The Race To Idiotic Conclusions

Source: Sympatico/MSN Autos

Extrapolating that tuning success to fuel economy seems like a logical progression. But don't go all-in with this bet. Looking back 15 years reveals that the fuel mileage evolution has stagnated, even regressed to Neanderthal standards in some cases.

Congratulations to the author of this article on some of the most trite bullshit I've read in quite a while.

To sum up:

• Base level economy cars with no frills and a complete absence of safety features from 1992 had great fuel economy.
• Base level economy cars of today that have frills and safety features not even found in luxury cars back in 1992 have great fuel economy, but not as good as back in 1992.
• A Lamborghini or a Bentley uses a lot of gas... a Yaris, Civic and Mini Cooper do not... OMG LOL !!!!111ONE!!!!
  

What has caused me to make a post about this? Essentially the title and the gist of the article. Yes, they mention that government regulations on safety equipment have been the primary reason for weight gain in cars for the last 15 years, but they bury it in one of the last paragraphs of the article after lambasting vehicles like the Civic for getting too heavy- it's sensationalism and bullshit smear tactics at their worst.

Note to the author- you can't have your cake and eat it too- want all the safety features and solidity of a modern day Civic? Then it's going to weigh more. If that's not your thing, enjoy your 3 cylinder death on wheels Geo Metro, and stop your nonsensical drivel.

Ethanol Boom Slowing Down

Ethanol has often been in the news for the past year or two as a much-hyped alternative to gasoline for fueling our motor vehicle fleet. Ethanol's supporters point out that E85 fuel (85% ethanol/15% gasoline) reduces US dependence on imported petroleum, burns more cleanly, and can actually increase vehicle performance. Opponents of ethanol point out that production - which comes mostly from corn in the US - takes food from the global food supply, requires almost as much energy to produce as the finished product provides, and reduces fuel economy. Also, only a small percentage of the service stations in the US have E85 pumps, making it difficult to find in most regions even for folks interested in using the fuel in their flex fuel-capable vehicle. For more information on the E85 experience in daily life, refer to The E85 Road Test, published here in June 2007.

Along with a big marketing push from GM and the US government in support of E85, in many parts of the country, ethanol was blended with gasoline to create E10 (10% ethanol/90% gasoline) as a clean air alternative to the old gasoline/MTBE blend that was found to contaminate ground water and outlawed in the past year. Excitement and hype about corn-based ethanol compelled US farmers to plant more acres of corn for the 2007 growing season than at any time since World War II. And, why wouldn't they? Corn prices are through the roof, and it can be a very profitable crop at current prices.

Until yesterday, when the Wall Street Journal wrote about falling ethanol prices, I had no idea that ethanol prices had dropped so much. They are down over 30% over the past few weeks alone. While availability of the fuel continues to be a problem, the low price certainly makes it an even more compelling alternative to gasoline. Heck, as long as ethanol was, say, less than $2 per gallon, and regular gas is over $2.50, it's almost cheaper to use than gasoline (considering the approximate 25% fuel economy penalty that ethanol has compared to gasoline). According to the article, the price of ethanol has dropped to about $1.50 per gallon, from over $2.50 per gallon a year ago.

I'd certainly use it, and the energy security (i.e. no imported oil) aspects of E85 make it even more appealing. For the equation to calculate the breakeven price of using E85, refer to the link above for the E85 Road Test article.

My guess is this is just a supply and demand imbalance. When ethanol was added to most gasoline instead of MTBE, plus all the hype and hoopla over E85 from GM and others, everyone wanted a piece of the action. Now that things are coming back down to earth, all the farmers who planted record amounts of corn, and all the refineries who went online in an attempt to capture the boom, have created more supply than there is demand for, at least in the current environment.

If you drive a flex fuel-capable vehicle, and you're interested in saving money on your fuel bill, you might want to check out http://www.e85refueling.com/ to see if there is an E85 station near you. Happy motoring!

Dealers Still Advertising Higher 2007 Fuel Economy Ratings

A breathless, critical report has been issued by CNW Marketing research stating that Toyota dealers are still claiming that the Prius can achieve 60 miles per gallon.

