For years now, Detroit’s inability to compete in the increasingly-important hybrid drivetrain has been part of its larger perception issues, driving the view that the American automakers are both less environmentally responsible and technologically adept than their Japanese competitors. GM waorked through a number of underwhelming hybrid technologies, including its BAS “Mild” Hybrid system and its Two-Mode V8 hybrid, while Ford had to back away from Bill Ford’s precipitous promise that it would build 250k hybrids per year by 2010. For a while now, it’s seemed that Ford and GM were content to avoid direct hybrid competition, focusing on “leapfrog” technologies like pure EVs and the Chevy Volt extended-range electric car… but now it seems they’re going back into Prius-style “parallel hybrids” in a big way.
Category: Fuel Economy
With new compact and subcompact models from Ford and GM enjoying respectable sales, the mainstream media has been indulging in some “feel-good” headlines, like the New York Times’s Detroit’s Rebound Is Built on Smaller Cars, or CBS’s more equivocal Can small cars rebound U.S. auto industry? It’s an understandable instinct, as the media has long battered Detroit’s inability to build competitive compact and subcompact cars, and in the post-bailout atmosphere of redemption, these headlines definitely help reassure Americans about the value of their “investment.” Unfortunately (if unsurprisingly), however, these pieces gloss over the full truth of the situation. Yes, Ford and GM are enjoying improved sales success with small cars. The “U.S. auto industry,” on the other hand, isn’t actually getting all that much out of the situation, beyond some fluffily positive press. Here’s why:
A lengthy Automotive News [sub] story on Scion concludes with Scion VP Jack Hollis restating the brand’s basic myth:
Scion was not created for Scion’s sake. Scion was created for Toyota’s sake. It is an investment in Toyota’s collective future.
Hollis’s argument is bolstered by the scenario in which a youngster is attracted to a Scion store by the brand’s youth-oriented marketing, only to leave in a Corolla. Hollis argues that this model means Scion doesn’t have to worry about its sales volume… which is a good thing, considering the brand’s steady sales decline over the past four years. Hollis explains:
We still don’t go with a set [volume] number. Scion wants to be more influential. We want to talk to more people. We’re getting the right people, so the real question is: How do we get more of them?
I don’t know about you, but creating a brand to be “influential” and to “talk to more people” sounds like some vintage, dry-aged, old-school GM branding nonsense. And given that Scion’s sales decline coincided with the rollout of less-distinctive, more Toyota-like products, Scion’s apparent comfort with its recent declines smack of Old GM-style apathy as well (Scion execs respond with the old “but we gave customers what they wanted” chestnut). But don’t worry… Scion has a plan!
Fisker’s powertrain partner Quantum Fuel System Technologies has partnered with the US Army’s Tank Automotive Research, Development and Engineering Center (TARDEC) to produce a diesel-electric, series hybrid Clandestine Extended Range Vehicle (CERV). GreenCarCongress reports
the prototype CERV is equipped with a 1.4-liter diesel to drive the genset, and is designed for quick-paced mobility operations such as reconnaissance, surveillance and target designation. CERV pairs Quantum’s advanced all-wheel-drive diesel hybrid-electric powertrain with a light-weight chassis to produce a torque rating that exceeds 5,000 lb-ft (6,780 N·m) [Ed: after gear reduction].
The unit can maintain speeds of 80 mph (129 km/h) and climb 60 percent grades while reducing fuel consumption by up to 25% compared with conventional vehicles of comparable size.
As Ronnie Schreiber’s piece on the Arsenal of Democracy shows, military developments can have a profound affect on the private transportation market. As the military pursues efficiency for strategic and tactical purposes, let’s hope more advanced drivetrains trickle down into the civilian realm.
These two graphs preface NHTSA’s recent Vehicle Safety and Fuel Economy Rulemaking and Research Priority Plan [PDF] for the 2011-2013 period.
What does the data tell you? What’s a safety regulator to do? Oh, and you might want to look at this graph before you answer…
The release of A Road Forward: The Report of the Toyota North American Quality Advisory Panel [PDF], probably raised a few eyebrows around the industry this week, particularly at the headquarters of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers in Washington D.C… but not for any obvious reason. The report’s findings about Toyota’s internal reforms in the wake of last year’s recall scandal aren’t particularly mind-bending, and are well summarized in an introductory passage
First, the Panel believes Toyota needs to continue to adjust its balance between global and local control giving weight to local control in order to improve its communication and speed in responding to quality and safety issues. Second, the Panel believes that Toyota needs to ensure that it listens and responds as positively to negative external feedback as it does to negative internal feedback. Third, the Panel believes that Toyota must persist in more clearly distinguishing safety from quality and continue its efforts to enhance its safety practices and procedures.
