Yes, well, it's a bit a late to be singing that refrain, what with the new Energy Bill slapping a 35 by 2020 bumper sticker on every legislator and carmaker's ass. Still, as Shakespeare once said, there's many a slip between the cup and the lip; substitute  "loopholes" and "federal court cases" for "slip" and you've got a pretty clear picture of what lies ahead. Meanwhile, conservative thinkers have suddenly woken from their torpor to explain why the new federal fuel economy regulations (such as they aren't) aren't such a good idea. Cato Institute senior [good] fellows Jerry Taylor and Peter Van Doren attack the underlying principle that automobile manufacturers are fuel economy foot draggers. "Automakers… would hardly be more ignorant than the casual observers at the Sierra Club and Rep. Nancy Pelosi's office about how much money they're leaving on the table. Suffice it to say this argument suggests that consumers are indeed getting exactly the kind of cars that they want." They also point out that consumers have valid priorities– which don't jibe with global warming crusaders. "They don't like the fact that many consumers seem to like other attributes — such as vehicle size and acceleration — that mitigate against fuel economy." After suggesting that a fuel tax would be the best way to correct so-called "market failures," Taylor and Van Doren put the [stillborn] fuel economy debate to bed. "For many, however, there is no such thing as too much energy conservation, and society always gains the less we consume. But if that were true, why not just ban cars from the road altogether?" Where were you guys six months ago?

GM Car Czar Bob Lutz sat down with journo Jerry Flint for a major chin wag. Forbes' finest asks Maximum Bob about his employer's two-mode hybrid system; Flint wonders if the system costs costs more than $10k per vehicle. "Well, at least," Lutz admits. "And we're not selling it for that." Oops! So will the inherently unprofitable technology help GM achieve its federally-mandated 35mpg by 2020 fuel economy targets? Nope. "Even with that, we get a full-sized Tahoe sport utility to 22 miles per gallon, which is 50% to 60% better than anyone else [?], but is still only 22. So where are we going to get the other 13 [mpg]? We don't have a clue, and throwing another 10,000 bucks at it isn't going to do it either." As for GM's next Next Big Thing, the electric – gas Chevrolet Volt, Lutz backpedals so hard he falls over. Flint bears the bad news: "On a scale of 1 to 10, he says his confidence level is a 9.5 that GM can build the Chevy Volt. The production date is another matter; Lutz's confidence drops to a 5.5. 'We're holding people's feet to the fire for the very end of 2010 into 2011. But that can slip, depending on how the development goes.'" In short, "It probably won't be a flawless launch." So, it's business as usual at GM.

I remain resolutely skeptical that the new Energy Bill's mpg mandate will fully fulfill its 35mpg by 2020 promise. Once the National Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) tweaks the "attribute based" fuel economy calculations, once the manufacturers figure out how to trade credits to share the "burden," there's every chance that the changes we'll see will be mildly evolutionary, rather than revolutionary. But I could be wrong. Perhaps the environmentalists are right. Maybe we'll all be driving right-sized plug-in hybrids fashioned from lightweight materials, and telling tall tales of the days when SUV roamed the fruited plains (before the sainted tree huggers sent them all to Hell). In any case, Wired assumes the best (worst?), counts the cost of meeting the new standards and suggests all the ways automakers will do their civic duty (as opposed to paying the fines and calling it good). The fact the article features a photo of a SMART gives me the heebie-jeebies, but what the Hell. I cordially invite TTAC's best and brightest to survey this technological conundrum and place your bets on the future of high mileage motoring. Aluminum, magnesium and lightweight steel? Direct injection? Diesel? We report, you deride.

No one… yet. But GM’s chief engineer for the Corvette believes his meisterwerk is doomed. "High-performance vehicles such as this may actually be legislated out of existence," says Tadge Juechter. According an AP report published by WTOP, the GM engineer thinks cars such as the ZR1 “may be the last in a long tradition of Detroit performance cars.” With CAFE standards set to increase to 35 mpg by 2020, at least in theory, Juechter reckons cars like the ZR1 “could really be an endangered species.” Global Insight analyst Aaron Bragman says Juechter’s being a drama queen [paraphrase]."GM wants to sell big, high-performance, fun cars. And typically that's what Americans want to buy." Bragman thinks future muscle cars “may be powered by smaller engines or electric motors; but they won't die.” Well thank God for that.

