base model w/ the 5-speed and so long as I get good gas, I get really good mileage out of it. However, I’m from IN and we’ve got crappy gas with extra additives that kills my mileage from 10-20% depending on the time of year. If I decide to do this, I’d aim for a small engine with around 150 hp and mileage in the high 40s.

I guess my main question is, how involved would this project be as far as other equipment that would need to change along with the engine? New tranny, computer, driveshaft, etc?

Read More >

Confused1096 writes:

I have a 2001 Ford Windstar LX that is slowly driving me (and two mechanics) crazy. I have an intermittent issue with hard starting and rough idle on initial start up. The problem will clear up after the van has been running about 4 or 5 minutes. There are no codes in the computer’s memory. I’ve been chasing this for a month now with no luck.

The van has 76,000 miles; it is equipped with the 3.8L V6 and a 4-speed automatic. Other than this issue it has ran great since I bought it three years ago. The battery is new, recent tune up, fuel filter, IAC valve, PCV valve, and coolant sensor. This thing has been babied since purchase (I’m a regular here, after all). Any suggestions would be appreciated.

It knows I’m car shopping. Could it simply be jealous?

Read More >

Bankruptcy is more than a financial reckoning. It’s a psychological way-point, from “we’re doing our best” to “re-do.” Let’s call that middle point “we blew it.” That’s not too harsh, is it? I mean, if Chrysler and GM didn’t blow it, they wouldn’t be bankrupt. Oh wait; they’re not bankrupt. Which means Chrysler and GM don’t have to face the otherwise inescapable fact that they NSFWed-up. Of course, they should face reality. You know: the first step to recovery is admitting you have a problem. But as long as they’re supported by enablers, they’re happy to stick with “we’re doing our best”—even though their best is nowhere near good enough. Uncle Sam’s support I get. But the media’s participation in this delusional denial is unconscionable. I speak specifically of, you guessed it, The Detroit News.

TTAC’s Best and Brightest know that I regularly OK routinely give The Detroit News NSFW. As the hometown paper, the News could have steered their readership towards a greater understanding of the domestic carmakers’ predicament. They could have been at the forefront at the debate over the automakers’ future (if indeed there is one). Instead, they stayed on the sidelines, pom-poms in hand, perpetuating every excuse proffered by the piss-ant PR pansies blowing smoke up America’s NSFW, actually cheering the automakers’ multi-billion dollar raids on the public purse. And they’re still doing it.

“Give GM, Chrysler some breathing room” is yet another example where The Detroit News gets it badly, completely, foolishly, dangerously wrong.

Leaders of President Barack Obama’s auto task force now say that deadline isn’t likely to be enforced, taking away a gun from the heads of Chrysler and GM and allowing them more time to carefully put together their new business plans.

It makes sense for the government to provide that flexibility. No one will be able to say for certain whether the two automakers are viable until the administration thaws the credit freeze and Americans regain confidence in the economy.

The auto industry is not suffering as much from a failed business strategy as it is from the inability of its customers to get loans and the wariness of consumers to make big purchases.

Are these guys NSFWing nuts? Well, yes. Obviously.

Obviously, Chrysler and GM’s unions and bondholders can’t be “encouraged” into ripping-up and re-writing their agreements with the automakers if there isn’t a gun to GM’s head. Why would they?

Obviously, waiting for the economy to recover is not a viable “plan” for either Chrysler or GM.

Obviously, Chrysler and GM (NOT “the auto industry”) were and are suffering from a failed business strategy. They were losing money and market share hand over fist when the economy was booming.

The really tragic part about this: The Detroit News and, by extension, the automakers, actually believe that they can keep dancing the waltz as compartment after compartment fills with water. They are willfully ignorant of their plight. They refuse to abandon ship—even if it means taking tens of billions of our hard-earned tax money down with them. Well, it already has. So tens of billions of additional dollars.

Notching down the urgency level a bit ought to give everyone the room they need to make sound decisions.

The task force can do one more thing for the automakers: Approve the next round of loans to help them continue operating until the market rebounds. Rattner has before him $22 billion in loan requests from GM and Chrysler, and acknowledges they need the money.

But taxpayer backlash to bailouts makes additional loans dicey. The money would be well-used.

WHAT!? In fact, correct me if I’m wrong (I know you will) but it’s the taxpayer that’s going to be well-used. The News begs to differ.

Chrysler, which needs $5 billion by the end of the month, says it is making progress in its alliance talks with the Italian automaker Fiat.

