For the past few car shows, Hyundai has been displaying mock-ups of a future Tuscon light-SUV. Boring enough one might say, except that the concepts have been so swoopy/gorgeous that even my SUV-hating girlfriend gets wanna-have pangs for what she calls the J-Lomobile. Here in Geneva, Hyundai is showing what they now call the ix-onic, a lower-case technical whiz kid. It has a 1.6L turbo gasoline engine, 170 hp, but emmissions of only 149 g CO₂, a DSG transmission and all kinds of other technical gobbledygookery. We can expect it for 2010 with few changes to the highly atractive concept except for the usual smaller wheels and lower chrome content. But what about the name? A Hyundai spokeman said all future 4WD models will use the ix-nomenclature, as in “ix-1”, “ix-2”, etc. That’s a relief—I was almost expecting something along the line of an upcoming Hyundai ix-otic, Hyundai er-otic and Hyundai ex-tatic (the latter being a sports car, of course). Tu-tonic plays with words, I know . . . .

While California breaks away from the national emissions standards, Canada is headed in the opposite direction towards unified efficiency regulations. “At this point in the United States, it would appear that they are headed towards a 35-mile-per-gallon standard by 2020 and that would start to come into effect in the 2011 model year,” says Canadian Environment Minister Jim Prentice. “We’ve essentially been prepared to go in that same direction . . . what we’re striving for is a North American standard because we know there’s only one North American automobile industry.” Prentice is in Washington DC discussing energy and environmental policy with the Obama administration. “The first thing that has to happen, however, is that the United States has to land with their own domestic policy,” Prentice tells Automotive News [sub]. “It’s by no means clear how this will emerge from Congress over the course of the next year.” Or whether California will play along. From an industry perspective, consistent regulations from the US to Canada would be welcome, although average fleet economy is not a favored regulatory metric.

Except that it isn’t, of course. “Pontiac still has a mission in the BPG channel and it’s one that a very dedicated team of engineers, marketers, and dealers is determined to complete successfully, one step at a time,” writes Buick-Pontiac-GMC VP, Susan Docherty, at Fastlane. Actually, that’s the last sentence of the post, tacked on in case its complete lack of substance failed to convince you of the endlessly repeated talking point. So what’s changing? “Very little,” in the near term, says Docherty. “Pontiac will continue to offer the G5, G6, G8, Solstice and Vibe, and we’re adding the economical G3.” Because, as Docherty puts it, “Pontiac’s top reason for purchase is “fuel economy” and we won’t disappoint with four of our six entries getting over 32 miles per gallon on the highway.” So Pontiac is efficiency. Glad we cleared that up. Also, “the Pontiac Torrent will be discontinued to enable the brand to “focus” on cars,” says Docherty. “But the good news is that a new, five-passenger crossover SUV entry will soon be found at GMC . . . stay tuned.” Uh, no, that’s bad news too. The point of the exercise to cut the number of nameplates, remember?

In times of crisis folks tend to look for radical change rather than steady improvement. Before you know it, Steve Jobs is being (wrongly) touted as the saviour of the auto industry, recent authors are expounding on the Googlification of the industry, and GM is staking everything on the Volt. And I’m not even going to get into the theological implications. But like the old fable of the rabbit and the hare, the steady improvements will be what saves the industry. A study by Carnegie Mellon at Green Car Congress shows that plug-ins with smaller capacity than the Volt’s 40-mile EV range are a more cost effective strategy than the Volt moonshot. Go figure.

Read More >

Transportation Secretary Ray La Hood is considering a transportation tax based on miles driven, to replace gasoline tax revenue. “We should look at the vehicular miles program where people are actually clocked on the number of miles that they traveled,” La Hood tells the Freep, echoing proposals being considered by Oregon, Idaho, Rhode Island, Massachusetts and North Carolina. La Hood argues that gasoline tax revenues “can not be relied on” to fund infrastructure maintenance, presumably because relatively high prices have caused a downturn in gas tax revenue. “One of the things I think everyone agrees with around reauthorization of the highway bill is that the highway trust fund is an antiquated system for funding our highways,” LaHood said. “It did work to build the interstate system and it was very effective, there’s no question about that. But the big question now is, We’re into the 21st Century and how are we going to take care of our infrastructure needs … with a highway trust fund that had to be plused up by $8 billion by Congress last year?” For La Hood the answer to that rhetorical question is “by putting GPS chips in your car and charging you by the mile.”

Read More >

Via Green Car Congress comes a number of perspectives on Plug-In Hybrid (PHEV) adoption fom the 2009 SAE Hybrid Technology Symposium. And there are some interesting lessons to be learned. One consumer study by Dr. Ken Kurani of the UC Davis Institute of Transportation Studies indicates that mainstream consumers favor less PHEV capability than manufacturers are developing. The ITS study asked a sample of plausible early market households (neither pioneers, advocates nor experts) to design their own PHEV, and found that expectations of all-EV range and battery capacity were remarkably low. Says Dr. Kurani, “consumers right now, given the opportunity to manipulate the idea of a plug-in vehicle, are designing not only very different vehicles, they are designing vehicles that are much more possible than the experts are assuming.” How so?

