The unidentified GM spokesmouth quoted above is supposedly spinning the news that GM has decided to kill its rear wheel-drive (RWD) plans for Canada's Camaro factory. The move spikes the never-really-approved (but endlessly discussed) RWD Impala and Buick LaCrosse models, and the new V8 engine slated to power both models. As The Car Connection rightly points out, the platform change also raises serious questions about the Camaro's pricing and profitability. Those of you who've been following this saga will appreciate the fact that this is the fourth time GM's extra-Camaro RWD plans have been resurrected– and then terminated. That we know of. Once again, GM says the decision reflects the prospect of new, higher federal fuel economy standards. Canadian Auto Workers (CAW) President Buzz Hargrove was quick to point out that it had nothing to do with the fact that the Camaro factory is a high-cost union shop. “We anticipated that would be followed by other rear-wheel-drive vehicles, but the money they spent on the plant makes it a flex plant, so you can build both front-drive and rear-wheel-drive in the facility." Yes, well, there's been no announcement on that front. Nor is any expected– at least until after the CAW's contract negotiations are complete. Is this any way to run a railroad?

According to a study by the Texas Transportation Institute, urban congestion drains the U.S. economy of 4.2 billion man hours and 2.9 billion gallons of fuel per year. The Wall Street Journal reports that the I-95 Corridor Coalition is tackling the problem with Inrix. The subcontractor will gather real-time traffic data (via satellite) on over 2.5k miles of highway, including I95 from New Jersey to North Carolina. Inrix will then beam the data to state transportation departments, who will offer it to motorists via the Internet, mobile alerts and road signs. North Carolina Department of Transportation engineer Jo Ann Oerter figures her employer receives timely traffic data for only one percent of the state’s roads. "We'll be able to see where traffic is building and work within our system to say these are routes you should avoid.” While Inrix will also sell the data to GPS providers for automatic traffic avoidance, we’re guessing Oerter’s union job is safe. 

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is under fire from California. Golden State regulators are trying usurp the federal agency's power to set fleet-wide fuel economy averages by classifying CO2 as a pollutant. Rather than fighting the move– debating the "facts" of global warming in the Supreme Court– the EPA is signaling its desire to weasel cut some kind of compromise. While it's unlikely the EPA will do anything to upset Congress' "35 by 2020" mpg applecart, Wardsauto.com reports that the EPA Air Quality Supremo Margo Oge stepped-up to the microphone at the Automotive News shindig and told automakers that "we must bring about an end to the horsepower arms race among auto makers and replace it with another different kind of a race, a race to produce the most affordable and desirable, low carbon-vehicle each year.” New industrial revolution, must reduce greenhouse gas emissions, college kids are green, yada yada yada, California wins but WE'LL handle it. Meanwhile, someone should tell Oge that the horsepower wars are already done; automakers are competing with each other to green-up and meet the EU and NTSA's new fuel economy regs (e.g. GM's Ultrav8tracide and Voltmania). Still, thanks for the career-boosting rhetorical carrot. 

The 1.6-liter four-pot in the Chevrolet Aveo (né Daewoo Kalos) is the smallest engine GM offers in the U.S. Automotive News [sub] reports that's about to change, as The General goes smaller in a big way. The world's second largest automaker will introduce a 1.4-liter gas engine (that's just 250cc's more than half the displacement of the supercharger in the Corvette ZR1). What's that you say? GM will probably blow this one? Well, you're at least partially right. GM's boffins are going to take the 1.4-liter engine from the European Opel Astra, slap on a turbocharger and drop it into the Cobalt, U.S. Saturn Astra and God knows how many other small cars in GM's vast product portfolio. They're also looking at using it in some mid-sized vehicles. The question is, will a market that was built on "there's no replacement for displacement" take a hankerin' to the smallest engine GM's offered since the 1.0-liter three-banger in the Geo/Chevy Metro?

The feds made us do it! I'm tempted to say that the Dow Jones' Marketwatch interview (via CNNMoney) with GM's Car Czar is Maximum Bob unplugged. But that assumes that Mr. Lutz was, at some point, connected with reality. Anyway, here we have Maxi Bob taking his "raised federal fuel economy standards are like forcing fat people to wear small clothes" argument to the next level. "With the federal mandates at 35 miles per gallon coupled with cheap fuel, it puts us at war with our customers. At $3 a gallon (for gas) many people still want full-sized pick up trucks (and) full-sized sport utilities with V8 engines… and we're not going to be able to sell it to 'em because we if we do we won't make (the federal mandates)," Lutz told the Dow folk, adding, "It's ridiculous." Strengthening his already bullet-proof rep for spouting Pollyanna prognostications based on sweet FA, Lutz also says he's spoken to bankers who think the worst is over for the "mortgage meltdown crisis and the liquidity crisis." Anyway, who cares? "If everything goes well in the rest of the world, we can take a couple hits in the U.S. and still be okay." And just in case you thought Bob's reality divorce papers weren't signed yet, how about this: "We are working on the electrification of the automobile because my personal theory is the best way to save fuel is to use none at all." 

