The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers and National Automobile Dealers Association have launched a new website dividing the country into "car states" and "truck states." If that doesn't give the game away, the url might: AutoChoice.org. That's right: the carmakers (BMW Group, Chrysler, Ford Motor Company, General Motors, Mazda, Mitsubishi Motors, Porsche, Toyota and Volkswagen) are defending Americans' right to choose a light truck (SUVs, pickup, vans and minivans) instead one of them little high mileage runabouts. The villain of the piece: [unnamed] federal legislators who would regulate both car and truck fuel economy using the same formula. The official defense: "Continuing to meet the vehicle needs of recreation enthusiasts and American family vacations is a paramount concern of automakers. Pick-ups, SUVs and crossover vehicles are instrumental in meeting those needs." While it's kinda cool checking the percentage of car vs. light truck registrations by congressional district, I wonder why the industry is so worried about this potential facet of CAFE standards– as it doesn't have a hope in Hell of happening. So I called "The Alliance." 

When the temperature of the gasoline crests 100 degrees, the fuel loses roughly one percent efficiency. That may not sound like much, but OilWatchdog.org says its a freakin' scam. "At the higher end of fuel temperatures, 105 degrees, the energy loss is nearly a dime a gallon. Drivers' losses boost the bottom line of oil companies." Needless to say, the group supports the "hot fuel" class action lawsuit against ExxonMobil. They're also offering a free, official-looking "motor fuel ripoff notice" which you should "put on your car or anywhere it will be seen by many. Not, of course, on gas pumps, which could be construed as posting without permission." (This next to the words "STICK IT TO BIG OIL.") In the interests of journalistic objectivity, The LA Times also slams the oil companies for not adjusting prices by temperature ("The oil industry gets a lot of abuse, much of it without merit. But it's on the wrong side of the argument in this case."). Open-minded readers may wish to explore the issue over theoilddrum.com, which proclaims that "hot gas is hot air" and uses (gasp) science to make the point.

Last week, GM told the world its '08 models would hit the streets with 14 new or "significantly revised powertrains" with a "focus on saving fuel and improving performance." Public Citizen ("We fight for clean, safe and sustainable energy sources") has accused the automaker of mistaking "old" for "new." The consumer advocacy group claims that "most of the good ideas in the new powertrain lineup… are old news technologies that were listed five years ago." The sole exception? GM's two-mode hybrid. Even then Public Citizen slates the automaker's hybrid efforts for "putting it in some of the largest models, undermining efforts to build more efficient functional family vehicles." What's more, Public Citizen has an answer to SUV and pickup truck economy and safety: unibody construction! "Building the body and frame as a single piece, instead of the Frankenstein monster of a car body stuck to a truck frame, could help protect occupants of a vehicle struck by an SUV." And reduce their ability to tow or haul. At least Public Citizen questions the wisdom of biofuels. Looks like that initiative may be losing momentum amongst the chattering classes. 

As Robbie Burns might have put it, "The best-laid plans o' mice an' politicians gang aft a-gley." A study conducted by DesRosiers Automotive Consultants and reported in Financial Post reveals that Canada's eco-Auto program has backfired. The legislation was designed to lure Canadians out of their SUVs into hybrids and other more fuel efficient vehicles. Instead of increasing sales of the fuel sippers, buyers are turning to large pickups. The program places an excise tax of up to $4k on SUVs and other gas guzzlers like sports cars. However, because a pickup is a "need" for work rather than a "transportation choice," they're exempt. Sales of small pickups are up 18 percent so far this year, while large truck sales have increased 14 percent. It's only a matter of time– and not much of it– before the loophole cinches shut.

The Detroit News carries news of a "made-for-TV" rally of Ford and Chrysler autoworkers in Chicago yesterday. The event, "put together by a public relations firm," protested proposed Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) legislation. The rent-a-mob consisted primarily of 200 workers bussed in from nearby assembly plants. They put on a good show, too. At one point, a Ford Expedition rolled up and disgorged a scoutmaster. three Boy Scouts and a Girl Scout "to demonstrate ways Americans need larger vehicles" (The mind boggles).  One Chrysler worker described her [ostensible] reason for attending the rally: "People should be able to drive what they want." A lot of Americans agree with her, which is why the Camry outsells the Sebring by a very wide margin. 

