Though BMW was the first automaker to contact the Bush Administration with concerns about the latest CAFE rules, it didn't take long for more to speak up. As represented by the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, the Detroit 3, Toyota, Volkswagen, Mercedes-Benz and others have banded together to proclaim the demands too harsh. Especially considering the current state of automotive affairs, the Alliance alleges that it will be too costly to either meet the goals set out in the latest CAFE standards or face the fines for not meeting them. It is certainly true that most automakers are finding it tough to sell vehicles in these days of turbulent fuel prices and a damaged economy in the U.S.

Eighty-percent of the auto market in the states is represented by the Auto Alliances members, so the issues presented by the groups are sure to be taken seriously. With other groups, including Transportation Secretary Mary Peters, wanting to actually increase the CAFE requirements even further, the auto manufacturers seem to have their work cut out for them.

[Source: Automotive News - sub. req'd]

When the U.S. Congress passes or is about to pass some legislation relating to issues of automobile safety or vehicles' ecological impact, the Auto Alliance speaks up. Why do we only hear from the group on these issues? The Alliance's Charles Territo sat down with us at the New York Auto Show to explain how ten large automakers - BMW, Chrysler, Ford, General Motors, Mazda, Mercedes Benz USA, Mitsubishi, Porsche, Toyota and Volkswagen - work together. The short answer is that, when it comes to safer and cleaner driving, the industry can agree on what needs to happen: cars need to be, well, safer and cleaner. For example, the Alliance is hyper-excited for alternative fueled cars, which it defines as vehicles available today that don't rely exclusively on gasoline. In this case, that means hybrids, diesels and flexfuel cars. When it comes to specifics like which powertrain technology is best or which bodystyle to promote, well, that's where the companies fight and snipe, all trying to get your dollar. Give Territo a listen by pushing play in the widget below.

Some are happy, some are sad with the decision yesterday by Judge Sessions in Vermont on the possibility of state fuel economy rules that would, in effect, supplant federal legislation.

On the one hand, we have the Pew Campaign for Fuel Efficiency, on the other we have the Auto Alliance. Pew Campaign director Phyllis Cuttino said in a statement that:

Today's ruling shows that the only ones who don't believe in the U.S. auto industry are the U.S. auto industry.

Today's ruling by the U.S. District Court is more proof that auto industry arguments opposing meaningful fuel efficiency increases are no longer credible. U.S. District Judge William K. Sessions' ruling bluntly articulates what Americans overwhelmingly believe, what the National Academy of Sciences has found and what foreign automobile manufacturers have demonstrated: greater fuel efficiency is achievable without sacrificing vehicle size or power.

Auto industry lawyers are trying to convince judges that fuel efficiency is unattainable and auto industry lobbyists are waging a campaign in Washington, DC to weaken and delay or defeat a U.S. Senate bipartisan compromise to require automakers to achieve an average of 35 miles per gallon by 2020. This measure would not only make America more secure by saving 1.2 million barrels of oil a day, but also save American families $25 billion per year at the gas pump. It would also help Detroit to better compete with foreign automakers.

Got that, car companies? Maybe not. The president of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, Dave McCurdy, released a statement on the decision, which basically says that the fuel economy should be set by the feds and an appeal of Sessions ruling is possible. Read the full statement after the jump.

[Source: Pew Campaign for Fuel Efficiency]

We don't need to tell you that under-inflated tires can zing your mpg for a few percentage points, do we? You know that keeping your tires correctly inflated means you're helping to get the most miles per gallon you can, right? Good, cause it's something we should all know by now, and there are only so many ways to write it.

Something that we don't always know is when our tires are under-inflated. Some people check their tires regularly. If you're one of them, you can stop reading now. For the rest of you, if you'll take a moment to familiarize yourself with the orangish shape above, you soon will be able to tell when your tires are plumping out, as all new cars, starting with 2008 models, will have TPMS, a tire pressure monitoring system. When you need air in the tires, the symbol above will appear in the dashboard, telling you it's time to visit a pump (BTW, is there a site that tells you which gas stations still offer Free Air pumps? Because there totally should be).

The Auto Alliance is promoting TPMS as a new safety feature, but it's obviously more than that. Following a long spiel about how flat-ish tires can be dangerous to drive on, the Alliance's press release announcing the standard TPMS systems says that fuel efficiency is reduced one percent for every three-PSI under-inflation. Don't make me repeat that.

[Source: Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers]

Whenever we bring up the revision of CAFE standards that Washington is considering, it seems confusing that the automakers say that they support mileage increases but are still trying to convince people not to accept them. Remember, though, that there is more than one bill on the table to be discussed. The so-called "Hill-Terry" bill is the one that the automakers are backing, which is the weakest of the three possible bills. The Auto Alliance and others are supporting this bill because they say that it is fair and achievable, and would protect jobs that the more strict bills would eliminate. Perhaps the truth is somewhere in between the stances of the environmental groups like the Union of Concerned Scientists, which support the highest increases to the CAFE standards, and the automakers, who are supporting the lowest. Who really knows? But, at least a shift has been made by the automakers, who never would have supported an increase in CAFE rules a few years ago.