Bob Lutz sounded the alarm before, during and after Congress passed new Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards. The cost of compliance will add thousands to the prices of new cars and trucks! Investor's Business Daily (via CNNMoney) reckons he's right. They predict that the cost of satisfying the regulators will drive-up the price of new vehicles by an average of $6K or 21.4 percent. And that means unintended consequences. "The higher prices of cars will encourage consumers to keep their older, dirtier but cheaper vehicles for much longer. So the actual benefits will be less than forecast." The paper's eds pronounce Maximum Bob a presumptive prognosticator. "The new CAFE standards, as Lutz suggests, amount to a tax– a rather narrow and inefficient one that will neither reduce our reliance on foreign oil nor curb global warming." Bob Lutz, GM's canary in a coal mine. Of course, that doesn't actually change anything…

While GM STILL hasn't made up its mind whether or not to build a rear wheel-drive Impala (or anything else for that matter), Ford has declared its intention to reclaim the big ass rear wheel-drive (RWD) American sedan market, once dominated by the brand's Panther platform. Automotive News [sub] reports that FoMoCo CEO Alan Mulally broke the news while breaking bread with journalists in "suburban Detroit" (Grosse Point blank?). "It’s important going forward,” Big Al admitted, with enough understatement to shame a British peer. Did I say American sedan? "Executives acknowledge they can build the vehicles using a new global rwd platform being developed in Ford’s Australian operations." So, are we looking at a GM-like imported Aussie Pontiac G8-type deal? Not necessarily. “There are good reasons not to: currency, freight,” said Joe Hinrichs, Ford group vice president of global manufacturing. Uh huh. No word yet what, when or where, but we sure as Hell get the why. 

Wow, that's some kind of price jump. You might even file it under scarcely credible alarmist prognostications. But there it is. "Options to buy oil for $US200 on the New York Mercantile Exchange rose 10-fold in the past two months to 5533 contracts, a record increase on any similar period." The Sydney Morning Herald casts its journalistic net to find experts who say you ain't seen nothin' yet. "One hundred dollars a barrel is actually 14.9 cents a cup, so we're still talking about oil being remarkably cheap," said investment banker Matthew Simmons. Inventories "are tight as a drum and I don't see how we get out of this box." It's all about rising demand chasing static supply. "We haven't got to $US100 on just a whim," said Paul Horsnell, the head of commodities research at Barclays Capital in London. "This is at heart also about longer-term concerns that supply capacity investment needs higher prices to keep up with demand growth." Needless to say, if U.S. oil prices spike to $200 a barrel (29.8 a cup), truck-heavy U.S. automakers will go to the wall, double-quick. Detroit is a city of crossed fingers… [thanks to David Holzman for the link]

Heads-up Autoblog! Buried in a boring-looking post on Toyota's Open Road blog: news that the Japanese manufacturer will follow Nissan's lead and add a real-time fuel economy gauge to all its Toyota, Scion and Lexus vehicles. The yet-to-be-finalized gizmo will debut in the next-generation 4-Runner, launched in August ‘09. ToMoCo's Corporate Comms Director Jon F. Thompson writes that the Eco Driving Indicator will include an "Eco Zone Display" that will tell the driver that they are saving money and the planet, and reducing our need for oil-related foreign military entanglements [paraphrasing]. Autobox-equipped vehicles get an "Eco Lamp" that illuminates once the driver enters the “Eco Zone” (da da da da da, da da da da). Drivers of manual transmission-equipped vehicles (do they still make those?) light the lamp by hitting the most fuel efficient shift point. The system will, of course, include an Average Fuel Consumption Meter to help aspiring hypermilers frustrate dangerous drivers yakking on the cell in their [non-Toyota] gas hogs. I mean, optimize their fuel economy. Oh, and Thompson says social engineering rocks! "We’ve learned that as we work to make our vehicles more efficient, we also can work to make our drivers more efficient."