Forget the political tussle over Corporate Average Fuel Economy legislation. Business Week's Ed Wallace has the solution to all our energy problems: lower the speed limit. Wallace says if we dropped the highway speed limits to 60 mph and "rigidly enforced them," America "would save 96,135,846 gallons of gasoline each and every week." The scribe also states "this single action could resolve our energy problems in seven working days." Mr. Wallace only mentions Ye Olde National Maximum Speed Law of 1974 in passing, even though the legislation introduced the term "double nickel" into the lexicon and put Richard Nixon and Sammy Hagar at opposite ends of the socio-political spectrum. Maybe that's because the national limit didn't save gas. The [admittedly conservative] Heritage Foundation reckons the law reduced gas consumption by one percent, although God knows the ticket revenue was (is?)  phenomenal. 

Creativity thrives in times of chaos and transition. Dada was born in World War I. Punk Rock arrived in the strife-torn streets of 1970s New York City. Automotive engineering– the art of bringing order to chaos– also fits this template. German automakers did some of their most innovative work in the turbulent years immediately after WWII. And now that environmental regulations and changing business conditions have upset the international automotive applecart, we’re looking at another explosion of engineering creativity. Ground zero for some of this work: the alternative propulsion experiments of the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) collegiate branches. 

The name of this game is Challenge X – Crossover to Sustainable Mobility. The contest challenges fledgling engineers from 17 American universities to design, build and test a hybrid vehicle architecture based on a 2005 Chevrolet Equinox. They must utilize alternative fuels to reduce the vehicle's energy consumption while maintaining standard-issue performance, utility and safety.

The Challenge X’ timeline is modeled after GM’s development cycle. SAE students have four years to turn Chevy’s hunk of charcoal (sorry Equinox lovers) into an eco-friendly gem. For those readers who suffer from ADD, here are the Challenge X Cliff Notes:

Year one: teams devise theories, build models and create simulations for a new, more mpg-friendly Equinox powertrain. Year two: the judges determine which teams get the keys. The teams take delivery of their high tech kit, and attempt to install it into their prototype. Years three and four: they refine their handiwork and restore their eco-modded Equinox to “near showroom quality.”

If you think the Chevy Equinox is another forgettable CUV, you may be right. But you haven’t driven the University of Wisconsin-Madison’s Challenge X variant, christened Moovada. A Movado watch for bovines? Hey, they’re engineers (they probably don't know what I'm talking about). Speaking of which… Geek alert! If you’re not technically inclined, you might want to skip the next two paragraphs.

The Moovada is a split-parallel hybrid holstering a GM 110 kW 1.9-liter CIDI engine (found in the Fiat Punto-D) coupled to a GM F40 six-speed manual transmission. The rear axle is powered by a Ballard induction motor/gearbox powerlimited to 59 kW by the 44-module (317 volts nominal) Johnson Controls’ nickel-metal hydride hybrid battery pack. The vehicle is fueled by B20, which has a lower GHGI impact than conventional diesel fuel.

The hybrid controller is a Motorola MPC555 based Powertrain Control Module (PCM) embedded controller with 38 inputs, 28 outputs and dual CAN bus capability specifically designed for automotive applications. Wisconsin is utilizing ANSI C language for code development and MotoTron development tools for programming the controller.

Simply put, the team’s five groups (each responsible for a different vehicle system) have engineered a new powertrain package for the Equinox that delivers both fuel efficiency and entertainment. That’s right: it’s fun to drive.

Forget about the 36mpg and super-duper clean emissions. The Challenge X Equinox from the “Eat Cheese or Die” state delivers smooth and seamless power that combines golf cart-like torque with the progressive power of a diesel mill. The shifter is as wonderfully flickable as the clutch is progressive. Using Challenge X-specific Michelin tires, the Equinox not only corners with precision, it provides a quiet and comfortable ride. 