It has been reasonably well known in the automotive world for years that EPA fuel economy ratings were generally higher than what people could expect to see "in the real world." Sure, it's theoretically possible to drive like a stereotypical septuagenarian and achieve those window sticker numbers, but more likely than not, we're accelerating more quickly, driving faster, and using accessories such as air conditioning and power steering that also require fuel to run. With gas prices near historic highs, consumers are more concerned about fuel economy than they have been in years, and were getting irritated when their own gas mileage didn't match the numbers on the window sticker, in spite of the famous disclaimer, "your actual mileage may vary." In response to this, the EPA has implemented a revised calculation to establish fuel economy for the window sticker for all 2008 and later models to better reflect "real world" experiences. The calculations are complex, but the end result is that most vehicles will see a 2-4 mile per gallon decrease in both city and highway fuel economy. The exception to that is hybrids, which took a disproportionate beating in their ratings. The Toyota Prius, previously rated at 60 miles per gallon in the city and 51 miles per gallon on the highway, dropped to 48 miles per gallon in the city and 45 miles per gallon on the highway. My own theory on the reason for the larger drop is not that Toyota was cheating, but that the Prius' driving characteristics were very well suited to the conditions of the old test methodology (truth be told, I also am skeptical of the 21 miles per gallon highway rating of GM's Tahoe full size SUV, thanks to its active fuel management that shuts down four of its eight cylinders, but in reality, rarely has the chance to do so).

The point is, although there really are people who achieved 60 miles per gallon in the Prius, though you have to "know" how to drive a hybrid like the Prius to maximize its fuel efficiency. (From what I have heard, it's not the same thing as driving a conventional car for maximum economy). Most people achieve mileage in the mid-40s in the Prius, which is exactly what the EPA now says it should do.

Details left out of the report, however are:

• Do dealers of other brands also talk about fuel economy in terms of 2007 numbers?
• Are the Toyota dealers in question referring to 2008 Priuses or leftover 2007 models?
• Is doing this illegal, or even unethical?
• Who paid for this research?

Let's dive into the implications of each of these.

I don't know about other brands' dealers, but I can say for sure that if you go today to http://www.gm.com/shop and click on "30+ MPG highway," the only vehicles that come up in the search are 2007 models. Some of the models listed (Impala, Grand Prix, etc.) will not be over 30 miles per gallon in 2008, but GM is still advertising those models as being over 30 miles per gallon.

As far as whether the Priuses are 2007 or 2008 models (which would each have different economy figures on their window stickers), it's impossible to tell (and I doubt that CNW knows), but wouldn't the natural tendency of a salesperson be to cite the highest fuel economy figure he or she can for a given model? If the window sticker says 60/55 for a car they're selling, then they should feel free to show that to a customer. If the customer asks about real world economy, I'd hope that they'd either be more realistic about it or tell them to check a neutral website like http://www.fueleconomy.gov/.

If the dealers are representing that 2008 models get 60 miles per gallon in the city, then I think they are being unethical and misrepresenting the car's likely fuel economy. Actually, a better solution would have been for ALL new car window stickers on sale after a certain date (say, October 1, 2007) to show the new ratings, regardless of the model year. That way, it wouldn't look like an old model was getting better fuel economy than a new one, when in fact they're likely to be mechanically identical. Really, is it that expensive or difficult to reprint the window sticker for a new vehicle, in the interest of full disclosure and minimizing consumer confusion and angst? After all, the Fueleconomy.gov website has converted all past fuel economy ratings to the current 2008 equivalents to enable more fair comparisons between models and especially between different model years.

CNW's website does not list this report, only its infamous "Dust to Dust" report that grossly exaggerated the energy costs of a Prius versus a Hummer (see excellent rebuttals of the Dust to Dust report on TrueDelta.com here and here). However, the company states that it performs syndicated studies that "protect you from seeing information that is skewed toward a particular point of view or company or product." Yet, they seem to have a serious anti-Prius agenda after the Dust to Dust report and now this. Though it's possible that an anti-Toyota client underwrote this latest research project, it is possible that the company undertook it on its own for publicity reasons.

Alan Mulally Is So Wise- He's Like A Miniature Buddha, Covered With Hair

The Freep had this to report from Ford boss Alan Mulally-

Ford Motor Co. Chief Executive Officer Alan Mulally created a stir in Traverse City on Wednesday among auto industry leaders and the news media by expressing interest in a 50-cent-per-gallon gasoline tax proposed a day earlier by U.S. Rep. John Dingell.

