No April Fool’s joke: Your next new car will be more fuel efficient, and more expensive

You may have written it off as an April Fool’s joke, but the announcement April 1 that the Canadian government will fall in lockstep with the new U.S. Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) requirements for fuel mileage and greenhouse gas emissions (covering the 2012 through 2016 model years) will have an immediate affect on the new car market.

To su up: North American automakers will have to conform to a corporate fuel economy fleet average of 33.3 mpg (7.06 L/100 km) for cars and 25.4 (9.26 L) for trucks for its 2012 models. And by 2016, to 37.8 (6.22 L) and 28.8 (8.17 L) respectively.

As the Star’s Peter Gorrie points out, there will be loopholes in this legislation—there always is. But there’s no way around it: getting today’s cars to sip less fuel will mean more expensive cars.

U.S. government officials estimate automakers will spend $51.5 billion (all in U.S.) over the next five years putting the standards into effect. And no surprise here: the average price of a new car will rise by $985 by 2016.

The same officials say the average consumer will net an extra $3,000 in fuel savings over the life of the vehicle.

Maybe.

Because the U.S. will use the older, more generous mileage cycle test for this new legislation, (for example, an older 34.1 mpg CAFE rating is roughly equivalent to a current EPA combined sticker value of 26-27 mpg) the jump up required for many cars isn’t crazy. Just expect more and more hybrids on dealer lots.

Family cars like hybrid versions of  Toyota Camry and Ford Fusion and subcompacts such as the Mini Cooper, Toyota Yaris and Honda Fit meet the 2016 standards today.But those driving full-size pickup trucks better enjoy them while they can.

Hybrid trucks like the Ford Escape, Toyota Highlander and Lexus RX450h all meet the raised bar. But full-size trucks—the vehicles that are primarily driving Canadian new car sales—don’t.

Knowing that new cars will inevitably rise in price, are you on board with this program to “save the planet”?

Are you willing to drive a more expensive, less fun-to-drive, or smaller vehicle?

Or is this merely more motivation to hang on to your current, less fuel-efficient car just a little bit longer?

Brand Alert: Does Aston Martin’s new city car hurt/help its image?

No joke. Aston Martin is really going to put a restyled Toyota iQ city car into production, dubbed the Cygnet, and one of my Top 10 Misfit Cars.

Even if the overall shape isn’t in the same universe as the gorgeous, hand built GTs and sports cars the British automaker is used to selling (Vantage, DB9, DBS, etc.), new photos released today show further development from the original clay model mockups.

Reality Check: Teslas and EVs—antiquities in the making?

Just like the kerfuffle when Hollywood stars grace our presence during September’s annual Toronto film festival, it looks like the Tesla Roadster electric vehicle’s arrival in the Big Smoke has caused a bit of sensation.

But the reality check on the Tesla—and the flock of EVs arriving over the next few years like the Mini E, Nissan Leaf and Chevrolet Volt—is something different than the green motoring panacea its makers market. The biggest problem being the inconvenience of these darn things.

As Kenzie experienced in the EV roadster:

“Following that all-night 220 volt charge, the meter inside the car promised only 293 km, and that was the so-called "ideal" range, as in, your Granddad is driving.”

I’m sorry, but as soon as cars become inconvenient, people look at alternatives. Er, like the bus.

Just look at diesel cars. The fact you can’t find a diesel pump at every, single gas station in the country is reason enough for a lot of buyers to take a pass on the derv drinkers because of the perceived inconvenience. I mean, we can't even get people to remember to plug-in their car's block heaters on cold winter nights.

Then you have to look at the irrationality of the treehuggers who go for EVs like raccoons at an open garbage can.

Hours of charging time and limited driving range make EVs toys for anyone who wants to drive outside of downtown or for more than a few hours.

More than likely, then, EV owners will own a second “real” (i.e. gas car) taking twice the resources in manufacturing and another valuable parking space.

Compared to owning a single, fuel-efficient, gas small car, like say a Honda Fit, EV ownership sounds pretty dumb to me.

Tesla grande frommage Elon Musk won’t have a problem selling 1,000 copies of the $145,550 U.S. cars by the end of this year. Like most manufacturers of ultra-luxury products, idiots with too much money have always been easy to find. I mean, I could probably round up 500 during a lunch hour stroll down Bay Street. And the real impact on improving the environment from ultra-low volume EV’s is questionable.

Look, forget about the Tesla. It’s a low-volume aberration. A technical freak that’s playing on the current “cars are evil” cultural zeitgeist. A guilt soother for the rich.

No. The big challenge with the Tesla—and EVs in general—will be in convincing the much more critical masses.

