Americans favor tougher fuel economy standards. This according to a poll of 1k voters performed by The [not entirely objective on the issue] Pew Campaign for Fuel Efficiency and the [equally industry antagonistic] National Environmental Trust. While failing to report the totals (86 percent in favor, 11 percent opposed, three percent couldn't be bothered), The Car Connection was happy to share the pollster's conclusion that the nationwide survey proves that U.S. voters consider their dependence on foreign oil to be the nation's top national security issue. So those polled want the feds to fix it by forcing the automakers to spend billions to engineer higher fuel mileage vehicles in fifteen years (that security-conscious consumers may or may not buy) instead of making any kind of personal sacrifice to cut oil consumption now. Heaven forbid they should have to give up their big pickup trucks, SUVs, motorhomes and powerboats or change their driving habits to help accomplish that goal.

Release of Volkswagen's highly anticipated, 50-state, four-cylinder clean diesel engine is being pushed back. Again. Brandweek reports that the German automaker's now saying their new oil burner will arrive stateside next summer. You know what's awesome about that? Nothing. Keep in mind that VW doesn't offer a single naturally-aspirated four-cylinder engine to its American customers, eroding VW's once-famous econo-cred. VW's turbocharged 2.0T engine, spectacular as it may be, delivers modest mileage in exchange for premium fuel. Many automotive customers associate "diesel" with "VW" (Volkswagen sold more than 815k diesel-powered vehicles in the U.S. since 1977) and  "reliable" (another facet to VW's brand image that disappeared down the reality rathole). In short, VW needs a 50-state clear diesel to recover their premier position in the minds of the holy trinity of America's European (Mexican?) car buyers: efficiency nerds, torque snobs and Euro-lusters. Even with diesel costing 15 percent more than regular petrol, we reckon the TDI would have been a hit. Now, we wait.

Reuters reports that U.S. gas prices have returned to summertime price levels, north of $3 a gallon. With the cost of crude oil jumping 17 percent to more than $96 per barrel, the AAA figures three buck a gallon gas was overdue. "We are surprised we didn't hit $3 sooner,” admits spokesman Geoff Sundstrom. “Prices could go higher now that we are moving into the higher-demand season that coincides with Thanksgiving and the year-end holidays." The US government says gasoline prices rose to $3.01 per gallon this week; diesel fuel is at a record high of $3.30 a gallon. “If we stay at $95 to $100 per barrel crude,” Sundstrom said. “It wouldn't be out of the question to see $4 in some places.” Additional insight arrives via the US Energy Information Administration (EIA). In its Short-Term Energy Outlook the EIA predicts “crude oil prices are expected to remain high and volatile.” Ya think?

Let's say you're an American car buyer looking for the cleanest, safest and most fuel efficient vehicle money can buy. You can pop on over to www.fueleconomy.gov and research a vehicle's mpg and emissions, complete with side-by-side comparisons. You can then click across to www.safercar.gov and check out your prospective whip's crash worthiness, albeit one vehicle at a time. As of today, frugal, safety-minded, environmentally-conscious New Zealand car buyers have a much easier time of it. A box fresh Kiwi government website– www.rightcar.govt.nz— ranks, sorts and compares 2300 new and used cars according to their relative fuel economy, CO2, pollutants, Driver Safety, Others' Safety or a combination of all five. Yes, but– The Land Transport New Zealand (LTNZ) says it set-up the site to focus on just one of these criteria. Speaking to Stuff.co.nz, LTNZ chief executive Wayne Donnelly said reducing carbon dioxide emissions was his department's primary goal. Anyway, we can't help but wonder if inter-departmental rivalries and commercial "concerns" would prevent the U.S. government from providing the same sort of user-friendly car buying widget– especially one without a cupholder count.