He then went on to make some vague comments about $9 gas in Europe as a way to let the customer decide on what vehicles they wanted.

All of this is amusing on a number of levels, because it's quite obvious as to what is going on here- Ford is playing a public relations game. Mulally didn't just shoot off randomly here- he is priming the pump so to speak. Exactly what benefit would $9 gas or increased gas taxes have for Ford? About the same as the increased CAFE regulations they and others such as GM are so vehemently again- zero, zilch, nil, nada. The domestic manufacturers, who coincidentally are the sheep bleating the loudest in regards to the proposed CAFE regulations, would be hurt massively by either upgraded CAFE standards OR greatly increased gas taxes.

None of them have any serious pipeline to small cars on the way, and all of them rely on big profit but relatively bad fuel economy trucks for their continued existence.

So how is this a PR move? Well for one, Ford comes out looking like roses by trying to solve the problem- they aren't just shrieking uncontrollably, they're providing options! Furthermore, if there's one thing that Mulally and Ford know, it's that taxes aren't something that the majority of the American electorate are fond of. So they'll tout gas taxes all day long, secure in the fact that the number of politicians who would support $9 gas is about the same as the number of politicians who want to lose their jobs next election. All the while, they can go to the press with the news that Ford is very concerned about the environment and gas consumption, but they did their part and offered up the idea of gas taxes, because CAFE is a horrible idea.

And no one will call their bullshit.

The truth of the matter is, Ford/GM/Chrysler are going to feel the pain either way because either CAFE or high gas taxes are essentially the same thing for them- they don't have the cars necessary for good fleet fuel economy in their pipeline right now to compete with the Toyonissondas of the world if CAFE comes in soon, and consumers would shun their profit drivers (trucks) if gas went up to $9 a gallon. They're screwed either way.

A more realistic and truthful way of doing things would be admit that their product lineups are tilted too far towards the wrong kind of vehicles, and announce a REAL move towards smaller more fuel efficient rides. And then follow through on it within 2 years. If they worked with the government on the subject of CAFE, there would no doubt be leeway given towards their cause, with a stepped regulation probably being the best thing. Instead, by kicking and screaming every step of the way, some of them end up looking petulant and ignorant, while others look condescending and untrustworthy.

Looks like Detroit is going to have to pick their poison.

Diesel Invasion

In the next few years, we'll see more diesels offered in the US than probably at any time in history. Why? Higher corporate fuel economy standards are likely in coming years, and even the US petroleum industry said in a draft report today that world oil supplies from conventional sources are unlikely to keep up with demand over the next 25 years. The problem is a combination of rapidly increasing petroleum consumption in the developing world and slowing or declining oil production worldwide.

Diesels are one piece of the solution to the problem of reducing petroleum consumption. Others include gas-electric hybrids, plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs), electric vehicles, and alternate fuels such as ethanol or hydrogen. All things being equal, a diesel generally gets about 30% better fuel economy than a gasoline engine. Modern diesels are almost always paired with a turbocharger, which serves to make diesels have none of the sluggishness that their ancestors did. In fact, diesel engines usually have very robust low-end torque characteristics, which make them ideal for stop-and-go urban driving, although this comes at the expense of higher-RPM power.

One key advantage of diesel engines, other than the fuel economy and torque benefits previously described, is that the infrastructure is already in place in large part because auto manufacturers have been selling diesel-powered pickup trucks for years, not to mention all of the heavy- and medium-duty diesel trucks on the road. Unlike alternate fuels such as hydrogen and E85, which can be found in almost no and very few gas stations, respectively, diesel is available at 42% of the 169,000 service stations nationwide; E85 is available at less than 1% of them.

GM famously/infamously scared an entire generation of consumers away from diesel engines in the 1980s by underdeveloped, unreliable, noisy diesel engines that were converted from gasoline engines. While Europeans have had an auto fleet consisting of many diesels for the past several years, Americans have shied away from them, thanks in large part to the GM diesel issues of the 1980s and to the fact that gasoline was relatively inexpensive.

This is all changing, however. In the past few years, we have seen some interesting developments on the diesel front; Jeep offered a diesel Liberty and now is offering a sophisticated 3.0 liter diesel Grand Cherokee with an engine sourced from Mercedes-Benz. The real fun, however, comes in 2010.

