GM has decided that the fuel economy of its vehicles should be the main focus in its advertising, rather than attempts to merely buff its battered brand image. Even the luxury line, Cadillac, is talking up miles per gallon in its new ads. Take the CTS, for instance. Please. It is capable of a somewhat surprising 26 mpg (on the highway, downhill, with a tailwind).

New "pump less and drive more" commercials will show the General's vehicles at the gas pump with the likes of Toyota, Ford, Mazda, and Chrysler to help try and make the point that their Pontiac, GMC, or Buick models either have better fuel economy or are capable of going farther on a fill up. GM hopes this will help slow the freefall its sales and stock price are currently experiencing. Yeah, that and $6,000 rebates (now without trade-ins!) ought to do the trick.

[Source: The Detroit News]

One of the big contributors to rising food prices over the past year has been the cost of getting food from the field to the grocer. Truck drivers across Europe and especially in the UK have been protesting increasing fuel costs for months. The U.S. Department of Energy is partnering with the Swedish government and one of the largest manufacturers of heavy trucks - the Volvo group - to find ways to reduce the fuel consumption of those trucks. The two governments and Volvo have already previously committed $12 million to the joint development program and this week announced an additional $36 million dollars. The two governments will each contribute $9 million of the new funds with the rest coming from Volvo. The goal is to reduce fuel consumption of the truck engines by 10 percent. The program will evaluate biofuels in heavy truck engines as well as develop advanced transmissions, new engines and hybrid drive systems.

[Source: Department of Energy]

The deadline for automakers to comment on the latest CAFE standard proposal is today, and at least one manufacturer has decided to speak up. BMW is calling the fuel efficiency standards it would be required to meet 'unattainable.' As you may be aware, the latest proposal takes into account the overall footprint of the vehicle, and manufacturers which sell large vehicles won't be required to meet the same goals as those which produce smaller vehicles. While that's great for manufacturers with truck-heavy lineups, automakers like BMW are in for a world of hurt as they tend to produce smaller, sportier machines. For this reason, BMW would be required to average 37.3 miles per gallon for its cars, quite a bit higher than the 35.7 mpg industry average. The Bavarian's trucks would need to achieve 31.7 mpg, compared to an industry average of 28.6 mpg.

While it may seem a bit unfair (or maybe not) that BMW should be required to hit higher numbers than some other manufacturers, it should be pointed out that BMW currently offers no engines with fewer than six cylinders and is on a bit of a crossover binge as of late. What's more, the marque has proven rather adept at squeezing high power outputs from relatively small displacement, so we'd stop a bit short of suggesting that the numbers being asked of it are unattainable.

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

So-called "Eco driving" lamps are nothing new in many cars, but somehow they have never been included in any Korean cars until now. Kia has just launched an updated version of the Optima sedan and it features a lamp that changes colors within the speedometer. In a post on the Kia Buzz blog, Hyun Jin Cho of the company's Sustainability Management Team discusses the techniques that drivers can use to save fuel. Most of these are pretty obvious but bear repeating such as go with the flow of traffic, avoid hard acceleration and check your tire pressures regularly. To help drivers achieve maximum fuel efficiency, Kia is adding the ECO lamp that glows red when you're driving too aggressively, white when driving in a typical fashion and green when ... well, you know what that means.

Kia recently did a test where they had 100 drivers take out ten of its cars on a four-mile loop. After the first loop, the drivers were shown how to take advantage of the ECO lamp and subsequently improved their fuel efficiency by 10-20 percent. It's nothing new but it certainly is worth repeating that that providing drivers with some feedback on their behavior can help to reduce fuel consumption.

[Source: Kia]

The average cost for Detroit's Big Three automakers to meet the proposed fuel efficiency targets of 31.6 miles per gallon by 2015 has been pegged at $30.6 billion. In contrast, the average cost for the Japanese automakers sits at less than half that amount at "only" $14.85 billion. These numbers come courtesy of a recent study by Global Insight. In a real shocker, General Motors alone is expected to pay out $15 billion alone. Why the disparity? Simple: the Japanese brands already offer more fuel efficient models. With that reasoning, it seems unlikely that the U.S. companies will get much sympathy from the buying public.