Aside from the electric motor’s straight-cut cogs doing their best impression of an M-22 Rockcrusher running down the dragstrip, the Equinox behaves as well as any CUV, with a much more enjoyable powerband. Ladies and gentlemen, The University of Wisconsin-Madison team nailed it.

And now they’re perfecting it. The team is rebuilding the Moovado’s exhaust system, refining the controls system and repackaging the batteries. They’re modifying both Equinox’ interior and exterior to reflect a more "consumer acceptable" vehicle. And then, of course, there’s more testing and calibration, to assure the Moovado's performance, economy and ride quality.

Ten years ago, I was in their shoes. Back then, my team was fitting a Chrysler minivan with propane propulsion. Looking into the team members' eyes brought it all back, and puts everything in perspective. They work as a team for a common goal under a common budget. They believe in their product and their eco-friendly mission: take what GM builds and improve it for the environment– without sacrificing comfort, convenience or credibility.

Just think what these manager/creator/mentors could do at GM if the people who make cars got to “make” cars. It could happen. In these desperate days, when GM has finally realized that plug-in hybrids and other new tech could be their last, best hope for survival, GM’s engineers may once again assume their rightful place at the head of the development table.

Meanwhile, the kids are alright.

Reuters reports that European Commissioner Guenter Verheugen has a stark message for automakers hoping to cope with tough new emissions limits by paying cash in lieu of compliance: fuhgeddaboutit. "The Commission has decided that its [legislative] proposal should not distort competition among the producers," Verheugen revealed. "This cannot be reconciled with payments of compensation." Quite how "payments of compensation" differ from old-fashioned "fines" is anybody's guess. Meanwhile, the European auto industry is lobbying hard against the new rules, which force carmakers to cut new cars' carbon dioxide emissions to a fleet average of 130 grams per km by 2012. The automakers are asking the EU to postpone the requirements until 2015. They've also suggested an integrated approach to curbing CO2 emissions that would include improved infrastructure, driver training, expanded reliance on biofuels and CO2-related taxes on cars and fuels. The theoretical space between a rock and a hard place was not mentioned. 

House politicians burning the midnight oil have passed a $16b bill designed to reduce our dependence on imported energy. While the bill must be reconciled with the Senate version and the President is already threatening a veto (as expected), its provisions clearly indicate which way the wind [farm] is blowing. The San Francisco Chronicle reports that the bill repeals tax breaks to the oil and gas industry, to the tune of $16b. On the automotive front, it provides $4k tax breaks for hybrid and plug-in hybrid cars, hands out loan guarantees and "other assistance" for advanced diesel and hybrid battery technology, and mandates $3.5b in tax credits for E-85 pump installation. The hotly-debated proposal to raise the federal Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards didn't get a look in. The champion of the hike, Massachusetts Democrat Representative Edward Markey, put his hands in the air like he just didn't care. "This is the historic break with the fossil-fuel past and the beginning of the solar-wind renewable era in the United States," the chairman of the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming told The Boston Globe. "People will look back at this as the turning point where Congress began to embrace renewable energy." 

Right from the start of the bun fight debate over raising Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards, TTAC has stressed that one of the central issues is the so-called "Two Fleet" rule. As it currently stands, there are two CAFE mpg standards: one for domestically-produced automobiles and one for imported vehicles. If the Two Fleet rule is eliminated, if CAFE requirements are based on an automaker's entire lineup regardless of its origin, The Big 2.8 will shut down its highly unprofitable U.S. small car production. Needless to say, this has not escaped the attention of The United Auto Workers. The Detroit Free Press reports that the UAW has read Representative Edward Markey's revised CAFE legislation and discovered some hidden language killing the Two Fleet rule. Pleased with this they are not. "The UAW deeply regrets that, in a desperate effort to gain a few votes, Representative Markey apparently decided to abandon his past position on this critically important jobs issue," UAW legislative director Alan Reuther said. "The revised Markey proposal would enable auto manufacturers to offshore all of their small-car production, and would thereby threaten the jobs of thousands of American workers." We're not sure how closing unprofitable American factories would gain any votes for Rep. Markey, but it sure would make some American auto execs happy.  