The best EV I’ve driven was the Mitsubishi i-MiEV this past summer.

Smooth, quiet and powerful, it offers few driving compromises. But as an owner, why would I pay twice as much (approximately $36,000) for a gas model of a car that already gets outstanding gas mileage without the charging and limited range hassles?

Same for the Mini E I drove about a year ago.

The Chevrolet Volt that’s on the way next year solves the troubling EV range problem a bit with its tiny onboard generator that starts charging the battery on the fly after the initial charge has been drained.

But it will likely cost twice as much as a loaded model of Chevy’s new Cruize, and seat only four where the gas compact seats five.

So until I can buy an EV that drives as far, offers similar passenger and cargo space room, and costs the same as a comparable gas model, like I said, they’re pretty dumb.

Trust me. 50 years from now, historians will be looking at this first batch of EVs like we look at hoola hoops and black and white TVs today—cultural antiquities.

Honda's reincarnated CR-X two-seater confirmed for Canada

As expected, Honda debuted the second concept of its CR-Z two-seat hybrid coupe, left, yesterday at the Tokyo auto show.

Better yet, Honda Canada confirmed the CR-Z will be coming to Canada next year.

The production model will make its global debut at the 2010 Detroit show in January.

No horsepower figures yet. But the CR-Z will use a larger (1.5 versus 1.3-litre) version of the Insight's gas-electric powerplant.  And—hallellujah!—the coupe will ditch the Insight's CVT and be the first hybrid ever to use a stick, a six-speeder, to be exact.

Regardless, I'm hoping Honda gets smart and offers a gas-only version, eventually, as well.

Just a warning Honda: As a former 1990 CR-X Si owner, the new CR-Z has some very high standards to live up to. Know what I mean...

[Source: Honda Canada]

Damage Control: Audi head responds to Volt is "for idiots" comments

Backpedaling like crazy after yesterday's "car for idiots" comments in reference to Chevy's Volt, Audi of America Johan de Nysschen has issued a public retort.

Keep in mind, de Nysschen is neither confirming nor denying his earlier anti-EV comments. He's now saying, "I do not specifically recall."

Yeah, yeah. Whatever. Full public mea culpa below:

A note from Johan de Nysschen, President, Audi of America:

An online report today, subsequently picked up by various other forums, left an unflattering sense of my feelings toward electric vehicles and the people who support their development. Let me clearly state that, in my opinion, electric vehicles will be part of the future transportation of society – but only if we go about it the right way. In fact, Audi is working on electric vehicles.

I do not specifically recall using the term "car for idiots" during my informal conversation with the writer. It was certainly not my intention to leave the impression that I'm opposed to electrical vehicles, and if I was unclear on either of those points then I need to eat crow.

What I do recall is the essence of my contention, namely that the feasibility of the Chevrolet Volt as a concept is questionable. And that policy decisions – and the industry's reactions to those decisions – are leading us toward a technology that may sound tempting on the surface, but, as of now, also contains many deep and unsolved economic and technological compromises.

"Mass electrification" of the vehicles on American roads could lead to problems like a strained electric grid. Large-scale utilization of electric vehicles will require massive investment in new power stations that are much cleaner than the ones in use in the U.S. today. Otherwise, it could merely shift greenhouse gas emissions from the tailpipes of cars to the smokestacks of coal-burning utilities. That's not just my opinion. The California Air Resource Board this past April concluded that electric vehicles presently are second only to hydrogen cars in greenhouse gas impact when measured on a well-to-wheel basis.

Returning to the Volt, my point was simply one of its economic feasibility today. The 50% or so price increase that the Volt represents over a similar gasoline car cannot be offset through the savings from reduced fuel consumption. The only way to offset the extreme premium for the Volt is through taxpayer-funded subsidies. So I question if that makes economic sense.

Does that mean the Volt and other electric vehicles are forever impractical? Of course not.

In recent broadcast interviews, discussions with journalists and meetings with policy makers I have asserted that the future of automotive transportation lies not in any one "silver bullet", but in a range of technologies that meet different needs – all while lowering emissions and fuel consumption. That includes plug-in electric cars when technological and economic hurdles make them more practical. It includes hybrid vehicles. And it includes clean diesel along with substantially more efficient takes on today's gasoline internal combustion engines.

Admittedly I am a passionate advocate for the role that clean diesel technology can play in easing this nation's challenges. Cutting through misperceptions about clean diesel and other technologies can be frustrating. If you'd like to hear my thoughts on these issues, go to a video of my recent remarks at www.audiusanews.com. Meanwhile, know that we are working toward a more sustainable future.