Back in May, presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton refused to endorse a specific change to federally-mandated Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards. In a speech in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, the former first lady jumped into the debate with both feet. The Detroit News reports that Ms Clinton gave her support to non-existent legislation that would raise U.S. automakers' CAFE averages to 55 miles per gallon by 2030. Hang on; the toughest standard currently under consideration would hoik the CAFE standard to 35mpg by 2020. How the Hell would Detroit up their fleets' fuel economy average by 2mpg per year for 10 years after that? Why, by using the $20b in low-interest government funds she's promising to help them retool factories. Plus $2b in R&D funding for battery research. And a $10k tax credit for consumers who purchase an as yet non-existent plug-in hybrid. Oh, and the aspiring president said she'd add 100k as yet non-existent plug-in hybrids to the federal government's vehicular fleet by 2015. It'll be worth it, too, because "these tough CAFE standards will save consumers more than $180b per year and reduce carbon dioxide emissions by more than 730 million metric tons." When asked to comment, one auto official replied "it's futile to comment when the candidates are engaged in one-upsmanship."

Normally we don't blog the bloggers, but this gem from The Daily Kos blogging a Fast Company article caught our editorial eye (ouch): "The problem with Detroit isn't the laws of physics, it's the fact that a guy who never even went to high school can do things — with stock parts — that Detroit's auto executives and their armies of engineers claim is impossible." And what awesome feats of mechanical wizardry has Johnathan Goodwin achieved that earned the admiration of The Daily Kos? First up: inserting a diesel engine into a Hummer H2 and running it on grease from a Chinese restaurant. Next, bio-dieseling a '65 Chevy Impala for MTV's "Pimp My Ride," increasing mileage to 25 mpg and bumping-up the shove from 250 horses to an entirely useful 800hp. With the acknowledged help of Kevin Kluemper, the lead calibration engineer for GM's Allison transmission unit. But does that slow down the Kos' anti-Detroit rhetoric? Hell no. "Remember — Detroit tells us it's impossible to increase gas mileage without taking a hit on horsepower. Yet here's Goodwin — with an eight-grade [sic] education — able to design motors that blow the doors off the conventional (and obviously bullshit) wisdom." And then a look at Goodwin's latest project: a bio-diesel hybrid H2 with a jet engine turbine powering super capacitor batteries, with a hydrogen injection system to cut emissions in half. "Think about it: a 5,000-pound vehicle that gets 60 miles to the gallon and does zero to 60 in five seconds!" So I guess it's official: Detroit is either too stupid, lazy or arrogant to realize your can have your cake down at the CAFE, and eat it too. [NB: I'm being sarcastic.]

In another case of under-informed greenery, Slate.com attempts to answer the question vexing America's automotive environmentalists: should American drivers switch to manual transmissions to save the planet? Answer: yes. Author Brendan I. Koerner says self-shifters can shave 15 percent off their annual gas consumption. "The Department of Energy estimates that the average American driver uses 500 gallons of gas per year, so we're talking about a reduction of 75 gallons. Since a gallon of gas emits 19.564 pounds of carbon dioxide… you'd be reducing your annual CO₂ output by approximately two-thirds of a metric ton." But then again no; American drivers lack the right technique/attitude to harvest the savings. "If you're lazy about shifting and allow your RPMs to soar unnoticed, then you might actually guzzle more gas than if your car were equipped with a well-engineered slushbox." Koerner seems blissfully unaware of the wide variety of cog-swappers on the market: slushbox, CVT, DSG, automatic clutch. But he's convinced that manual transmissions are a better bet, if only because "The brake pads on stick-shift cars… tend to wear out less rapidly than those on automatics. And manual transmissions are relatively cheap to fix and replace, so you can wait longer to buy a new vehicle." Who knew?