Newspapers on both coasts are reporting that Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) chief Stephen L. Johnson ignored his own staff's unanimous recommendations when he refused to allow California to set its own CO2 tailpipe emissions standards. The EPA ruling means that California– and all the states that adopted The Golden State's air quality standards– will not be able to trump the new fuel economy mandates [almost] specified in the Energy Bill. "The decision set in motion a legal battle that EPA's lawyers expect to lose and demonstrated the Bush administration's determination to oppose any mandatory measures specifically targeted at curbing global warming pollution," the Washington Post proclaimed, sweeping aside the 1000-page Energy Bill's CO2-diminishing provisions. The LA Times was quick to jump on the "we wuz robbed" bandwagon. "The head of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ignored his staff's written findings in denying California's request for a waiver to implement its landmark law to slash greenhouse gases from vehicles, sources inside and outside the agency told The Times on Thursday." Just in case the EPA's opponents need more goading, the Times also reported that "In a PowerPoint presentation prepared for the administrator, aides wrote that if Johnson denied the waiver and California sued, 'EPA likely to lose suit.'" While Johnson's reasoning is sound– better a national standard than a patchwork of state regulations– the environmentalists are screaming blue murder. This one will run and run., 

Even as the Prez picks up his pens to sign the new Energy Bill into law, the automakers are rallying around the cause. While the cynical amongst you might suggest that their support indicates that the bill's riddled with loopholes, we couldn't possibly comment. Chrysler's (nee Toyota's) Jim Press had no such reluctance. He told MSNBC "We now know what the rules are of the game. [Translation: We manipulated the legislation as much as we could.] Each manufacturer now will be able to play its hand in its unique way. [We'll game the rules to the max.] We're in the best position to marry technology and not make people make sacrifices or compromises on the product they want. [We're going to continue to build huge trucks, CAFE be damned!]" Rick Wagoner responded with Generic Press Statement #31: "We will focus our engineering and technical resources to attain these standards, and we remain hard at work applying the innovation and developing the advanced technologies that will power tomorrow's cars and trucks." Toyota's Jim Lentz just said they'll expand their range of hybrids. "We're a hybrid company." Uh huh. A hybrid company that makes a fortune off of gas-sucking trucks and SUVs. It's nice to know even as the rules change, it'll be business as usual.

Following the passage of the Energy Bill today, Chrysler posted the following statement on the media blog, TheFirehouse.biz. It hails from from Robert Nardelli, Chairman and CEO, Chrysler LLC, regarding new, nationwide U.S. fuel economy standards. "We commend the Congress for passing an energy bill today and we fully support it being signed into law. Chrysler is committed to meeting the fuel economy standards of the bill and doing our part to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and our country's reliance on foreign oil. We continue to devote significant resources to develop quality, fuel efficient products that our customers expect. This year alone, we offer six vehicles that get 28 miles per gallon or better, and more are on the way." Wow, SIX whole vehicles? My goodness, that's incredible. Twenty-eight miles per gallon– without the "highway" caveat? Astonishing! And we get to choose from such fantastic products as the Caliber, Patriot, Compass, Sebring, Avenger, or Sebring Convertible! All with the puniest engines Chrysler sells. For fuel economy purposes. Why are they leaving out the amazing E85 Durango that has EPA ratings of 12 highway, 9 city? Just wonderin'…

According to the official website, the Coates Spherical Rotary Valve System creates "a quieter engine with higher specific power output and longer life than conventional poppet valve engines due to better 'breathing' capability and higher speed capability." In fact, it's "the single most significant development in engine technology in the past thirty years." Not being the most mechanically-minded pistonhead on the planet, I asked Sajeev Mehta to check it out: "Its a logical extension of innovations like roller rockers: reduced friction, more power, efficiency etc. The general feel I got from people who know more than me: sealing a spherical valve isn't gonna work for a production car. Today's engines have to last over 100k miles without any trouble, and engine "blow by" will be even worse here… and don't even think about pressurizing these valves with a turbo/supercharger/ Good night! As for their claim of their valves not needing oil. Strap on an A/C compressor: sit in traffic in 100 degree weather on a heat-soaked hunk of tarmac and those valves will be begging for extra lubrication. The big red flag for me: their they compared it to a regular engine without an EGR valve. That's like challenging Carl Lewis to a 100m race and making him do it barefoot on hot asphalt. Everyone uses EGR valves for a good reason; they reduce NOx (the third row on their chart) emissions by something like 70% or more. "On the exhaust stroke the poppet exhaust valve stems allow "back" pressure through the valve guides into the engine casing. This pressure is then redirected through the fuel induction system and in turn is reburned in the engine creating yet more hydrocarbons, carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide." Except that happens on high mileage motors with worn valve guides/springs (valves snap shut plenty fine when new). It took 150k miles for my 5.0 Ford to get weaker/slower/dirtier from valvetrain age. Newer engines are even better at valvetrain durability for many reasons. I seriously question if the Coates engine will fare much better after that type of punishment. I'm skeptical, but would change my tune with better info. EPA-style tests that carmakers do wouldn't hurt." 