The alliance would allow Chrysler to cut its expenses and expand its markets, and place it back on the road to profitability.

GM has showrooms filled with attractive product and is negotiating a new labor pact with the United Auto Workers union that should sharply reduce its operating costs. Once consumers start buying vehicles again, it should be in good shape.

There’s a light out there at the end of this tunnel. If GM and Chrysler are given the time and the help they need to reach it, the entire economy will benefit.

Not to coin a phrase, the light at the end of the tunnel is the headlamp of an oncoming train. Somebody should pull the brake on this bailout express, ’cause full speed ahead is only going to make things worse, not better. Or, to return to our original metaphor, preventing Chrysler and GM from bottoming out will guarantee their death in the gutter.

In his farewell speech (the one about the military-industrial complex), President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned Americans, “As we peer into society’s future, we—you and I, and our government—must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering, for our own ease and convenience, the precious resources of tomorrow.” As any oil company CEO (cough, Dick Cheney, cough) will tell you, Eisenhower’s words point to personal virtue, but shareholders want profits today not resources tomorrow. Thankfully, some take Eisenhower’s words to heart. One such person is Josh Tickell, the creator, director, and protagonist of the impressive documentary film Fuel.

Fuel chronicles Tickell’s personal journey through the dark side of America’s petroleum addiction, his efforts to promote alternatives, and his vision of a sustainable plentiful future.

Tickell grew up in the harsh reality of modern Louisiana, the land for which the term “environmental racism” was coined. The refineries and petrochemical plants along the Mississippi River have fouled much of the land, water and air in the area. All of this contamination has led to a “cancer alley” and reproductive problems for the people living there, including Tickell’s own mother who suffered nine miscarriages and numerous illnesses.

Angered by the personal and environmental damage cause by petroleum, Tickell began looking for alternatives. While studying on an organic farm in Germany, he had his first encounter with biodiesel fuel. To Tickell, this was the answer to his hopes: a safe sane sustainable fuel that didn’t require invading Middle Eastern countries or dumping toxic sludge in bayous.

Thus inspired, Tickell came back to the US in 1997, bought an old diesel-powered motorhome, christened it “VeggieVan,” and toured the country (entirely fueled by used fry oil) preaching the potential of biodiesel. That tour turned into an 11-year odyssey through the growing pains of the biofuels business. Along the way, Tickell experienced both exuberant highs, such as the Carl’s Corner truck stop in Texas converting to biodiesel, and soul-crushing lows, such as when the first “biofuels are bad” articles began appearing.

His deepest low came with Hurricane Katrina. Tickell saw the hurricane (possibly made worse by global warming), and the resulting damage, chaos, and mismanagement as a rejection of all he had been advocating.

However, after helping with the relief effort (in a biodiesel-fueled boat), and seeing the people of Louisiana pulling together to help each other, Tickell had a change of attitude. In his own words, “I stopped fighting from anger . . . and I started looking for partners.” Those partners have ideas that just might save industrialized society.

There are two main objections to biofuels: one economic and one physical. Critics note that biofuels are more expensive than conventional fuels. This criticism is largely specious, because petroleum is subsidized by transferring most of the social, political and environmental externalities away from the price at the pump. In Tickell’s words, “Make the oil companies pay for [his mother’s nine miscarriages]. How much would a gallon of gasoline cost then?”

The physical argument is more valid. Not all biofuels contain more energy than it takes to make them, and some biofuel practices (such as cutting down rain forest to grow palm oil trees) are more destructive than helpful. Tickell knows this and is explicitly against such techniques. The focus of Fuel, and the solution to our petroleum addition, is sustainable biofuels.

Two of the most promising technologies on this front are algae-based biodiesel and biomass-based alcohol. Algal biodiesel started with a Carter-era research effort called the Aquatic Species program. Thanks to 30 years of research and development, we can now feed algae CO₂ from power plants, water from sewage treatment plants and ambient sunlight, and have them excrete ready-to-use biodiesel fuel.

Other companies are making similar progress in converting other waste products (e.g., municipal garbage, agricultural waste, wood chips, etc.) into alcohol. Still other companies are researching ways to grow biomass on marginal lands unsuitable for food crops.

The genius of these technologies, unlike fossil fuels, is that they are sustainable. So long as people breathe, throw away trash and go to the bathroom, we will have CO₂, biomass and wastewater.

Biofuels alone will not solve the world’s petroleum addiction, and Fuel spends considerable time discussing how an array of technologies may do the trick.