Word on the street is that the reason Honda dropped the Accord Hybrid model after the 2007 model year (besides slow sales) is that a diesel model is on its way. I've heard a 52 mile per gallon figure cited for this car; if this is true, I'll be very impressed. That's more than double the mileage I get from my 2004 Accord V6, and I'm actually more or less satisfied with its mileage. A diesel will probably make it into the Honda Ridgeline pickup and Odyssey minivan as an optional engine choice, plus the Acura MDX crossover and likely some other models.

Honda is an engineering company first and foremost, and they are the only auto manufacturer so far that has not had to resort to urea injection to convert nitrous oxide into harmless nitrogen and water (this is a solution that Mercedes, BMW, VW, Audi, and GM, among others, have undertaken). The problem with urea injection is that there is as tank of it under the hood, and when the supply is exhausted, the exhaust is no longer treated; not a very elegant solution. Instead, Honda has devised a special catalytic converter for its diesel that requires no chemical additives (so is maintenance-free) and the catalysts convert some of the the NOx to ammonia in its first layer, and then a now-ammonia-rich second layer converts the remaining exhaust to harmless nitrogen and water. It reminds me very much of Honda's ability to meet 1975 Clean Air Act standards using its new CVCC engine rather without a catalytic converter.

GM is also embracing diesels in a big way in the coming years. GM Vice Chairman of Global Product Development, Bob Lutz, recently on a video posted on the corporate FastLane blog that in the coming years, GM would introduce a V6 diesel engine for crossovers, passenger cars, and light duty trucks and an all-aluminum 4.5 liter V8 diesel engine for light duty sport utilities, etc. Word is that the Euro-centric Saturn lineup will be among the first passenger car applications of GM's US diesel engines, and the V8 diesel will likely make it into half ton trucks and full-size SUVs (GM has said that anywhere a small block V8 fits, the new diesel will fit). In the same video, Mr. Lutz sought to downplay expectations of the diesel engine as a panacea for US fuel economy concerns, because he said the price premium to build an emissions-compliant diesel is about $4,500 on top of a comparable gas engine, and that as gas engines become more sophisticated (thanks to direct injection and homogeneous stratified charge) and diesels are choked by emission controls, he expected the 30% economy improvement to be reduced to near zero. Basically, he seems to implicitly support Ford's approach of applying diesel-like technology to gasoline engines, while going kicking and screaming into diesels only because they think that the market will demand them.

Apparently at the same time Bob Lutz was recording the above-mentioned video (the first segment was posted June 29), GM was in negotiations to buy a stake in its partner for the upcoming Cadillac CTS's diesel engine in Europe, VM Motori of Italy. Yesterday (July 16), GM announced that it had bought 50% of VM Motori. The press release contained none of the skepticism that Bob Lutz showed in the video clip. The move to buy a large stake in VM Motori sounds like a prudent move if GM wishes to ensure a steady supply of powerful, efficient diesel engines in the next few years.

Other potential future diesel applications include new diesels for the Toyota Tundra and Nissan Titan full size pickup trucks, and a diesel version of the next-generation Nissan Maxima sedan.

It's good to see some alternatives in the pipeline for consumers who wish to improve their fuel economy. It's a good time to love oil burners.

Ford's Future Powertrain Direction

While many auto manufacturers are scratching their heads trying to decide how to meet likely new EPA fuel economy standards in the next few years, Ford thinks it has an answer. They also hope that answer will address the power shortages that some of their engines have relative to the competition (particularly their V8s, in a world where the competition has 400 and 500 horsepower, with the same or better fuel economy of Ford's current engine lineup).

Ford's solution is called Twin-Force, and it means twin turbos coupled with gasoline direct injection. Starting with the 2008 Lincoln MKS sedan, Ford intends to apply twin turbos to I4, V6, and V8 engines over the next several years, and rumor is that engine sizes and power outputs will be:

• 260 horsepower for the 2.5 liter I4 (likely to appear in the 2009 Fusion sedan)
• 350-420 horsepower for the 3.5 liter V6 (likely to appear in the Mustang and F150 later in 2009)
• 400 horsepower for the possible 5.0 liter V8
• 650 lb-ft of torque for the 6.2 liter V8 (likely to land in the F150 and Super Duty as a diesel alternative).