Bentley CEO Franz-Josef Paefgen had a little kaffee und kuchen with the Financial Times Deustchland, kicking things off with a representative combination of Germanic bluntness and English understatement. "I loved the car and the company, but if you saw the scale of the challenge and the inexperienced workforce, it was a bit of a challenge." Und now? Bentley's racked-up €107m profit in the first nine months of this year. But Paefgen warns that Bentley's endive days are over. "You should not expect another 15 per cent growth now with all the basic models now in place. The growth will be more moderate and the business more stable – not exploding as it was over the past five years or so." Responding to Bentley's "growing exposure as a fashion brand," Paefgen's glad not all his customers are "football stars and other trendy people," and claims Bentley's protected by its "very strong connection with our traditional brand values." Amongst which fuel economy does not rank, and that's a BIG problem. "'If everyone is going to reduce CO2 emissions by 20 per cent, we have to do at least 20 per cent, or maybe more. This is accepted. There is no problem.' But he admits that if particularly stiff limits on CO2 emissions were imposed 'there will be no Bentley any more.'" Oh dear.

Thank you United States Congress, for not clarifying who has the ultimate authority when it comes to setting fuel economy standards. And thank you President Bush, for not holding Ms. Pelosi and Co.'s feet to the proverbial fire on this point re: the new Energy Bill– as you'd promised when you sent the bill's framers back to highlight and delete taxes on the oil industry. 'Cause here we are at the inevitable result: California and its 15 clean air groupies (Arizona, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington) suing the EPA to claim the right to regulate automotive CO2 emissions and, thus, fuel economy. According to the Governator (via The New York Times), the EPA refusal to grant The Golden State the necessary waiver is, as Californians like to say, some heavy shit. “It is unconscionable that the federal government is keeping California from adopting new standards." Arnie's apoplexy inspired Gloria Bergquist, vice president of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, into double negativity. “Congress approved an energy bill that will result in 30 percent reduction in carbon dioxide over the next 12 years… So it isn’t a question of California not having a reduction.” It isn't?

Manitoba is set to become the second province of Canada to adopt the same emissions standards as California. CTV News reports that Manitoba premier Gary Doer– fresh off winning his third election– is hot (so to speak) to make the Canadian province Kyoto compliant. "[Cars] represent 33% of our challenge," says the former corrections officer. Earlier this month, Québec became the first province to adopt California's stringent auto regs, setting average emissions targets that must be attained as early as 2010 (CAFE by any other name?). Doer suggests that Manitoba's measure is only a first step on the way to more stringent federal standards. He notes that having provinces and states enact tailpipe standards produces a piece-meal approach to Kyoto and, thus, reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Readers are invited to gloss over the fact that pollution of any kind has a global scope, not a national one.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) sets Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards and collects fines from manufacturers who fail to meet their provisions. NHTSA recently updated their website with a list of CAFE fines the agency collected for model year '06 scofflaws. DaimlerChrysler's $30,257,635.50 penalty covers Mercedes models both imported and domestic, and represents an enormous jump from last year's cost of doing business ($16,895,472). In fact, the now defunct DaimlerChrysler's fine is the largest single amount NHTSA's ever collected, eclipsing BMW's massive penalty in 2001 ($27,985,925). That's not to say that BMW got off lightly for their '06 models; the Sultans of Stuttgart forked over $5,056,012.50 for not meeting the required fleet-wide federal mpg standard. BMW's whack just "beats" Porsche's '06 model year CAFE fines ($4,599,864.50). No wonder Porsche was trying to change the new law to get an exemption as a low volume automaker. Speaking of which, Ferrari shelled-out $842,160 to the feds for their fuel-sucking models' mpgs. As the new standards get tougher, the Germans and Italians are going to have work harder to make the grade, or dig deeper into their corporate coffers. Oh, and if you think about it, guess who really pays these fines? 

Volkswagen releases gas in the general direction of CAFE standards! CEO Martin Winterkorn has confirmed the company is working on an ultra-high-mileage car that will get 235 mpg, according to Greencar.com. The VeeDub hypermiler is a tandem two-seater with a Cd of 0.159 and an estimated range of 400 miles on its 1.7 gallon fuel tank. The engine is a single cylinder diesel displacing 300 – 500cc, attached to a six-speed DSG transmission. Thanks to lightweight materials like carbon fiber, magnesium and lightweight alloys, the entire vehicle weighs in at 639 pounds. VW says a limited production version could be offered by 2010. Unless VW hacks Tesla's "customer" list, the chances are the complete vehicle won't make it to market. But look for a carbon fiber wing mirror on the next GTI.