Forbes' columnist Jerry Flint says rising U.S. gas prices are not changing– nor are they about to change– America's car-buying habits. "We can afford it. If we rushed out and sold our big, safe, comfortable cars and trucks, trading them for little minis, we would be driving uncomfortably and less safely. We would lose more money on the trade-ins than we would ever save in lower gasoline bills." Uh, what about sagging pickup trucks sales, or the switch from SUVs to crossovers? Don't the numbers reflect a new mpg-related car-buying paradigm? Flint dismisses the shift as nothing more than a continuation of a pre-existing trend– although the dean of automotive journalists fails to state what triggered these trends in the first place. As always, Flint's take on the hard numbers is let-the-chips-fall-where-they-may PC anti-matter. Until the last 'graph. "But all is not hopeless," Flint opines, suddenly revealing his disapproval for American consumers' recalcitrance re: downsizing their cars, carpooling or hopping onto public transportation. "Auto companies around the world, those in Detroit included, are developing improved engines that will push a car farther on a gallon. They will be here in a few years. And they'll fit under the hood of a roomy, comfortable American car." Well thank God for that!

Now that Detroit (plus Toyota) has decided that some hike in the federal Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards is better than a BIG hike, Detroit's heavy hitters have hit the nation's capitol seeking support for their position. WSBT reports that Ford Boss Alan Mulally met with [union-supported] House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her cohorts. Big Al pronounced that Ford is "absolutely committed to providing our customers with vehicles they really want and value. That is why improving the fuel economy of our vehicles and securing energy independence is important and that is why we fully support increases in CAFE." The Associated Press reports that GM CEO Rick Wagoner schmoozed with officials at the White House National Economic Council, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency. Wagoner poo-poohed CAFE, asserting that the country would be better off developing alternative fuels and advanced batteries for plug-in hybrids and electric vehicles. “Our only hope is that the policies we pursue in the next 10, 20, 30 years, I hope that we end up with better results.” Meanwhile, some of the proposals “look like a stretch and look tough” and others “don’t look achievable.” Chrysler's Nardelli kept a low profile and ToMoCo was nowhere to be seen. But all three U.S. execs got a tongue lashing at a Democratic party luncheon. Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.) declared that Motown had resisted past CAFE increases and was now running advertising saying a Senate proposal would “take your pickup truck away.” “I think the issue is over — I think you’ve lost that issue. I think your position is yesterday forever." Maybe, maybe not.

It's not such horrible news dear boy. It's not as if Bentley's sticking that frightfully underpowered Prius' Synergy Drive into the Arnage. Leftlane News tells me The Bentley Boys plan to hybridize their Eisenhower-era 6.75-liter V8 engine to keep the old girl kosher under the European Union's more stringent emissions laws. The historic powerplant stays. Huzzah! (I'll be sending the boffins some fine port when I get a minute.) While I'm thrilled– thrilled I tell you– that Bentley will use battery power to keep its rolling cathedrals motive, it's a shame they have to meet green laws. I mean, the idea that Bentley's limited production could somehow impact global temperatures is as preposterous as asking their owners to join the Peace Corps. If it was in this writer's hands, so long as Bentley makes cars with more torque than a Peterbilt, they're good to go. Shove a Bugatti Veyron's quad-turbo W16 in there? Why not old bean; why not?

This truth thing seems to be catching on. First, Ford buys thetruthabouttrucks.com. Then Audi capitalizes (literally) on TRUTH IN ENGINEERING. And now a coalition of nine environmental groups– the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, the League of Conservation Voters, the National Environmental Trust, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Union of Concerned Scientists, the U.S. Public Interest Research Group, Friends of the Earth, Conservation Law Foundation and Environment California– have launched TruthAboutToyota.com. The hate site takes Toyota to task for opposing the more aggressive of two congressional bills mandating hikes in federal Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) averages. The accompanying USA Today full-page ad and press release takes plenty of media-friendly bites out of ToMoCo's ass. "Just because Toyota is taking over General Motor's market share does not mean that Toyota has to take on GM's anti-environmental lobbying practices," pronounced Brendan Bell, Washington Representative for the Union of Concerned Scientists. "Toyota needs to start living up to its slogan, 'moving forward' instead of driving us backward," warned Philip Clapp, President of the National Environmental Trust. You can be sure Toyota's none-too-happy about playing truth or consequences with America's greens.