If the power figures appear as rumored, I'll be very impressed. Even more impressive is that Ford expects fuel efficency to be on par with contemporary diesels of similar size, but expects diesel-like fuel economy, at a lower cost because the expensive emission equipment will not be needed.

Finally, the last part of Ford's powertrain future is called a Powershift gearbox, which is similar in concept to Volkswagen's much-loved twin clutch DSG gearbox. DSGs promise less driveline loss than a conventional torque converter-equipped automatic (so better fuel economy) and faster, more direct shifts.

Giving Ford the benefit of the doubt that they actually can meet these rumored horsepower and fuel economy numbers, plus rolling out a DSG, all they'll need to get in order is a more interesting, engaging styling direction. They have the ideas (the Ford Interceptor would be a nice start), but need to actually implement them.

I was someone who questioned Ford's strategy of going with a twin turbo V6 in the upcoming Lincoln MKS rather than the Volvo-sourced V8 in the original concept car, but if a Twin-Force V6 exceeds the V8's fuel economy, and with potentially 400+ horsepower (versus about 311 for the V8), it's hard to argue with the results. The photo at the top of this post is of the Twin-Force V6 in the Lincoln MKR concept car, which was first shown at the NAIAS in Detroit in January 2007.

I wish them luck. Now let's see these engines and transmissions actually installed in production vehicles.

Is the smart Too Smart for the US?

The smart [the all-lowercase name is almost as irritating as Saturn's all-uppercase names, and will not be repeated throughout the rest of this post], a diminutive "city car" produced by Daimler, is going to make its official US sales debut in the first quarter of 2008, to be sold by United Auto Group, a large dealership chain owned by Roger Penske. There has been a lot of hype surrounding the US availability of this car; the official website at http://www.smartusa.com/ even is so kind as to provide a way for interested owners to "reserve" a 2008 Smart for just $99.

Although the reservation fee is refundable at any time, and the company claims that the fee and reservation system are there to "gauge interest" in the car, it sounds to me that it's arrogant at best, and a scam at worst. How does committing $99 - in what is not even really a commitment, because you can get your money back, and they don't have to sell you a car if they don't have enough - really gauging interest? Plus, the "deposit" is less than 1% of the $12,000 base price of a Smart. So basically, Smart expects buyers to pay $99 for the privilege of being contacted if a Smart car is available for purchase.

As of early June, UAG announced that they had over 20,000 Smart "Insiders" who paid $99 to be on the sort of wait list...so Smart is now holding almost $2 million for basically doing nothing. I'd like someone to give me $2 million for a little while. I won't even touch the principal, and if I invested it in a mutual fund that earned 10% per year, I'd be making six figures without lifting a finger. Sweet.

Smart expects to produce about 16,000 ForTwos for sale in the US for the 2008 model year, and I can see them meeting or even exceeding that goal, but is this really a car that's going to succeed beyond core urban centers like New York, San Francisco, Chicago, or Miami? Everything I've read about them has said that they're surprisingly roomy inside for two passengers, but lack luggage space, and give off a vibe of feeling a little too close to the road and surrounding traffic, without much sheet metal between you and them.

For a quick run to the grocery store, or for simple urban parking, they seem like a neat idea, if perhaps just a novelty. They'll get pretty good gas mileage (over 40 miles per gallon, even without the benefit of hybrids or diesels) and crash tests have been successful in them because of their innovative engineering. But how many Americans, who pretty consistently are in love with 1) large vehicles, and 2) fuel economy, as long as it requires no sacrifices in vehicle size, comfort, or engine power will be willing to pay $12,000 for an 8.8 foot long, 1600-pound "city car," when most Americans live in large suburbs and do not have to worry about urban parking or maneuverability? I think the Smart requires too many sacrifices - namely, interior space, engine power, and perceived occupant protection - to be a huge success in the US.

Mr. Lutz, Your Tin Foil Hat Is Ready

From The Detroit News

"This whole thing has nothing to do with energy policy, CO2 or the environment," General Motors Corp. Vice Chairman Bob Lutz told The Detroit News on Friday. "This is purely punitive; the 'big business haters' finally giving us our due for decades of 'colluding with oil companies' and 'forcing the U.S. public to buy big SUVs.'