Do you have an opinion you'd like to share? If you live close to either Chicago or St. Louis, why not attend one of the rallies and let them know what you think.

[Source: Detroit News]

How could we possibly forget the last round of print and radio advertising that the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers let out of the bag? Sure, you remember those, don't you? They basically said that if the Senate were to pass new CAFE standards, you would not be able to afford a pickup truck anymore, or purchase a safe minivan to haul your family in. Those ads apparently did not go over well. One could argue that with gas prices so high, they were rather ill-timed. So, the Alliance has decided on a kinder, gentler approach this time around.

Instead of running their newest ads in areas with a high concentration of SUV and truck purchasers, they are targeting Washington, our nations capitol. The idea is to get people who can make the choices to hear them out. No longer are they totally against any changes. Now, they just want reasonable targets. They want to know how expensive gas really needs to get before it changes your purchasing habits. Are you really willing to choose a four cylinder instead of a six? Are you willing to find an E85 or biodiesel station? Those are the real questions that need answering. America deserves answers, according to their ads (available here in .pdf). They claim that they are comited to finding them, and they want your help.

The Auto Alliance has set up this new website to get their thoughts across. They make a good point. What compromises are you personally willing to make?

[Source: Auto Alliance via Detroit News]

U.S. Representative Ed Markey, (D-Mass), who is head of the Select Committee on Energy Independence And Global Warming (whew), proposed the "Plug-in Hybrid Opportunity Act of 2007" yesterday. The plan would give a 35 percent tax break to hybrid owners who purchase and install the components to convert their vehicles to plug-ins. Perhaps this all sounds familiar, which makes sense when you consider the (ridiculous sounding) "Fuel Reduction using Electrons to End Dependence On the Mideast Act of 2007", named so they could cleverly call it the "FREEDOM Act" for short. That plan would have given consumers $7,500 in tax credits for making the plug-in conversion, and was proposed by the bipartisan group of Maria Cantwell (D-Wash), Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and Barack Obama (D-Ill). The specific language was removed from the energy bill which was recently passed. Will it make a comeback? Who knows... but take a look at this article and let us know what you think, that is, if you have an opinion. Here, I'll start off by giving an opinion of my own: including Rob Lowe in on the hearing is a dumb gimmick. OK, your turn!

The Auto Alliance, oftentimes the "bearer of auto-related bad news", is acting as the mouthpiece of the major automakers (and their dealers) once again. We already told you that Toyota doesn't like the legislation, and apparently neither do the other manufacturers. They cite the fact that the warranty will be voided if the conversion is done, and even suggest that emissions might be worse afterward. I honestly can't see how that would be true, but I suppose that when changes are made to the vehicle's on-board computer, or ECU, that it could negatively impact the emissions. More testing would obviously be necessary.

Of course, there is no law against purchasing the components to switch your hybrid to a plug-in, and this legislation would support that effort. Have you ever heard the saying "Sacrifices to the God of Speed"? Well, would you be willing to make sacrifices to the God of Green? How about if there was a big tax incentive to do so?

Related:

• Three Senators unveil pro-plug-in hybrid FREEDOM Act
• CalCars: Toyota does not approve of plugging in your Prius
• EDTA president says plug-in bill failure had nothing to do with PHEV technology
• What about celebrating dependence on this fourth of July?

[Source: Detroit News]

After running their radio and print ads for the last few weeks, and creating a few websites all designed to sway consumer opinion away from higher government-mandated fuel economy requirements, The Auto Alliance is back with similar tactics, according to the Union of Concerned Scientists. The problem, as UCS sees it, is that the ads are only focusing on the surcharges that gas-guzzling vehicles would receive while leaving out the vital information that the other 65 percent of vehicles would qualify for a rebate or fall between the rebate and the surcharge - effectively zero-ing out. The Alliance has also created a California-specific webiste: wedrivecalifornia.com.

According to Charles Territo, a spokesman for the Alliance, "We fundamentally think that these car taxes are unfair to large families, small businesses, working people, farmers, contractors and anyone else who needs a larger vehicle." Read more to his argument here.

We've got the more of the statement from the Union of Concerned Scientists after the break.

Related:

• GM, Chrysler and The Auto Alliance create websites to sway consumers to contact Congress
• Automakers create radio and print ads in an attempt to stall fuel economy regulations

[Source: Union of Concerned Scientists]

While I was reading this column, I almost thought I was perusing my latest copy of Car and Driver. Then, I realized that the writing was not as good, and the attempts at humor less successful. But, anyway, John McCormick did cover some of the points that Patrick Bedard consistently seems to touch on in his monthly column. Namely that global warming is either fake or that man's contribution to greenhouse gases is insubstantial.

One thing that McCormick wrote did make me think, though. Is it really fair to "double tax" certain automobiles based on both their gasoline consumption and their CO2 output? I'll go out on a limb and say yes. Why? Because the two items are different. Gasoline consumption is closely tied with a vehicle's emissions, but they are certainly two different measurables of a vehicle's impact on the environment.