Global Insight also predicts that many new technologies which are just beginning to make a dent in sales today will make up a huger percentage of sales by 2015. These new developments include direct injection, turbocharging and diesel engines. Hybrids, the current darling of the fuel efficient crowd, will continue to gain market share, especially as more new models are rolled out which feature the hybrid drivetrain as an option or as standard equipment.

There is a glimmer of hope out there for automakers which are finding it tough to move vehicles in today's troubled climate. Global Insight predicts that there will be a pent-up demand for the replacement of aging models which owners have clung to in the face of high gas prices and a poor U.S. economy sometime around the year 2015.

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

We've said again and again that there is no one solution that is best for everyone when it comes to fuel consumption. Depending on your needs, wants and budget, different solutions may suit you better than your neighbor. The crew over at Edmunds recently did a fuel consumption comparison test that demonstrated once again different strokes work for different folks. The team pitted a 2005 Jetta TDI against a Prius, Smart ForTwo and Ford Focus. Each is different and, based on their technology and pricing, has a different appeal. They tested all four in city and highway driving as well as some back road running. As expected, the Jetta came out on top on the highway, and the Prius around town. The Jetta also won the back road test. The Jetta's two wins weren't by a large enough margin to overcome the Prius' 52.4 to 32.6 mpg victory around town. The overall average for the Prius came to 47.7mpg while the Jetta managed 43.8mpg. Even the Focus managed a respectable 33.3mpg. While this obviously doesn't compete directly with a Prius, consider this: a Prius costs $7-8,000 more than a Focus. If you drive the average 12,000 miles a year it will consume about 251 gallons of fuel. If however, like my wife, you don't drive as much and only accumulate 8,000 miles a year, the Focus would only consume 240 gallons. In that case the significantly less expensive but still reasonably efficient Focus might be the better choice for your budget. So, when you make your buying decision don't just go the fashionable choice, consider all your needs and pick wisely.

[Source: Edmunds.com]

When Transportation Secretary Mary Peters announced the first draft of new fuel economy standards last month, the increases actually appeared to exceed those mandated by recent energy bill. Of course a closer inspection of the rules indicated that they weren't all they appeared to be. Because the rules mandated fuel economy based on the footprint of an individual vehicle, there existed an incentive for carmakers to stretch the wheelbase and track of vehicles so that they wouldn't have to achieve the same efficiency as a smaller vehicle. However, the reality of the situation at gas pumps around the nation means that corporate average fuel economy standards are quickly becoming irrelevant. Although manufacturers have long wanted higher fuel prices to spur demand for more efficient vehicles, politicians have been loathe to do anything that electoral opponents could hold against them at the polls.

With gasoline now at $4/gallon (an all-time high for the US, but still ranked only 111th in the world) consumers are making up their own minds. NHTSA did its calculations for the new rules with the assumption that gas would be $2.26/gallon in 2015. This, of course, is consistent with the quality of most of the assumptions made by the current administration and totally unrealistic. At least in this case, the result of drivers moving to smaller more efficient vehicles will likely be positive. At any rate, Peters has indicated that the new rules will be re-evaluated and may be toughened. Perhaps they should just forget gas tax holidays and other silliness and just let the market take its course this time.

[Source: Detroit News]

Speaking to the Commonwealth Club of California this week, GM CEO Rick Wagoner told the gathering that in order for electric cars to make a difference in global warming it will require large numbers of them to be deployed at prices that mainstream buyers can afford. While a few hundred Tesla Roadsters or Fisker Karmas may make the owners feel better about themselves, in the U.S. vehicle fleet of 200 million vehicles they they won't make any real measurable difference in the grand scheme of things. To make a significant impact on fuel consumption and emissions, millions of cars and trucks every year need to be more efficient. However, that can only happen if those vehicles are affordable to average car buyers.

When Wagoner was asked why it's taking as long as it is to bring the Volt to market he explained that it's a lot harder to create a viable $20,000 electric car than one that costs $100,000. Nonetheless it has taken Tesla almost as long to bring the Roadster to the street as GM will have spent on the Volt program. We still don't know how much cars like the Volt will cost consumers or GM when they launch, but one thing is certain: they won't be $20,000. Someday, the price may get closer to that price but that will take time and some serious battery cost reduction. In the meantime, parallel efforts to create large numbers of other kinds of more efficient vehicles will have to continue. That's why companies like Ford are pushing forward with smaller turbocharged engines that are lighter and relatively inexpensive. They can put hundreds of thousands or millions of these on the road annually at prices the masses can afford.

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

Apparently, China hasn't learned from the policies of the United States when it comes to petroleum prices. For decades, the price of gasoline has not reflected its true cost because prices have not factored in the cost of military expenditures required to maintain "friendly" governments in countries that supply large amounts of our oil. As a result Americans have long favored larger, more powerful vehicles - and they could afford them because gasoline was cheap and plentiful. China has gone from being a net exporter of oil to the world's largest consumer since 1994. China now imports half its oil needs and subsidizes the retail price to less than $3/gallon.

As a result Chinese drivers with increasing disposable incomes are opting for bigger, more powerful and thirstier vehicles, just like Americans. SUV sales jumped 38 percent and luxury car sales jumped 30 percent in the first two months of this year, bucking the trend in the U.S. Those segments are outpacing the overall sales increase of 16 percent in the fast growing market. Just as in the U.S., the Chinese government is pushing automakers to build more efficient vehicles but so far consumers aren't buying. It seems that just as in the U.S. and elsewhere only higher fuel prices will prompt drivers to go for more efficient vehicles. The Chinese government is certainly in a better position to determine what fuel prices will be than in other countries and with a market that is still evolving they could make a push for alternatives like battery and fuel cell electric vehicles. Given the pollution that plagues cities like Beijing and the increasing dependence on imported oil, they need to do something.

[Source: New York Times]

Mercedes-Benz CEO Dieter Zetsche told Motor Trend this week that increased cost was not going to be an issue for his company to meet new fuel economy standards. Obviously getting improved efficiency out of powertrains would make them more expensive as they have to meet U.S. CAFE and European CO₂ emissions limits. However, while U.S. executives like Bob Lutz are talking about adding $5,000 or more to the price to meet 35mpg standards, Zetsche looks at it differently. The use of clean diesels, HCCI DiesOtto engines, hybrids and fuel cells will raise prices. The higher initial purchase price will be offset for customers through reduced operating costs. According to Zetsche, if the cost premium can be recovered through fuel savings in the first 3-4 years of driving than customers will be satisfied. Mercedes also intends to protect their ten percent profit margins through increased efficiencies in other areas of the vehicle. That probably means that Mercedes owners will give up some features for improved efficiency. Of course for a premium brand like Mercedes, it's a lot easier to talk about protecting margins than it is for mainstream brands like GM and Ford. Being largely rid of the burden of Chrysler probably doesn't hurt either. Finally Zetsche says an S-Class diesel hybrid will debut in two years with DiesOtto engines about 3-5 years out.

[Source: Motor Trend]

Perhaps this story has more to do with the proliferation of the Internet than it does about green car trends, but here we go anyway. We all know that you can check fueleconomy.gov to find out what the fuel mileage of current and past cars is or was. Anybody who carries an internet-capable cell phone in their pockets also knows that navigating sites which are not optimized for mobile browsers is rather difficult from the average phone or internet tablet without a full browser. With that in mind, the government has seen fit to introduce a new mobile version of their fuel economy site, fueleconomy.gov/m. Easy enough, right? From the mobile site you will be able to see the mileage ratings from vehicles from 1985 through today.

We think that this service should prove rather useful as a tool for checking the mileage of used cars on dealers lots that don't have window stickers on them. Whatever works, we say. Also present on the mobile site are calculations for figuring how much you'll spend on gas each year and your resultant carbon footprint. Yay, technology!

[Source: Detroit News]

Ten months ago, Bob Lutz said GM cars would be $5,000 more expensive if the Bush administration got its way with fuel standards by raising fuel economy 4% every year through 2017. Bush didn't get his way, but Congress did with its newly-signed-into-law energy bill that requires automakers have a fleet average of 35 MPG by 2020. According to Lutz, that's going to be even more expensive: "This is going to be a net average cost of $6,000 per vehicle, which will have to be passed onto the consumer."