"Make no mistake: these people hate us and want to inflict pain."

So it's come to this. the Vice Chairman of GM is complaining about black helicopters in the sky and a grand conspiracy against the domestic automakers, all because the government, who are looking after their own asses and ensuring that gas prices stay low and the trees all don't die, have decided to make CAFE have a bit more teeth.

Now, forget the arguments about CAFE, and whether it's a good thing or a bad thing for a minute.

CAFE has been around for a long time. And domestic manufacturers openly flouted the loopholes built into CAFE by spending most of their advertising and new product development dollars on trucks and SUVs, both classes of vehicles not affected by CAFE. They did this ON PURPOSE. There was no ignorance involved. They gave up markets with less margins where imports were making headway in order to take the easy road lined with SUV gold. And now that the farmer has figured out that he let the wolf take care of the chicken coop, they're pleading innocence and naivety. If it wasn't so funny, it would be disgusting.

The big problem in all of this is that the domestic manufacturers are now caught in their own endgame. No one takes them seriously anymore as purveyors of vehicles with good fuel economy, but they'll now be forced to market them. Just as the imports start taking aim at their lucrative truck market, and just as the money tree in their own backyard has started turning up rotten fruit. With less R&D money than the competition to develop new car platforms, and the competition going after the truck jugular, what next?

The obvious answer? Appeal to patriotism.

Chrysler Vice President Jason Vines, in an appearance on Mitch Albom's radio show Friday, lamented that America seems to be the only country where the government doesn't care about and protect its domestic auto industry. He said it was time to "give a damn" about an industry that creates jobs and wealth for hundreds of thousands of people.

Good sir- the government has given a 'damn' too many times in the past already. You dug your graves. Now pull yourselves out of them.

75% of Americans Favor 40 mpg by 2010? Really?

Last Wednesday, an organization called the Civil Society institute, which advocates a 40 miles per gallon CAFE standard for US vehicles by 2010, issued a press release that has been picked up by a few news outlets. Here is a link to the press release.

They claim that an overwhelming majority of Americans favor a more radical increase in the CAFE fuel economy standards than even Congress is pushing for, based on a “scientific survey” that they sponsored. I was dubious of these claims, so I dug a little further. Before I even get into the flaws in their specific survey, let’s think about a few things.

The formal report has confidence intervals and all sorts of fancy statistical justifications, but the fact is, the questions are terrible. You can have the best sample of respondents in the world, but if your questions have an inherent bias or flaw, then your survey is flawed. They also don’t say whether the survey companies identified themselves as representing an organization that advocates 40 mpg fuel economy standards by 2010, but the tone of the questions makes it clear to the respondent what response the question wants them to have.

Here is their full report (PDF format), and below are the questions they asked. My commentary is in italics below each question.

1. European and Asian vehicles have higher fuel efficiency than those here in the United States. More than 100 vehicles that get 40 miles per gallon or more are already for sale outside of the United States...versus just two that get over 40 miles per gallon here in the United States. Knowing that, which of the following approaches would you prefer to raising U.S. fuel efficiency standards?

• Moving NOW to raise the average fuel-efficiency levels to 40 miles per gallon by 2010: 76%
• Wait until 2018 to raise average fuel efficiency levels tp [sic] 35 miles per gallon: 15%
• Don't know: 9%

The first question has a few problems. It does not offer the option of "do nothing." I'm sure that more than a handful of people are more than happy with the current standards as they are, or are dissatisfied with CAFE (as I am). Yet, the only choices are "40 mpg by 2010" "wait until 2018, and only to 35 mpg," or "don't know." So again, they're not actually asking people how to increase fuel economy, but asking them which one they prefer. They also misstate their first "fact" to open the question; it should be "Many vehicles sold in Europe and Asia have higher fuel efficiency..." Not all, as they imply. Last I checked, BMW 760iLs, Ferrari 360s, Porsche 911 Turbos did not exceed 40 mpg. Europe and Asia also do not have CAFE, but instead have gas taxes to reduce consumption.

2. I now want you to think about the 2008 elections. In general would you be more or less likely to SUPPORT a candidate for federal office - Congress or the White House - who advocated a 40 mpg fuel efficiency standard as a way to lower global warming and reduce U.S. reliance on Middle Eastern oil?