The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (AAM) represents a strange agglomeration: BMW, Chrysler, Ford, General Motors, Mazda, Mitsubishi, Porsche, Toyota and Volkswagen. Getting all nine members to agree to any given PR plan must be Hell on Earth. And yet, as any Star Wars fan will tell you, you can't be a proper Alliance if you just hang around waiting for the Death Star to appear. For Death Star, read the federal government, which has emerged as the single most important force in the American auto industry. Anyway, someone at the AAM got their members to fund a new website called YourMileageMayVary.com. The site tells consumers all about the new EPA fuel economy stickers. It's a terrific little corner of cyberspace: concise, user-friendly and useful. There's nothing controversial here– other than the fact that the tax-payer funded EPA couldn't do it nearly as well. But it's definitely geared towards the intellectually challenged. In the Q & A bit: "How effect will the new labels have on the cost of a fill-up?" Answer: "These updated estimates are about updated information for American drivers, not worse fuel economy." Glad we got that straightened out.

The EPA has just released its summary of the model year 2007 composite fuel economy ratings by manufacturer (or, in EPA-speak, "marketing group"). The average for all manufacturers was 20.2 mpg– no thanks to the SUV/truck-centric Big 2.8. Honda led the pack with an average of 22.9 mpg, squeaking by Toyota at 22.8 mpg. The other manufacturers slotting in above the industry average: Hyundai/Kia (22.7), VW (21.4), and Nissan (20.6). Falling below the average were GM (19.4), Ford (18.7) and DaimlerChrysler (18.3). GM has never managed to exceed the average, but they tied it three times, the last time in 1998 (20.1). Pre-Daimler Chrysler last placed above the average in 1984, bettering the 21.0 average by 0.1 mpg. Ford has never placed above the average; Toyota and Honda have never been below it. Click here for a graph showing a side-by-side comparison of the 2007 results.

Auto Motor und Sport (via Just-auto [sub]) reports that Toyota is withdrawing the Land Cruiser from their Eurozone dealerships after this model year. The move comes as ToMoCo seeks to trim its entire fleet's CO2 averages to 140g per kilometer, as per voluntary European Union (EU) regulations. As the heavyweight SUV wasn't exactly a stellar seller and a new, more environmentally friendly Land Crusher Cruiser is about to debut, it's no biggie. More interestingly, Toyota plans to increase the price of their hot-selling, recently redesigned RAV4 in order to curtail demand– and meet the CO2 target. The changes to Toyota's lineup illustrate the difficulty faced by smaller manufacturers like Porsche, who don't sell low CO2 machines that "average out" their gas guzzlers' emissions. Hence German manufacturers' campaign to get the EU to set CO2 limits based on vehicle size, rather than fleet averages. Just-auto figures that idea's a non-starter. Next question: can a brand under a corporate umbrella (i.e. Volkswagen's Bugatti) rely on the meta-group's high mileage cars to meet the regs? And even if they can, will the detrimental effect on the larger brand encourage the corporate mothership to jettison the CO2-spewing boutique brands?

The European Union may soon force automakers to include health/global warming warnings on their car advertisements, similar to the list of possible side effects required on US drug ads. MotorTrader (MT) reports that English MEP (Member European Parliament) Chris Davies has submitted a report on the proposal to EU chiefs, who will debate the idea in October. Davies' report also calls for a Euro-wide ban on any car ad that promotes a vehicle's high speed performance (as is currently in place in the UK) and ban the sale of cars that can drive faster than 101mph. According to MT, Davies "noted that the power of new cars increased by 28 per cent between 1994 and 2004, making them heavier and thus increasing the amount of CO2 output. This increase is completely unnecessary, the MEP said, as no country has raised its speed limit to allow cars to use this additional power."