OK, so, I called up the Alliance of Automotive Manufacturers to chase-up a few loose ends regarding the new Energy Bill headed for the President's John Hancock. Wayde Newton sent over a pdf. I'm bushed (so to speak), so if TTAC's best and brightest can give the Energy Bill the once-over and report their major and minor findings below, I'd consider it an important demonstration of the power of citizen journalism and a bloody great weight off my shoulders. Anyway and meanwhile, Wayde gave me some important insights. It seems the actual calculations that will determine what any given manufacturer's car or truck must achieve mpg-wise is STILL up in the air, headed over to The National Highway Traffic Administration (NHTSA) for their boffins to unravel (ravel?). Truth to tell, I was wrong about two key points. First, the bumper sticker– 35mpg by 2020– refers to the entire U.S. auto industry's annual output of both cars and trucks combined. No one manufacturer has to hit that target. They all have to do it together. Second, the new regs will NOT be footprint based. They'll be based on a range of potential "attributes" as determined by NHTSA, that could include engine size, torque, payload, four wheel-drive, towing ability, etc. In other words, the regs will vary by both manufacturer AND vehicle type. And that means that the Energy Bill fuel economy provisions are a nightmare for NHTSA's hard-working bureaucrats and a bit of a con for the average citizen. 

The majority of this morning's New York Times article on the auto-oriented provisions of the new energy bill profiles the industry's posturing, infighting and kvetching over higher Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards. To wit, “'We’re not whiners,' Dominique Thormann, a senior vice president at Nissan North America, said in Washington during a lunch with reporters on Wednesday, in a thinly veiled jab at competitors that originally fought fuel economy increases." Breeze through this politically correct interpretation– transplants ready to rumble, domestics foot (not to say knuckle) draggers, Toyota playing both side down the middle– and Michelle Maynard finally reveals some of the more important "details." For example, we learn that the bill offers federal loan guarantees to "help auto companies that invest in factories that are at least 20 years old to build vehicles with advanced technology." Hey! Guess what? The General will [theoretically] build the new Chevrolet Volt plug-in electric hybrid at a Detroit factory that opened in the early '80s. No word on the new "footprint-based" CAFE calculations– which make a mockery of fleet-wide fuel economy averages– or ethanol credits– capable of transforming a gas-sucking SUV into a high mileage green machine (in regulatory terms).  

The internet is abuzz over the White House's threat to veto the Energy Bill, what with Congress failing to hit the Prez' target for alternative fuels (35b gallons by 2017), neglecting to resolve the issue of who controls Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) and automotive emissions standards (the Environmental Protection Agency or the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration) and the unwelcome caveat (at least to coal producing states) that electricity suppliers have to generate 15 percent of their power by 2020 using renewable sources. Meanwhile, The New York Times reports the startling news that legislators have opted for vehicle footprint-based CAFE standards– as opposed to fleet-wide average. As we pointed out back in May, the "sliding scale" footprint-based system is a game changer that completely games the system in Detroit's favor. (As we know footprint calculations would hurt the United Auto Workers, and UAW-supported House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has added union protections to the Energy Bill, it seems likely footprint is a go.) Combine that with ethanol credits and the current methodology used to calculate CAFE mpgs (not the same as sticker mpgs), and the whole 35mpg by 2020 misegos could be nothing more than not a lot more than what we already got. As if you didn't suspect that already.