Walking further out on that limb, let me suggest that the gas-guzzler tax and the so called Clean Air Discount Bill which McCormick's article is about (not a law - just a proposal at this time) should probably not be as high as they currently are. A higher gas tax across the board would have greater effect, and isn't that the point of both laws in the first place? With a gas tax, all vehicles are treated exactly the same, which seems to make more sense.

As always, we welcome your comments and suggestions. Remember, if you want to have some influence yourself, you can always contact Congress as was suggested by the Auto Alliance themselves.

[Source: John McCormick / Detroit News]

• www.drivecongress.com
• www.drivingamericasfuture.com
• www.grabdemocracybythehorns.com (password protected at this time)

What do all of the above internet sites all have in common? They are all designed to encourage consumers to contact Congress. What shall consumers say to Congress? To "Oppose Unrealistic Fuel Economy Increases," according to one of the sites. The other sites have similar goals, although Chrysler is only targeting their dealerships at this time with their "Grab Democracy by the Horns" site. Drive Congress was created by The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, an organization made up of nine manufacturers, or ten if you count Daimler separate from Chrysler already.

The sites all suggest that there are better ways to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions than focusing on better fuel economy for our automobiles. Will this sentiment be rejected in the face of record high gasoline prices, or will consumers agree that fuel economy and harmful emissions should be kept separate from one another in legislation? Perhaps you should do what they are suggesting and contact Congress. Let them know what you think, one way or the other.

[Source: Detroit News]

In an effort to sway consumer's minds when it comes to the types of vehicles they purchase and the regulations concerning fuel mileage of those vehicles, a consortium of automakers is running radio and print advertising in some states. The group, Auto Alliance, consists of General Motors Corp., Ford Motor Co., DaimlerChrysler AG, Toyota, BMW, Volkswagen, Mazda, Mitsubishi and Porsche, and is known officially as The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers. Their mission: "The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers represents the common interests of its members and provides a forum to enable them to advance public policies that meet consumer and societal needs for clean, safe, efficient, and affordable personal transportation. "

Although claiming that "we need a balanced approach that avoids harm to Americans dependent on larger cars and light trucks," according to Gloria Bergquist, the group is not really taking a balanced approach in the states the ads will be heard and shown in. According to this article, "the alliance said it would spend "way north" of $1 million on the ads to be run in Arkansas, Delaware, Idaho, Louisiana, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin -- all states with high percentages of truck and SUV owners."

The ads are said to be targeted towards truck owners and mothers who drive larger vehicles and are concerned with safety. The idea is that fuel mileage regulations would make it more difficult for consumers to purchase heavy duty, work capable pickups and for mothers to find safe vehicles.

Click here for ad one (.mp3). Click here for ad two (.mp3).

Grassroots efforts are also said to be in effect to contact retirees from the large automakers with similar information. At this time, automakers are under regulations that were created in 1975 to regulate fuel economy. So, all of you consumers out there, what do you think?

[Source: Detroit News]

Here's a bit of information that directly ties into the post I wrote earlier today, and helps explain that story a bit, too.

In the earlier piece, we found out from the LA Times that overall gasoline consumption in California dropped by 0.7 percent last year, even though nationally the trend continued upwards. The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers released a notice yesterday (you can read it after the jump) that the number of alternative fuel autos on California's roads jumped up 17 percent in 2006. Remember, the Alliance counts flexible-fuel vehicles in their counts, so a lot of these "alternative fuel autos" are driving around on standard gasoline.

Still, California now has 837,743 hybrid-electric, ethanol-capable E85 and clean diesel autos on the road, according to numbers calculated by R.L. Polk and Co The Alliance says it is celebrating National Alternative Fuel Autos Month (it's National Alternative Fuel Autos Month?) "by releasing state specific data on the sales of Alternative Fuel Autos." I couldn't find this info on the website yet, but I'm curious to see how the states rank. Apparently California is number 2. Across the country, 1.5 million alternative fuel autos were sold in 2006

The members of the Alliance include BMW Group, DaimlerChrysler, Ford Motor Company, General Motors, Mazda, Mitsubishi Motors, Porsche, Toyota and Volkswagen.


Related:

• With high gas prices, Californians bought less gas in 2006

[Source: Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers]

The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers is a trade association made up of BMW Group, DaimlerChrysler, Ford Motor Company, General Motors, Mazda, Mitsubishi Motors, Porsche, Toyota and Volkswagen. If you take all the alternative fuel autos made by these companies (those autos defined by the Alliance as "hybrid electric, ethanol-capable E-85, and clean diesel"), you'll reach a total of more than 10.5 million.

This news was released by the Alliance this week, to honor what it has declared to be "National Alternative Fuel Autos Week." From the 12th to the 16th, the Alliance is celebrating the first such week by noting 2006's banner year for alternative fuel auto sales (1.5 million).

Yes, the Alliance is strictly a PR organization. Yes, it's questionable that they claim E85 vehicles are "alternative fuel" vehicles when you can fill them up with dinojuice every time (but, this is the consumer's decision, not the manufacturers). And yes, the more choices we have, the better.

[Source: Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers]