While GM, Toyota, Nissan and Mitsubishi are readying their electric vehicles, a new contender has emerged and is aiming to beat them all to the punch. Tata motors, in conjunction with Norway’s THINK!, plans to launch an electric car themselves. Reuters reports that the car will be based on the Tata Indica and be launched in Norway within one year. S. Ravishankar, senior general manager at Tata Motors’ engineering research centre, says that the car can run for 175 km (110 miles) to 200 km when fully charged with a “two-pack” battery, but mileage could vary according to the battery used. (Ya think?) There’s little doubt that, if successful, Tata will use the Jaguar/Land Rover global dealer network to sell these cars. “Could I interest sir in a Jaguar XJ? A Supercharged Range Rover sport? A Tata Nano? or an Electric Tata Indica?” Uh, maybe not.

Or the concept version of it, at least. Honda says what you see here (and what they will show at the Paris auto show) is 90% of what we can expect when they roll out the production version – on sale in the US next spring. While Honda has said it will be the best priced car in the segment (what segment? It’s the Prius and nothing else), many have estimated its price will be below $20,000. Unlike the first generation Insight, which was a 2-seat bicycle, this new one very much follows the Prius layout: 5 passenger, 5 door (that means hatchback), and lots of high-tech gadgets. Making those gadgets optional should help to add high-profit margin items to the sales sheet, as well. While we have no information on engine or mileage, I’d be willing to bet that the all important MPGs will be very impressive. Honda is hoping to sell 100,000 of these in the US per year, and another 100,000 per year worldwide. Something tells me that won’t be a problem at all.

As much as we criticize ethanol around these parts, we all use it. E10 is a fact of life, thanks to ethanol’s anti-knock properties and lack of groundwater contamination lawsuits. So what if ethanol were used more intelligently as an additive, instead of being hawked as an alt-fuel? PickupTrucks.com has news that Ford’s second-generation EcoBoost turbocharged engines could go that very route. Although the first round of EcoBoost engines aren’t even on sale yet, the second generation is being developed under the codename “Bobcat.” These new engines are said to feature “ethanol boost technology,” not-so-coincidentally developed by Ethanol Boosting Systems of Cambridge, MA.  In essence, a variable ethanol direct-injection system allows turbocharged engines to operate at a higher compression ratio. This means more power and up to 15 percent better efficiency than a first-gen EcoBoost engine. Plus, you only have to top-up on ethanol every month or so. With talk of getting 500 hp and 700 lb-ft from a 5.0 turbo-V8, developers are positioning the Bobcat as big-pickup diesel competition. And Ford is already saying Bobcat engines will be a $1,100 option (give or take), which compares well to diesel’s $5k premium. But don’t start looking for the Bobcat option box any time soon. “The first Bobcat test engines may be built before the end of the year, but they have not received final approval for production,” according to PickupTrucks’ “industry sources.”

“Oil at $80 a barrel?” asks BusinessWeek.com.  Surely that’s not possible. After all, the world’s running out of oil, isn’t it? China and India have pushed global demand to untenable levels. Wells in Russia, Mexico and Saudi Arabia are running dry. High fuel prices are here to stay! We must have alternative energy… Bring on the EVs stat… Need more hybrids… Must have wind energy now… Ahhhhh!!! Yet Joel Fingerman, a Chicago-based energy consultant, has the nerve to forecast that “This is start of a fall to $80 crude by the end of the year, maybe as early as September.” And Oppenheimer senior energy analyst Fadel Gheit explains, “Oil prices are dropping because they are inflated. You cannot sustain an artificial price forever.” Hrumph! So did ya trade in your favorite SUV for an itsy bitsy gas miser? That’s too bad. Stephen Schork, editor of a daily energy newsletter says, “A lot of the strength [in oil’s price] was hype and hot air.” Gee, where have I heard that before?

Shaker asks:

I've been hearing about these systems that use hydrogen added to the intake systems of cars resulting in mileage gains of 20-30 percent. My engineering background tells me that this can't be the case (as you can't get "something for nothing"), but the latest spin that I've seen on the Web is that small amounts of added hydrogen somehow enhance the combustion of regular gasoline, so that a small "hydrogen generator" unit is sufficient. There's even a guy at our company (still hearsay) that claims to have increased the mileage of his Civic by 10MPG. I think this is very unlikely (if not impossible), but maybe your crew could debunk the myth, or find that there's some merit there.

So how about it? Do any of you have any experience with hydrogen injection or can explain how it could improve mileage? For that fact, have any of you ever used any gadget advertised to increase gas mileage that actually worked as claimed?

Wesson veggie oil, lye, high quality methanol, an old margarita mixer, and some patience; thats all you need to create your own batch of pure biodiesel, suitable for use in your average two-year old, raceworthy Jetta TDI. Sure, it looked more like something you would dip your bread in at Olive Garden, but I was not only going to be driving like a hooligan at the local SCCA event, I was saving the planet (I should sell some carbon credits)! Using directions I found on-line, I planned to whip up a five-gallon batch of biodiesel (to see if I could) in the 11th-floor confines of my apartment. Not knowing what to expect, I ended up with a huge mess, a ruined margarita mixer, and about three gallons of biodiesel of dubious quality (it was supposed to be nearly translucent). Turbidity issues aside, I put a single gallon in the tank of my Jetta, along with five gallons of regular diesel, and ran around town. No issues, so the weekend's race was on! The other two gallons were then thrown in, and the race commenced. One hundred bhp aside, the Jetta performed admirably with mild body lean, communicative steering, decent brakes, monster torque, and laughable grip. The oppressive Oklahoma heat erased all perception of driving a commuter sedan; no, I was piloting the Audi R10 TDI down the Mulsanne straight in the Le Mans! But unlike Audi, I couldn't claim victory, as I was the only one in my racing class. But my adventure in going green shall not end there. Stay tuned as I attempt to make ethanol for my Porsche!

After our characteristically snarky blog on the launch of ecodrivingUSA.com website, The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers reached out to TTAC to defend its PR campaign. Like every professional spinmeister I've ever met, AAM's Senior Director of Communications proved to be an affable, sensible, persuasive guy. And how can you argue against saving gas? So I let the not-so-sibilant Charlie Territo make his case, then explored other mpg-related issues: federal fuel economy regs, state's rights in the matter and suchlike. TTAC encourages any newsmaker (or their rep) to contact us about any published story to make their case on the site, including, should they desire, unedited editorial space for their reply. (robert.farago@thetruthaboutcars.com) 

What pistonhead doesn't like a V8 engine? This author has long argued that freedom of choice argues against outlawing gas-sucking automobiles. But I don't venerate the V8 engine as a sacred object, a talisman for those who feel that anyone outside of Motown is an eco-weenie Hell bent on ruining a way of life. But I know a man who does. "You see, the cars that lose money are the rage of the day for automakers — hybrids, electric cars and fuel cell vehicles — and would take even longer to develop if it weren't for the advanced technologies designed for powerhouses such as the Corvette ZR1, the Shelby GT500 or the Challenger SRT8, to name a few," Manny Lopez argues. "But perhaps most importantly, the green that these vehicles generate is of the cash kind, and for three automakers struggling to simply keep their North American operations afloat, that's not something to dispose of lightly." Yeah, and screw those tree-huggers! "Sure the trend is to downsize and the Big Three are developing smaller engines that are faster and more fuel efficient. They should continue that quest. Now isn't the time to create a new V-8, but it's also not the time to bow to public pressure from activists who want nothing more than for the V-8 to wither away." Boil that dust speck! Boil that dust speck!  

Ford's been talking about Ecoboost since around the time of the Crimean War. And now, finally, we can bring you some definitive information. First, it's going to be a $700 option – which is paltry as automotive options go, to say nothing of engine options that run into the thousands. Second, the first FoMoCo forray in Eco-Boostland will deliver a twin-turbocharged 3.5-liter V6 engine. The blown powerplant should make well over 300 horsepower in vehicles like the Ford Flex and Lincoln MKS. Both could use a serious dose of tire-shredding power. Ford is also planning to Eco-Boost the F-150. Automotive News reports the variant will make more than 340 horsepower, 340 ft lbs of torque. The savings in gas is approximately 20 percent versus a V8 engine – keeping in mind that Ford's V8 engines actually makes less than 340 horsepower. Speaking of which, where does this leave Ford's V8 engine program? I'm not sure, but I can tell you with certainty that (1) a 340 horsepower twin-turbo V6 Mustang would be pretty phenomenal and (2) Ford is still going to need some V8 engines for image if nothing else. Especially in the 'Stang.

First, this post dovetails nicely with the Ask the B&B question on homoerotic truck ads. I mean, if the testosterone-laden Torque.tv's announcer's tongue isn't firmly in his cheek, well… Anyway, the video also suggest a click on over to Paul Niedermeyer's excellent editorial on the coming showdown between the 2010 Prius and the 2010 Honda Hybrid. Personally, I find the producer's choice of cartoon clown xylophone background music a bit OTT. But I'm glad the torque team pointed out that a properly-flogged Prius can suck more unleaded than a 'Vette. It brings back fond memories of the time I tried to discover how much gas I could use in a Prius. I never got it below 17mpg. Guess I wasn't trying hard enough.

H2H Ep12, Honda Civic Hybrid Vs. Toyota Prius

While any move to improve fuel efficiency in full-sized trucks is a move in the right direction, you have to wonder if GM's straining at gnats while swallowing camels with their latest move: XFE versions of Silverado, Sierra, Tahoe and Yukon. The press release brags the changes make them "the most aerodynamic full-size pickups in the industry." To accomplish this, they'll install a soft tonneau cover on the pickups and extend the front air dam, lower the suspension, revise the chassis tuning, use aluminum in the wheels and engine and install low rolling-resistance tires. And what's the gain for all these changes? One whole mile per gallon on both the city and highway ratings, which "reflect[s] GM's quick adaptation to an evolving market that remains a very important segment." They haven't said how much all these changes will cost, but just like with the hybrid versions. it's bound to take a while to offset the additional cost with fuel savings.

Click here for PDF of press release 

GM's Fastlane blog keeps the chuckles coming, with an awkward little paean to the General's legendary reliability. Penned by "GM VP, Quality" Jamie Hresko, the post lets webizens know that if you Google "one million miles" you'll find stories about two GM vehicles that have crested the million mile mark: a 1989 Saab 900 SPG and a 1991 Chevrolet Silverado. But wait; didn't GM first buy into Saab in 1990? Although the old 900 had nothing to do with GM, its achievements still reflect well on the General because, dammit, they shelled-out for the PR rights. By buying the owner a brand new 9-5 Aero when the 900 SPG's odometer rolled over and didn't die. Over two years ago. But the funniest (not ha-ha) part of the story: GM just reduced the length of its Saab warranties, cutting mileage covered from 100k to 50k. But as Hresko says, this whole affair proves that "the real gap is not between GM quality and that of our competitors, the real gap lies between perception and reality." Like when he encourages the perception that "we back up our products with the industry's best transferable powertrain warranty, five years/100,000 miles," despite the, well, reality. [hat tip to kixstart]

Nissan has decided that using Toyota powertrains in its Altima hybrid is a bit embarrassing. So they're working on one of their own. If CNet is to be believed, "Nissan's system is designed for a rear-wheel-drive car, and uses two clutches, doing away with a torque converter for more efficient power use." That's right sports fans, he said rear-wheel-drive. But before the hybrid Z-car rumors get out of control, consider that "Nissan hasn't released any details on performance yet, or when it might offer a car with this technology." Mes anwhile, they're charging ahead with Li-ion EVs, apparently. PC World reports that "Nissan has committed to launch its first all-electric car in the U.S. and Japan in 2010 and to mass market the vehicle globally by 2012." The latest prototype is a version of Nissan's Cube. PC World got to take the 80kw beast out on the track. The verdict? "On the test track it easily got up to a speed of 100 kilometers per hour." Breathtaking. But wait there's more! Nissan also has a new fuel cell stack that is smaller and lighter than previous models. And it uses half the platinum of previous fuel cells (a development that'll likely alienate literally hundreds of DUB readers from the green movement). While it's nice of Nissan to remind us that technology marches on, it's no substitute for a here-and-now hybrid system. Y'know, like the one they buy from Toyota.

As 'Mater says in Cars, you hurt your what? I don't pretend to understand this hi-tech stuff, but I know a man who does. Know, I mean; not pretend to know. He's R. Colin Johnson of the EETimes (I wonder what he made of Wally's Eeeeeeva). Seems there's a nano (nano) technology breakthrough that lowers the cost of producing rare earth magnets (not magnets to pull Earth out of orbit, presumably). And that's a good thing, not a bad thing. "Rare earth magnets are essential to NASA and [the Defense Department] for small, high-performance motors and power generators that can operate in high-temperature environments," according to C.N. Chinnasamy of Northeastern University's Center for Microwave Magnetic Materials and Integrated Circuits (NUCMMMIC). "With our process, they can be manufactured much more economically." Got it? To paraphrase Ariel, oh Flounder, don't be such a nanoblade dipole! "Other techniques for creating supermagnets composed of nanoblade dipoles have succeeded for high operating temperatures, but the rare earth magnets performed poorly at start-up when the magnets operated at room temperature. However, Northeastern University researchers claim their formulation performs well both at room temperature and at very high operating temperatures, thereby permitting applications such as smaller motors with the same performance as larger engines."