BusinessGreen reports that Ricardo, Land Rover, mapmaker Ordnance Survey, mobile giant Orange and the UK's Transport Research Laboratory have banded together to develop the "rCube control system." In theory, the bolt-in computer will combine the [now] familiar real time traffic data with automatic control over a hybrid's engine, batteries, throttle and brakes. Say what? "If you are approaching a junction or a traffic jam and have to stop, the control system will optimise the deceleration to limit how hard you have to brake and maximise the amount of energy that is captured and used to recharge the battery," explains Tom Robinson, senior product group manager for control and electronics at Ricardo. "It means that you get a smoother ride and lower emissions." The scarily-named "Sentience project" promises a prototype rCube-equipped Ford Escape Hybrid by the summer. So… what's hybridless lame duck Land Rover got to do with any of this? And why can't they just teach people to go easy on the gas and the brakes?

The Detroit News reports that the House and Senate are close to cutting a deal on the bill that will determine what kind of cars automakers will be building for the next 15 years or so. Apparently, everybody's cool with a 35mpg Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standard and all the little details, like keeping separate standards for cars and "light trucks." Which is just as well, as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi wants the whole thing done and dusted by next Wednesday, when members burn some jet fuel to attend the United Nations Climate Change shindig in Bali. The DTN identifies the final hurdle: ethanol mileage credits. That's the creative caveat that allows manufacturers to claim higher mileage for E85 compatible vehicles– even though a tiny fraction ever fill-up with the stuff. "Automakers contend the credits are necessary to spur increased availability of ethanol that will help reduce the country's reliance on foreign oil," the DTN dutifully reports. No word on whether the Porsche loophole– giving carmakers selling less than 60k vehicles stateside a pass on CAFE regs– remains intact. 

[Interview with the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers' Charles Territo below.]

In case you were wondering how U.S. automakers could meet presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton's ambitious plan to raise Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards to 55 mpg by 2030, Wall Street Journal columnist Joseph P. White's got your answer. Actually, his solutions come from The Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). White joins the chorus of environmental campaigners quoting liberally from "Factor of Two: Halving the Fuel Consumption of New Automobiles by 2035." "Consumers will have to accept little further improvements in acceleration performance, a large fraction of new light-duty vehicles sold must be propelled by alternative powertrains, and vehicle weight must be reduced by 20% to 35% from today." So go slow, go hybrid and go on a diet. White then shares one of the report's case studies. "A hypothetical Camry that weighed 2,525 pounds (1,148 kg), and had a 1.4 liter, 128-horsepower engine could accelerate to 60 miles per hour in 9.2 seconds, but would average 42 miles per gallon (5.5 liters per 100 km.) The same exercise applied to a Ford F-150 pickup would produce a vehicle that weighs 877 pounds less than today's vehicle, gets around on a 162 horsepower engine and averages 27 mpg, compared with 17.3 mpg today." White concludes his diatribe by dismissing Ye Olde Lutzian industry cost kvetching– and completely fails to mention safety. Side note: I'd LOVE to see White driving a Messerschmitt into Manhattan.  

In the real world, cars hardly ever deliver their official government fuel economy ratings. This is still the case in the U.S., where testing procedures were revised to better reflect Joe Blow's lead foot, but it's even more true in the European Union. To prove the point, Autobild recently tested a number of cars in [their idea of] real-life driving conditions. Their circuit consisted of 54 km on the autobahn, 61 km on highways and 45 km of city driving. The cars were driven speedily but not hard– never above 75 mph. The cars tested were up to 53% thirstier than rated (and advertised). Some examples:

Audi RS4 Avant 420HP
Rated 13.5 L/100KM
Test 14.0 = +3.7%

BMW M5 507HP
Rated 14.8
Test 15.2 = +2.7%

BMW 118d Diesel
Rated 4.5
Test 6.2 = +38%

Ford C-Max Diesel 109HP
Rated 4.9
Test 6.7 = +37%

Honda Civic Hybrid 95HP
Rated 4.6
Test 6.6 = +43.5%

Lexus RX400h Hybrid 211HP
Rated 8.1
Test 12.0 = +48%

Mercedes ML350 272HP
Rated 11.7
Test 15.6 = +33%

Toyota Aygo 68HP
Rated 4.6
Test 6.1 = +32.6%

Toyota Prius 78HP
Rated 4.3
Test 6.0 = +39.5%