The Detroit Free Press reports Congress' strongest advocate of tougher corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards has thrown in the biodegradable towel. After meeting with House Leader Nancy Pelosi (friend of the UAW), Massachusetts Representative Edward Markey decided his 35 mpg by 2019 plan would slow down other bills the Democrats are trying to pass before the August recess. Markey now says he'll back the mileage increase passed by the Senate in June– which keeps the 35 mpg standard but extends the deadline to 2020. The debate in the House will resume in September, when Detroit Representative John Dingell will "address" fuel economy in his discussion of global warming. 

"It's deeply disappointing that Toyota has joined in the lie-and-threaten game," says Dan Becker, director of the Sierra Club's global-warming program. Speaking to Automotive News [AN, sub], Mr. Becker is referring to Toyota's decision to join The Big 2.8 in lobbying Washington to throttle back on plans for higher Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards. The effort is sure to tarnish the transplant's green credentials and stoke the fires of domestic partisans, but it makes perfect sense. As AN points out, Toyota's combined car-truck fleet peaked at 26 mpg in 1983, and ToMoCo is enjoying full-size profits generated by its full-size SUV's and pickups. The real story here is Toyota's 'tude towards the Detroit. Apparently, they want to compete "relentlessly, but not ruthlessly." "We don't want to see our competitors in any worse financial shape," claims Josephine Cooper, Toyota's group vice president for government and industry affairs. Methinks they will. 

The Level Field Institute calls itself "an automotive research organization founded by retired autoworkers." In practice, they're a Big 2.8-funded pressure group Hell bent on protecting Detroit's interests in Washington. Well, maybe. Their newly-launched manifesto on federal Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards argues against proposals to eliminate dual standards (separate foreign and U.S.-made fleet averages). They correctly conclude that this part of the Senate bill would kill U.S. small car production– which would be great for Detroit's profits and not so great for U.S. autoworkers. Conflict? The Left Level Fielders' ad also state that the Senate bill should force automakers to produce flex fuel vehicle, as it will "encourage U.S. jobs in Midwestern states hardest hit by manufacturing job losses." Quite how the Institute's researchers decided Detroit should beat cars into plowshares without help from, say, the ethanol lobby, is something of a mystery. Unless…

`If we have the worst case coming out of Washington, all bets are off. We don't know how to get there without spending $6,000 or $7,000 per car.'' In his battle to kneecap the Senate bill designed to raise federal corporate average fuel economy standards, GM's Car Czar has added $4k to $5k per car to his original estimate of the legislation's impact on GM's costs. Lutz' numbers reflect a new, theoretical strategy for meeting the new, theoretical legislation: an all-hybrid lineup. Lutz told Bloomberg that GM's current hybrid system costs about $10k per vehicle. If used on all cars and trucks, the cost would fall to $6k to $7k. Alternatively, nothing. And what about the four percent per year mandate after the new standards are met? Lawmakers might as well mandate that cars "float four inches off the ground." Huh?

When it comes to the debate over proposed increases in U.S. Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards, rational argument takes a back seat to politics as usual, as this article in Pennsylvania's Patriot News illustrates. Hometown rep Todd Platts, lead Republican is lead on a bill raising federal mandated fuel efficiency by 40 percent (to 35 miles per gallon) by 2018. Platts: "The auto industry, as it does today, said it was impossible– it would compromise safety, choice. Obviously, history has proven that their statements were untruthful and technology did allow the advances." The opposition (a.k.a. "one industry lobbyist"): "Under this bill, in wanting to make the U.S. more like Europe, every American would be driving a Toyota Corolla. I don't think most Americans want that." Will Platt compromise with the forces of evil? Sure! "We believe there is technology that would allow you to go beyond 35, but we also know that given the special interests that are lined up against us — the auto industry and the oil industry — you have to be realistic," Platts said.