In addition to identifying specific areas for improvement, the report places a heavy emphasis on “the leadership of Toyota’s top executives as they navigate the road forward, as well as the company’s leadership in the industry” as a way to avoid the traps it fell into prior to the recall scandal. And this emphasis on leadership could have some interesting effects…
Gallup has just released a new poll asking Americans to rate their likelihood of making certain lifestyle changes based on different hypothetical gas prices. The result: 57 percent refuse to consider buying an “electric car that you could only drive for a limited number of miles at one time” no matter how high gas prices go. Only moving or changing jobs encountered more resistance. Clearly betting the farm on pure EVs is going to face some challenges…
On the very day that the federal government announced it would buy 101 Chevrolet Volts, President Obama released a new Presidential Memorandum requiring fleet purchases “achieve maximum fuel efficiency.” Regardless of cost, apparently, as the Volt costs over $40,000 and is the size of a $17,000 Chevrolet Cruze. Moreover, the new policy does not appear to reflect the Government Accountability Office’s recent lambasting of government’s use of E85 “flex fuel” vehicles to fulfill previous alt-fuel mandates. Hit the jump for Obama’s full memo
The average price of regular unleaded gasoline was $3.96 this week, an increase of 38 percent over the same time last year. US Senator Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) on Tuesday proposed to temporarily reduce that cost by 18.4 cent cents by suspending the federal gas tax. Under the freshman lawmaker’s plan, the highway trust fund would be replenished by reducing payments made to foreign governments.
“Let’s have a gas tax holiday,” Paul said in a floor speech. “Let’s take the money from foreign aid and let’s give it back to the American people who worked hard to earn it…. That would help people, that would lower the price of gasoline and that would be a stimulus to the economy.”
Pickuptrucks.com reports that you may not have to wait for Mahindra to work through its legal issues to get an efficient diesel-powered pickup, as the DOE has funded development of a four-cylinder Cummins diesel engine which is being demonstrated in a Nissan Titan. According to the report
Cummins refers to the engine by the codename “LA-4” with a 2.8-liter displacement (170 cubic inches). Initial power figures on the engine dyno have the mule test engine producing 350 pounds-feet of torque at around 1,800 rpm. A chart in the presentation shows targeted power levels to be approximately 220 horsepower and 380 pounds-feet.
The engine is likely a derivative of the four-cylinder ISF architecture that Cummins builds overseas, with 2.8-liter and 3.8-liter displacements. The overseas 3.8-liter is rated at 168 horsepower and 443 pounds-feet of torque…
To meet U.S. clean-diesel standards, the 2.8 would use diesel exhaust fluid to scrub nitrogen oxide emissions, like Ford and GM use today in their heavy-duty diesel pickups. It would also feature a so-called passive NOx storage system that would capture and hold NOx during cold starts, releasing the gas when temperatures rise to levels of max efficiency for DEF. The passive system would save fuel used today to jumpstart NOx scrubbing when the system is cold.
The upshot? 28 MPG combined, according to pickuptrucks.com. Given the discrepancy between EPA fuel economy numbers and the CAFE method, that means this engine could make a Titan (which gets 13/18 MPG EPA with its stock V8) more than compliant with the 2015 30 MPG truck standard. And because the DOE spent only $15m, this probably qualifies as one of the more promising government fuel-economy improvement programs in some time. After all, improving truck efficiency is one of the toughest aspects of CAFE compliance… and if a Titan can get nearly 30 MPG combined (about the same as current four-cylinder family sedans), the government’s $15m just bought it a crushing blow to the industry’s anti-CAFE carping.
When Chrysler Group Design boss Ralph Gilles said yesterday that “nothing has changed from the Five Year Plan,” I failed to mention one of the issues that made his statement less than entirely accurate: the planned “mid-sized pickup” which was supposed to debut as a 2011 model. The planned unibody pickup was labeled as “under consideration” at the time, and since nobody has mentioned it since (and because Honda’s Ridgeline has been losing sales), most industry watchers seemed to think the idea was stillborn. Not so, reports wheels.ca. Citing insiders and suppliers briefed on the program, Wheels says the new truck will be built in Windsor, Ontario on Chrysler Group’s minivan platform as
an insurance policy that the plant will continue on three shifts at full capacity.