Those technologies range from the mundane (energy efficiency, public transportation, etc.), to the emergent (solar and wind power, plug-in hybrid cars), to the exotic (30-story urban vertical farms), but they all have a part to play.

The ultimate message of Fuel, unlike most environmental documentaries, is one of hope not doom. President Jimmy Carter made energy efficiency and alternative fuels sound like a trip to the principal’s office. Tickell, in contrast, sees a clean, sustainable, balanced energy future, and in such a future the truth is that there’s fuel enough for everyone.

Some cities are refusing to comply with a new Georgia law mandating a one-second increase in the duration of the yellow warning period at intersections equipped with red light cameras. At least seven cities that made the required timing increase in January experienced an immediate 80 percent decrease in the number of violations. Of these, Duluth, Lilburn, Norcross, Snellville and Suwanee put the brakes on their red light camera programs after the data made it clear that the programs would no longer make money. Rome is now leaning toward dropping its program as well.

Cities like Atlanta, however, insist on maintaining their photo enforcement system. A spokesman for the city Department of Public Works confirmed to TheNewspaper that yellow times were not increased at any of the eight intersections that use red light cameras. As a result, half of the city’s photo enforced intersections actually saw an increase, not a decrease, in violations in the space of a year.

The number of tickets issued at Spring Street and North Avenue jumped from 415 in January 2008 to 504 in January 2009. During the same period, tickets increased from 37 to 46 at Piedmont Road and Monroe Drive, from 72 to 84 at Buford Highway and Lenox Road. Tickets doubled from 100 to 206 at Cleveland and Metropolitan.

State Senator Jack Murphy (R-Cumming), sponsor of the amendment that created the yellow time provision, vowed to get to the bottom of Atlanta’s refusal.

“If they’re not doing it, I’m going to find out why,” Murphy told TheNewspaper. “Longer yellow was the intention of the bill. They set the yellow too low — especially for left turns.”

Other cities like Roswell admit to ignoring the longer yellow requirement because the enforcement mechanism built into the law will not take effect until next year. In January, the legislature gave the Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) authority to deny a permit to operate red light cameras to any city that fails to adhere to a number of legal requirements, including signal timing.

Under the law, cities can operate without these permits until January 1, 2010. GDOT, moreover, plays no active role in monitoring the compliance of the twenty-three cities that use red light cameras. Instead, the agency relies on the public to uncover any problems.

“Complaints about signal timing related to yellow clearance intervals should come directly to the Georgia Department of Transportation,” State Traffic Engineer Keith Golden told TheNewspaper. “Our legislators… have tasked GDOT to be the agency responsible for monitoring the implementation of this countermeasure.”

Senator Murphy intends to follow up with Golden to see why he is not doing more to ensure cities comply the longer yellow law. Golden suggested cities have an alternative if they do not wish to change their signal timing.

“It was suggested that the engineering calculated minimum values are just that — a minimum and that we should not be designing for a minimum value if there is going to be a regulatory event tied to the value,” Golden explained. “If a local jurisdiction determines that for operational issues they need the lower values — there is no requirement that they install a red light running camera.”

The Impact of Longer Yellow

Exceeding the minimum value by a second has decreased the desirability of running red light cameras by about 80 percent in compliant cities. Suwanee was first to end ticketing on January 19 after issuing just 68 citations under lengthened yellow (the equivalent of 110 tickets per month). This compared unfavorably to the 2008 average of 580 tickets per month which helped the city land $414,540 in revenue. In Duluth, the program issued 652 tickets in October compared to 215 last month.

As a result, Duluth will let its contract for the program — which generated 10,386 tickets worth $727,020 last year — expire in May. In Dalton, 122 tickets were issued at the intersection of Highway 41 and Shugart Road after the light was increased in January. The previous year, the number of monthly tickets averaged 460.

“The additional time on the yellow light has significantly reduced the number of citations because motorists have adequate time to get through the intersection,” state Representative Barry Loudermilk (R-Cassville), primary sponsor of the new legislation, wrote in his weekly column. “Since most of these cities have stated that safety was the primary reason they installed red light cameras, they should be thrilled that citations have been significantly reduced; however, many are pulling the cameras out because they are no longer making a profit.”

North Carolina saw a similar reaction in 2007 when the state supreme court upheld a decision directing all of the profit in red light camera programs out of city general funds and into the state school system (read final opinion). Charlotte, Fayetteville, Greenville, Greensboro, High Point, Raleigh and Rocky Mount shut down their red light camera programs in the wake of the court’s action.