Lutz said that the premium would actually range from $4,000 to $10,000, and that "it won't come all at once, because 35 mpg doesn't kick in all at once." No one said that saving the world was going to be cheap -- but $6,000 per vehicle? We look forward to figuring out which vehicles will bear the brunt of the plan. Add $10,000 to the price of a ZR-1 and no one's really going to notice. Add $6,000 to the price of a CTS and, depending on how much more expensive its competition gets, things could get interesting. Add $4,000 to the price of an Aveo and you've probably sent a fair number of buyers elsewhere.

[Source: Detroit News]

I watched the last six hours of the House of Representatives debate on the energy bill yesterday and recorded significant references to CAFE, fuel efficiency, transportation, etc. and whittled it down to five minutes because hey, I know you're busy. The video above includes Dingell being praised twice for his work on CAFE by Republicans that opposed the rest of the bill. I think that the industry support for the CAFE portion came from the work done by Dingell even though Detroit did not get everything that they wanted. In the video, Pelosi said this bill could be a part of someone's legacy and I think that was directed at Dingell. Anyway, here are the list of stars and a summary of their lines in the video above:

• Doc Hastings (R) says that giving tax breaks for riding your bike to work won't solve global warming.
• Jay Inslee (D) has a giant poster of the Volt.
• John Hall (D) gives us some hyper milling tips.
• Llloyd Doggett (D) is a Paul Simon fan.
• James Oberstar (D) says the bill will authorize a center for global warming in the Department of Transportation.
• John Shimkus (R) actually has an ICE (internal combustion engine) because he is tired of carrying a half of a horse.
• Rahm Emanuel (D) says the bill will save you $1,000 a year.
• Joe Barton (R) says only eight cars get more than 35 MPG.
• John Boehner (R) says consumers are going to pay for this.
• Nancy Pelosi (D) ends it all with a smile.

Over the last week, we have told you about the compromise, the debate and the vote on the Energy Bill in the House of Representatives. The bill is now on its way to the Senate and is almost certainly doomed because it's facing a filibuster in the Senate and if it survives that, there are repeated threats of veto by the president. Rep. Lee Terry, of Hill-Terry, did a 30 minute interview with CSPAN and even he said the energy bill is "dead on arrival" in the Senate, at least in its current form. We should know the results of the bill in the Senate soon. So, stay tuned.

[Source: C-SPAN]

Recently, I wrote an article on the debate; do you get better mileage with AC on and windows up or AC off and windows down? A comment in the article said a Mythbusters episode found you could get better mileage with AC off and windows down. The way Mythbusters tackled the myth in that episode was just horrible. The myth was revisited in another episode, which I ordered and will review soon. So, what did they do?

They got an SUV and attached a sensor that estimates mileage by measuring air flow to the engine. They did 15 laps around a track, with a constant speed of 45 MPH, measuring mileage as they went. They did 5 laps with the AC off and windows down. 5 laps with AC off and windows up. 5 laps with the AC on and windows up. No laps for AC on and windows down. Here are the results.

1. AC off, windows up = 11.7 MPG
2. AC off, windows down = 11.3 MPG
3. AC on, windows up = 11.7 MPG

So, according to these tests, AC use does not impact mileage. Windows down hurts mileage about 5 percent. The better option is turn on your AC. Rolling down your window makes little difference at all. Apparently unsatisfied, they tried a totally new test, measuring mileage differently and even changed the variable of speed. This is important for the revisit which showed speed was very important. How they did second test is after the jump.

I saw this ad last night on the cable station TBS. I was watching a remake of the Time Machine (BTW, it's not a great movie). Anyway, I see this ad for the 2007 Hummer H3. The first thing in the ad? Text that says "Get 20 MPG highway." Que the spit take! Wow, I knew the H3 was smaller than the regular Hummer but 20 MPG? That's not bad at all. I had to check it out anyway because, I mean, it's Hummer!

So, I went to fueleconomy.gov. The small text in the ad said EPA estimate so where else would I go? I did not find a 20 MPG rating. Maybe the automatic... nope. Maybe there was another Hummer this year... no. Oh, I know. They are using THE OLD MPG RATING. Here is a side by side comparison. And I was about to call the FTC. They are just using the higher highway MPG rating (not the combined or disclosing the city rating) and an out of date rating system. That's not misleading at all.

Related:

• Toyota gets hand slapped for false hybrid advertising in UK
• Lexus hybrid ad reported as misleading

[Source: TBS, EPA]