We've argued for some time that OEMs should respond to high fuel prices by improving and lightening existing models and drivelines, rather than developing moon-shot, "game-changing" technologies. Et voila! Green Car Congress reports on the Pintle Regulated Venturi (PRV) induction system, developed by PRV Performance. The PRV-9 induction system is a bolt-on replacement for stock intake manifolds. By inducting air through a venturi throat, the doo-hickey burns a high-velocity homogeneous fuel-air blend more efficiently than standard induction; eliminating throttling losses and improving fuel vaporizing, precluding cylinder wall stratification. [You can read all the gory technical details at Green Car Congress] PRV Performance tested its intake on a JDM D15B SOHC-equipped Honda Civic, driving it at a steady 65 mph on a hilly 203-mile test run. The Civic achieved a reported 52 mpg, up from 41.7 on an unmodified Civic, with similar reductions in pollutant emissions. The EPA has tested an earlier prototype at 48 mpg, and will test this newer system later this year. PRV Performance claims that the technology is hybrid-compatible. 

For the last two weeks, Canadian gas prices have hovered between $1.36/L and $1.47/L. In American terms, that's roughly $5.60/gallon. CTV News is reporting that this price level looks like the sweet spot for the average Canadian hybrid driver; that is to say, the point at which the long-term savings from lower fuel consumption outweigh the up-front savings from buying a conventional petrol-only vehicle. The finding is based on a study conducted by the British Columbia Automobile Association (BCAA). They projected operating costs for 13 hybrids (versus their respective, conventional ICE brethren) over five years, assuming 20,000 km driven/year. The result: seven out of 13 hybrids were cheaper to operate. Leading the way: the Honda Civic Hybrid. The gas – electric whip cost some $4k less  to run than its petrol-powered counterpart. Notable by its presence, the Prius was compared to the Matrix and came out… second. The Prius cost $86 more to operate over five years. Unfortunately, the study focused primarily on sticker pricing (meaning the domestics, which don't sell anything for sticker, were again disadvantaged), and didn't include depreciation. So… what?

Automotive News [AN, sub] reports that Ford is limiting plans for the new line of big block V8 engines, codenamed "Boss" (after Hurricane Katrina made the name "Hurricane" politically unwise). The plan was: stick a 6.2-liter Boss engine in the F-Series pickup trucks. Truck delayed. Plan delayed. AN reckons the Mustang's future 5.0-liter V8 is still on the table; Mark Fields is on record saying they plan to make future V8 engines as fuel efficient as possible. The bad news: without a much-needed boost in horsepower, those few people willing to buy a large SUV or truck are going to pass. That said, the market for big trucks with big engines right is currently in apocalyptic mode. Hell, Ford's in apocalyptic mode. Pumping development cash into a bad-ass V8 makes no sense whatsoever. Ford needs every penny to get the European Focus and Fiesta into the U.S. market– without a Focus 1.0 style failure to launch (with decent quality). This is another sign that CEO Alan Mulally is serious about prioritizing resources– and the dire state of Ford's potential profits. 

While energy ministers and diplomats wrangle over the supply side of high oil prices, Americans are already tackling the demand side. USA Today reports that Americans drove 22b fewer miles in November – April compared to the same period in '06 – '07. That's the biggest drop since the Iranian Revolution in 1979 – '80. Sticking with the stats, miles driven has fallen by one percent, down to 2005 levels. Way back then, there were eight million fewer [documented] U.S. citizens. So… U.S. drivers are cutting back by considerably more than the one percent average. According to Federal Highway Administration data, the sharpest declines are taking place on rural roads. Marilyn Brown says Americans have concluded that the "the era of cheap energy is a thing of the past." The Professor of energy policy at Georgia Tech says she thinks "the difference between now and 1979, when prices were comparable when you adjust for inflation, is there's a sense of sustained pain."

Retail issues aside? Like, um, the fact that GM's pulled the plug on the brand, assuring depreciation that would give a Maserati buyer the Willies? While I have no doubt that Autoblog's Dan Roth would tell us if he had someone in the HUMMER business, I also have no doubt that if he did, that person would be well pleased with Dan's blog on the doomed maker of militaristic SUVs. "Moving product is a tremendous challenge when the bobbleheads on the nightly news continue shrilly about the price of fuel and you've got a lot full of low-mpg, high weight trucks that happen to be a favorite target of vandals euphemistically masquerading as 'activists.' Customers that do make it through the door are looking for deals, and HUMMER will spot you five thousand bucks to take an H3, PLEASE." In other words, it's a great time to buy! "If you've got a boat to pull, and want to look like the Governator, an H2 could still be just the thing, and now you'll be able to find one for a song; most likely the blues." As Dave Edmunds sang, "Everything's wrong but nothing is right."

Much digital ink has been spilled over Chrysler's "refuel America" promotion. The deal locks fuel prices at $2.99 per gallon for the first 12k miles for each of three years (subject to acres of fine print). Consumer Reports took a closer look. Over the first three years of ownership, the cheap gas gives Chrysler a competitive cost of ownership. After five years, your Chrysler will have cost you between $1k and $8k more than its competitors.  That's driving 12k miles annually, based on CR's "real world" mileage ratings and total ownership cost analysis. It gets worse. The cost of owning a gas-carded Chrysler is higher than buying the same vehicle with the optional zero percent interest rate. The Hemi-equipped gas hogs, for example, cost over $6k more with the gas card during five years of ownership. Little wonder then, that under ten percent of Chrysler buyers are choosing the gas card. The upshot? CR suggests that if you must buy from the Pentastar, take the low interest rate. "However," they say, "we would recommend you consider all vehicles in the segments, as there simply are better choices available based on our testing and analysis." Ya think?

Two Duke University Business School researchers studied the difficulty in perceiving gas saved when comparing vehicles rated by miles per gallon (mpg), versus gallons per 100 miles (gpm). The eggheads argue that the latter more closely reflects real world savings. The article [sub] and accompanying notes illustrate the problem: a nonlinear relationship between mpg and gpm. An example… At 10k miles per year, moving from, say, a Chevrolet Tahoe at 15mpg (6.7gpm) to a Chevy Traverse (that's a Buick Enclave for dummies) getting 20mpg (5.0gpm) nets a savings of 166 gallons. [ED: providing you  could get someone to buy the Tahoe.] Moving from a Corolla at 30mpg (3.3gpm) to a Prius at 45mpg (2.2gpm) nets a less impressive savings of 111 gallons. When given the mpg numbers, tested individuals thought that the latter saved more gas than the former. (Our B&B knew this intuitively all along, of course.) Europe at al are already on liters/kilometers, so why not make the switch?

Analysts are predicting auto sales in June will drop below 13m units for the first time since 1992. The Detroit News reports the shift from trucks to fuel-efficient cars is hitting the truck-heavy Big 2.8 the hardest (ya think?). Ford market analyst George Pipas provided the auto industry understatement of the year: "Unfortunately, the consumer demand for [trucks and SUVs] is very low." Equally disturbing, "The inventory for products which are in high demand is very low." Even the transplants are feeling the pinch; their production can't keep up with demand for fuel efficient cars from buyers willing to all but give away their gas-guzzlers. What happened to those pre-May prognostications from the D2.8 that the sun will come out in September? *crickets chirping* Meanwhile, even as American automakers struggle to shut off truck production, they still don't have desirable small cars and hybrids anywhere near the production end of the pipeline. It's 1973 all over again. 

Rumors that Nissan will build Dodge's Hornet compact car are spreading like an STD on spring break. Not only are many of the car blogs– Autoblog, Motor Authority— covering the story, the subscription-only Automotive News is bringing the noise as well. We already knew Nissan would be building compact cars for Dodge in Mexico and possibly other overseas markets, and that Dodge would build the next generation full-size pickup for Nissan. AND we knew Dodge was looking to outsource production of its Hornet compact car to anyone, even the Chinese. So this isn't exactly groundbreaking. But there's other reason to yawn: the people that really care if Dodge has a compact car are Dodge dealers. Nissan moves about 10k Versas per month (handily outselling the much-ballyhooed Honda Fit for example). But it's not what anyone would call a class leader as a vehicle. That means Dodge will be selling a fairly high MPG car, with an extraordinarily ugly shape (if the Hornet concept is the basis) without Nissan's reputation for top-tier and reliable econoboxes. It wouldn't even have the novelty of being the first fully Chinese-made car to sell in the US. The upshot: with a Dodge standard rebate, the Hornet might just be dirty cheap. And I mean dirty.

First off, it's not very big. Measuring less than 10 feet long and weighing just over a ton, the iQ is Smart-sized. Unlike the two-seat Daimler product, the Toyota boasts a rear seat. Maybe "boasts" isn't the best word choice. ToMoCo is calling it a "three and a half seater." Ouch. Automotive News [sub] reports the iQ will also feature the thriftiest fuel economy of any Toyota product, save the Prius. Other pertinent info includes a diff in front of the axles to allow a relatively long wheelbase (79 inches) to create more interior space; a flat, underseat gas tank to cut down on the rear overhang, a longer steering column that lets the engine sit closer to the vehicle's front and high-tensile steel to create thinner seats. A legroom allowing flat-bottom steering wheel, too. Additionally, Toyota might sell the car in the US. Subjectively speaking, the iQ does bear a resemblance to both the Smart and Tata Nano. However, I find it much tougher looking. More sporting than either micro-car, too. Plus, unlike the ruthlessly decontented Nano, the iQ will be trying to pull off an upscale persona. Engines include a 1.4-liter oil-burner for Europe (natch) and 1.3 and 1.0-liter gas mills for other markets. No word on when the iQ is going on sale. But when it does it (maybe) could be yours for just a toro roll under $10,000.