Which isn’t as thrilling a justification as, say, “the compact pickup market has been shamefully neglected for years, and rising gas prices and CAFE standards make well-developed, modern, fuel-efficient pickups a no-brainer,” but it will have to do. And since Chrysler is reportedly targeting only 15k-20k units per year, it’s not particularly surprising either. In honor of Chrysler’s return to front-drive, compact pickups, be sure to check out the Curbside Classic on its progenitor, the Dodge Rampage.
Does that headline seem ripped from the pages of TTAC’s 2008-2009 headlines, or what? But really, who’s shocked? Chrysler spent early 2009 trying to convince the government that it was worth a (second) taxpayer-funded second chance, and now that it’s looking for a private-sector bailout in order to escape the terms of its publicly-funded bailout, Chrysler’s still got some ‘splaining to do. The DetN reports:
Chrysler Group LLC does not intend to speed up plans for new cars despite media reports that investors see a high degree of risk in an automaker that has been so dependent on truck sales…
“Nothing has changed from the five-year plan,” [Chrysler Group VP of Design and Dodge boss Ralph Gilles] said.
New small and midsize cars for Chrysler, engineered by Fiat, “are coming strong and heavy,” Gilles told reporters following a speech. “There is no need to speed up.”
Now, nobody would suggest that Chrysler should mess with its product timing simply to please some bankers. If it’s even remotely possible to hurry new products to launch without cutting serious corners, Chrysler should/would be doing it anyway (ask Sergio). Still, Gilles’ “nothing has changed” sound bite isn’t exactly true.
Why do consumers like CAFE? Well, the short answer is that a gas tax (which is infinitely superior from a pure policy perspective) hits them directly in the pocketbook, while CAFE forces automakers to absorb the cost increases before passing them along to consumers in the form of higher MSRPs. But underlying this fact is a larger issue that’s driving support of increased emissions regulation: gas is getting more expensive. As I pointed out in my recent editorial on the subject, for all the automakers’ whining about CAFE increases, it seems that energy prices are moving the market in the same direction anyway (the average family will spend $3,100 on gasoline this year).
According to a Consumer Federation of America study [PDF], the steadily-rising price of energy has consumer’s even more concerned about gas prices and dependence on the volatile Middle East than they were during the height of the last fuel price shock in the Summer of 2008. As a result, support for a 60 MPG fuel economy standard doesn’t go below 49% (among Independents) even assuming a ten-year payback period, and earns the support of 63% of Democrats. And before you dismiss this support as hysteria, consider the underlying economics for a moment…
Who’s the most efficient automaker of them all? According to TrueCar’s projections for May, Smart, MINI, Hyundai, VW and Scion top the list for sales-weighted fleet fuel economy. Meanwhile, the industry average of 22.4 MPG might not sound like much, but when you convert it to the “unadjusted” numbers used for CAFE, that 22 MP turns into about 28 MPG. Considering the 2015 CAFE standard is 35.5 MPG between cars and trucks, that average shows the industry to be fairly well on-track to comply with the initial CAFE ramp-up. In fact, since 35.5. MPG CAFE equals about 27 MPG EPA, it seems that the top three brands on this list (Smart, MINI, Hyundai) can pretty much twiddle their thumbs between now and 2015, as they’re practically in compliance with the 35.5 MPG standard already.
One of the most consistent and valid criticisms of GM’s product development, even in the post-Lutz era, is the class-leading weight that so many new GM products carry around with them. To a number of industry observers, the lingering weight problem that so many of GM’s cars struggle with is a sign of corners cut in the design process. GM’s cars may look, feel and drive better than they did five, let alone ten, years ago, but clearly the battle for truly “world class” products isn’t over.
And now we’re getting some of the first indications that GM is taking the weight issue seriously, as GreenCarCongress reports that GM’s engineers have pulled 13 lbs out of its 3.6 liter direct-injected V6 simply by redesigning its head. Given that the 3.6 is already one of GM’s better engines, and is used in a huge number of its vehicles, that’s a solid first step as The General takes on the battle of the bulge.












Recent Comments