• Definitely more likely: 23%
• Probably more likely: 29%
• About the same: 28%
• Probably less likely: 6%
• Definitely less likely: 9%
• Don't know: 5%

Next, in the middle question about supporting a candidate in favor of 40 mpg, they mention the positives of the 40 mpg mandate in the question ("lower global warming and reduce U.S. reliance on Middle Eastern oil") but don't mention the downsides (loss of US manufacturing jobs, building cars that people don't really want to buy, etc.) So that question is inherently biased.

3. How likely is it that you will vote in the 2008 Presidential and Congressional elections?

• Very likely: 78%
• Somewhat likely: 7%
• Not very likely: 3%
• Do not plan to vote: 10%
• Don't know: 2%

According to this, between 78% and 85% of a "random" sample of the public plans to vote in the 2008 presidential election. Thomas Jefferson would be thrilled, considering that the highest turnout in the past 47 years was in 1960 at 63.1%, and it was 55.3% in the 2004 election. They want us to believe that they have captured the voice of the voter, but it's pretty implausible that voter turnout will suddenly increase by between 41% and 54%. (Link to turnout data.)

Things like this are so frustrating to read. And of course because these people with an obvious agenda put it on the PR newswire, more news outlets desperate for cheap content will pick up on it, not read into it or question it at all, and consider it "fact."

It's a shame, but our society always expects to get something for nothing. A war without casualties. A big, fast car or truck that gets 40 mpg. Lower taxes but no reduction in government services or increase in the deficit. The way the first question was phrased, the question sounds like there’s no cost to the consumer, but there is. Nothing is for free. They'll either get slow cars, small cars, unsafe cars, or expensive cars. I can assure you that they will not be fast, large, safe, and inexpensive at the same time. Since it appears that things such as the likelihood of passing on research and development costs to consumers, automakers, or the government was mentioned at all during the course of the study, and if it wasn’t, what effect doing so would have had on the group’s findings. I’m betting that the findings would be very different.

Also, what people do and what they say are two very different things. Consumers can buy a 40 mpg vehicle today, yet few are buying them. Instead, they get a large 18-25 mpg vehicle and gripe about how much gas it uses. Personally, I have yet to complain about getting 16.5 mpg in my midsize SUV because I knew going into it that I'd get that mileage. We just drive our car when we don't need the space (or navigation system) that the SUV has, and we're fine. Consumers have voted with their wallets, and the types of “city cars” sold in Europe and Asia that exceed 40 miles per gallon are not lighting up the US sales charts. Automobile manufacturers build the cars that people actually buy, not the ones that groups such as CSI want people to buy.

Honda Pulls Crap From Ass- Proclaims It To Smell Like Roses

LINK HERE

The company that makes Canada's most popular car is so unhappy with the new federal rebate scheme to promote fuel-efficient vehicles that it is offering buyers its own sweetener to lure them to its dealerships.

Honda Canada Inc. said yesterday it would offer an incentive of $1,000 to customers who purchase or lease a new 2007 Honda Fit subcompact or a 2006 or 2007 Civic with manual transmission. Both cars are excluded from Transport Canada's list of vehicles qualifying for federal rebates under the Harper government's so-called "ecoAuto" program.

For the Americans, and probably a large percentage of Canadians that read this blog- the Canadian government has just introduced rebates for vehicles that use less than 6.5 l/100km of fuel. The rebates amount to between $1000-$2000 depending on how much better, and yes, trucks are involved too (the limit is 8.3 l/100km).

The Honda Fit gets 6.6 l/100km as its rating. Exactly 0.1 away from the standard. Does Honda go and tweak the gearing just a tad to get under 6.5? No chance in hell. Instead, they sat and pouted like a 4 year old toddler who hasn't been given their pudding cup after dinner, and proclaimed the 6.5 figure to be arbitrary (it is, but that's not the point)- of course, the Toyota Yaris manages just fine.

And now, they're so giving and holy as to provide a $1000 incentive for buyers of the Fit to protect their market share. But are making it seem like it's for environmental purposes. The best part of the article is that Chris Travell is quoted as saying the program 'favors' Toyota- no, it favors vehicles that fall under 6.5 l/100km. It's that simple. But that's the media for you- they sure do love Honda up here in Canada.

What a spin huh?