Before you start wondering about the color of the sky in CNBC's Phil LeBeau's private little world, the writer understands "that for many people (soccer moms, the guy putzing around the suburbs, etc) driving a gas guzzling SUV makes no sense." Whew! Phil's talking to those motorists who need an SUV's cargo, passenger or towing capacity; or off-road capability, due to job or locale. While TTAC Best and Brightest prepare to discuss the Marxist implications of needs vs. want, one thing's for sure: it's an SUV buyer's market out there. Kelly Blue Book prices for used SUVs are down more than $2.5k. Even so, you might want to hold off; they're expected to go lower as leases from 2005 vehicles start expiring and pump-shocked SUV refugees trade their behemoths for economy cars (no really). In an online poll, CNBC asks readers if they'd buy an SUV now. Almost half (49 percent) said "no." Of the remaining 51 percent, 13 percent said they'd "think about it," while 39 percent stated yes, they would buy one now. I guess there are still either a lot of "contractors, people in specialty trades, those who live in rural areas where the roads can get dicey at times" or gas prices aren't high enough to prise the keys from SUV fans' cold, dead fingers.

Tesla Chairman Elon Musk recently told Fox Business Network [via just-auto.com, sub] that the EV startup has inked a deal with Daimler. With its Roadster safely at "good-enough" status (says them), the California firm is turning its attention to its planned WhiteStar sedan. With full-EV and serial hybrid versions of WhiteStar planned, Tesla needs some help with the various technical elements– such as an internal combustion engine. "We have a deal right now with Daimler," boasts Musk. But like much of Tesla's efforts (transmission, batteries, deliveries), the details haven't quite been ironed-out. "[The deal is] still in the early stages," Musk admits. "We have a small deal that could potentially lead to a very big deal." Autoblog speculates that WhiteStar's serial-hybrid ICE could use a Daimler-sourced SMART three-banger. But just as there are no Roadsters available for delivery at Tesla dealerships (or anywhere else), there's no firm info on this hook-up, including its actual existence. 

The Detroit News is reporting that sales of motorcycles and scooters are way up– a sort of positive-spin story to balance out the doom and gloom of gas prices and some bad finances for other Detroit-based businesses. Yes, many motorists are so loving the low cost and high mileage of their scooters and motorcycles. You know why they get great mileage? Low weight. Why such low weight? Because they're just engines with wheels. We have safety standards for cars for a reason– including crumple zones, federal crash test performance, brakes, airbags and seat belts. Scooters and motorcycles are allowed on the roads merely because they have been grandfathered into legality. If there was no such thing as a motorcycle until now, and someone invented them, you can be sure they wouldn't be road legal. There's a reason EMTs like our own Stephan Wilkinson call motorcycles "donor cycles" and would like to see them disappear. And speaking of EMTs, what's the impact going to be on ambulances and emergency rooms as cycles become more widespread?

Pickuptrucks.com reports that skyrocketing diesel prices have hit oil burners' resale values harder than their gas-powered counterparts. According to Blackbook, the value of 2005-07, 3/4 to one-ton diesel pickups have dropped nearly $6k since January; gas-engined models lost only $3k. Up until the recent fuel-price unpleasantness, lower diesel prices and higher efficiency justified the higher entry cost to diesel ownership. Today, that higher initial cost– increased by new emissions standards compliance– has taken diesel sales (and resale values) from "suck" to "craptastic." Hundreds of Workers building Cummins, Duramax and Powerstroke diesel engines have been laid off either temporarily or permanently. Pickuptrucks.com tries valiantly to end on a happy note, suggesting that diesel prices could regain sanity if developing countries cut subsidies. There's also talk of a new generation of diesel half-ton pickups that might just rescue the day. Meanwhile, unless you have a fryolater to tank from, diesel is dead. Just ask the latest round of striking truckers…

There's an interesting juxtaposition in today's news about the forthcoming VW Golf. Motor Authority reports that Volkswagens sixth-generation Golf will offer standard stop-start technology in its efficiency-oriented Bluemotion versions. VW director of powertrain research Wolfgang Steiger reveals that the the Bluemotion is shooting for a 30 percent gain in efficiency, begging the question of whether Bluemotion trim will bring a hybrid drivetrain to the table. VW has reportedly ditched diesel-hybrid plans for a cheaper gas-electric unit. But Steiger only mentions a new range of 1.0 and 1.2-liter compact gas engines, with a possible forced-induction three-cylinder in the works. Either way, it's all a bit academic. Future US-market Rabbits will be developed separately, on cheaper platforms. Which is funny, because Auto Motor und Sport reports that the new "too-pricy-for-the-states" Golf costs nearly $2k less to produce than the outgoing model. Even with rising steel prices and a strong Euro, VW has managed to realize savings by reducing material costs, increasing volume and producing on a four-day work week. So, despite reducing the cost of building the new Golf, VW will be challenging Toyota in the US market with an even cheaper replacement for the Rabbit? With the diesel Jetta already behind the Prius curve, VW should bite the bullet and bring the Euro-Golf stateside, and proliferate stop-start across its US model line. Or give up its goal of taking on Toyota NA for volume sales.