Read More >

Holy Mother of Malaise! As the bad news keeps coming for Detroit, the reactions are becoming increasingly agressive. And now word comes from the Detroit News that US automakers are “taking a cue from their Japanese competition” by reducing the number of trim options on their vehicles. “The industry has way too many brands, too many models, too much choice, to be efficient,” Mike Maroone, president and COO of AutoNation, tells the DetN. The import approach of limiting options to trim levels “may not serve every niche but it’s a much more efficient business model.” But despite Detroit’s apparent acceptance that less complexity is a good thing, they still lag behind. Sure, Ford has cut the number of available configurations for the new Fusion from 2,600 in 2008 to 104 in 2009. But GM has only “streamlined” its Malibu and Cobalt to four main trim levels, while Chrysler can brag only of trying to cut its Sebring configurations down to 1,000 versions. On the engine simplification front, Ford is out ahead of its Detroit rivals as well.

Read More >

According to a study by the Consumer Federation of America (PDF), relatively low gas prices haven’t done much to change consumer trends towards more fuel-efficient vehicles. This revelation comes amid claims that small car demand was artificially inflated by high gas prices and increased truck production from General Motors. The survey asked respondents to rate the importance of gas prices, global warming and US dependence on Middle East oil over the next five years, with 76 percent reporting “great concern” for gas prices and energy independence.

Read More >

Now that President Barack Obama has decided to let California raise America’s fleet-wide fuel economy regs to something like a 42mpg average, the automakers are howling with righteous idignation. Not. How could they? Not only would that be impolite to the incoming adminstration, environmentalists, the Democratic party and mother Earth, but GM and Chrysler are now more-or-less owned by the same federal government that just told CA to go for it. The New York Times dusted off ye olde “greedy American automakers are dragging their heels over higher mpg vehicles” template, but really, their heart just isn’t in it. But you’ve gotta give the Gray Lady credit for digging up a least one hysterical Neanderthal. Yes, it’s our old pal David E. Cole, whose Center for Automotive Research (CAR, geddit?) created the widely-quoted and entirely specious study that justified the Motown bailout buffet in the first place (if they go down, 42b workers will hit the soup lines). You can guess what David said, but it’s still fun to read. And wait ’til you don’t hear what Detroit doesn’t say…

Read More >

For this section of the trip to make any sense, I must tell you a story, an important story allowing you a view into one of the Air Force’s most hallowed legends. The story of a bourbon whiskey called Jeremiah Weed, a fighter pilot, a young lieutenant, and how it all involves a Porsche Cayenne and a pursuit for hypermileage….

Read More >

Poor Ford. All they wanted to do was claim to offer “the most efficient midsized car in America.” “We’ve been pretty clear, probably annoyingly clear, to Toyota that we’re comparing Fusion to Camry,” Ford spokesman Mark Truby tells USA Today (via Daily Tech). After all, the Camry gets a paltry 33 city/34 highway rating from the EPA. At 41/36 mpg, the Fusion is clearly a more efficient mid-sized car than the Camry. But wait!

Read More >

In this morning’s column, Detroit News scribe Daniel Howes’ pointed out that “Road for Autos Runs Through Oval Office.” In other words, GM, Chrysler and perhaps Ford’s fate now rests in the hands of the President of the United States. True dat. Piper. Tune calling. Gold. Rule making. Etc. But Danny wasn’t making the expected plea for Barack’s administration to keep Motown’s hometown heroes out of bankruptcy court until, well, whenever. Oh no, there’s another battle brewing… “President Barack Obama is poised to face an automotive conundrum potentially pitting him, the Detroit auto industry and the more immediate needs of the beleaguered national economy against pressure from environmentalists, fuel economy zealots and the powerful California delegation, including the two members of Congress who escorted him to his inauguration.” Translation: Danny’s signaling Detroit’s “need” to resist state-based hoikment of fleet-wide federal fuel economy standards. In this, he’s not alone…

Read More >

“Cash for Clunker” policies have been enacted in a number of developed countries as a conveniently “green” way to stimulate new car sales. The idea is sold as a greenhouse gas-reducing measure which provides tax credits for removing older, less-efficient models from the road. Of course the point isn’t to get people out of cars or permanently reduce the number of GHG-emitting vehicles: to claim credits, you typically have to buy a new car. Texas already has its own take on the debt for more debt swap. And now the Congress– well the auto industry anyway– wants a piece of the action. Hence the Accelerated Retirement of Inefficient Vehicles Retirement Act of 2009.

Read More >

From Defense News comes word that the United States Army is purchasing 4,000 neighborhood electric vehicles(NEVs) for use as on-base transport. Six of Chrysler’s Global Electric Motors (GEM) NEVs were delivered in a ceremony at Fort Meyer which was probably intended to highlight the army’s long-term efficiency goals. But something must have been lost in the bureaucratic translation. “We hope by showing the rest of the country what we can do with electric vehicles we can potentially drive the technology and the market, including the Chevy Volt [and] the Tesla that are out there now, and show a greater demand,” said Paul Bollinger, deputy assistant secretary of the Army for Energy and Partnerships. I’m sorry sir, but what does the military have to do with a car that doesn’t exist and a $100k sportstoy? The NEVs probably make a lot of sense for on-base, especially if they can give it a sweet military nickname to wipe out memories of the cutesy GEM moniker. But seriously, Volt and Tesla? Whiskey Tango Foxtrot? Once the military reaches for its wallet though, there’s no knowing what might happen.

Read More >