[Source: Audi]

Muzzle Time: Audi head speaks using both sides of his mouth

At a recent Audi media dinner, Audi of America President Johan de Nysschen slammed Chevy’s plug-in hyrbid Volt and electric-vehicles in general, to Lawrence Ulrich, a journalist from MSN in the U.S.:

He dismissed GM’s upcoming plug-in hybrid as “a car for idiots,” saying that few consumers will be willing to pay $40,000 -- the Volt’s estimated base price -- for a car that competes against $25,000 sedans and conventional hybrids. Nor, he noted, is the Volt a luxury car whose green-technology costs will be excused because it also delivers prestige or performance.

“No one is going to pay a $15,000 premium for a car that competes with a (Toyota) Corolla,” he said. “So there are not enough idiots who will buy it.”

Okay. Fair enough. De Nysschen is paid to pimp his company's TDI clean diesel technology.

And I tend to agree with him in arguing against the U.S. government “pouring billions of dollars into EV technology, yet diesel technology could deliver a more immediate and dramatic decrease in global-warming emissions.”

But wait…

See that picture in the top left corner? That’s a teaser of a new Audi concept set to debut in Frankfurt in a couple of weeks.

And guess what? The concept’s an EV. Using what looks like an R8 platform.

In fact, Audi’s gone to expense of putting up a special web site, www.Electricityuntamed.com

So, the question, now, is: How big of an idiot do you have to be to buy an Audi R8 EV?

[Sources: MSN, Audi]

Autopocalypse: GM pulls the plug on its Buick plug-in

Well. So much for that.

You may have missed it during Government Motors'  230 MPG or bust Volt PR circus last week.

But among the wave of new 2010 – 2012 products it promised was the stillborn 2010 Saturn Vue Plug-in Hybrid, (literally) rebadged as a Buick, right.

No one was really fooled. The vehicle quickly became facetiously known as the Vue-ick. And apparently GM was listening to the moaning.

So in a quick about face (that must be a record between a new model being announced and then being canned), GM’s decided to, well, pull the plug on the Buick plug-in.

From GM U.S. spokesguy Tom Stephens on the automaker’s Fastlane blog:

The Buick crossover we showed received consistent feedback from large parts of all the audiences that it didn’t fit the premium characteristics that customers have come to expect from Buick.

Stephens also wanted to make clear the plug-in technology isn’t dead. It just needs a proper home:

[this] is not the smaller Buick crossover we showed that was playfully referred to as “the baby Enclave.” That vehicle did very well and remains in the lineup.

Then Stephens opened the kimono on the “new” way GM is doing is business:

What gives me pause is how quickly we made a decision and carried it out. In the past this would have been a several-month process involving meeting after meeting of the APB, ASB, and various other acronyms, and also many “offline” follow-up discussions before a decision was reached and enacted. This happened in one day.

 

So there you have it. GM looks like it will stop trying to fool most of the people some of the time.

But in this case, does GM need to grow a thicker skin?

Has it overacted? Do you care what the badge on the grille is, as long as another fuel-sipping vehicle comes to market?

Or perhaps more importantly, should the Vue-ick have never seen the light of day in the first place?

[Source: GM’s Fastlane Blog]

Volt's 230 MPG claim already being called to the mat

Well that didn’t last long.

Government Motors’ outrageous claim that its 2010 Chevy Volt will get an EPA city rating of 230 MPG is already taking it on the chin from a credibility standpoint, only hours after the press conference was held this morning.

Now, instead of a positive distraction from the automaker’s ongoing struggles (you know, that bankruptcy thing), the 230 MPG campaign may turn into a PR train wreck:

• Details, details. When Green Car Advisor asked for confirmation of GM’s 230 MPG number, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency issued the following statement:

"EPA has not tested a Chevy Volt and therefore cannot confirm the fuel economy values claimed by GM.  EPA does applaud GM's commitment to designing and building the car of the future—an American-made car that will save families money, significantly reduce our dependence on foreign oil and create good-paying American jobs. We're proud to see American companies and American workers leading the world in the clean energy innovations that will shape the 21st century economy."

If you can ignore the American jingoism, translated, don’t expect the Volt to get anywhere near the 230 MPG unless driven by a GM engineer.

• 230 MPG? Big deal! NissanEVs Twitter account took the time to steal some of GM’s thunder with its own outladish claims for its Leaf EV (see video below) coming next year as well:

Nissan Leaf = 367 mpg, no tailpipe, and no gas required. Oh yeah, and it'll be affordable too!

Instead of posting a believable number, say 100 MPG, desperate for a “game changer”, GM's Fritz & Co. (above) had to do a moon shot of a PR move.

Not very smart.

What was GM thinking? That no one would challenge them on this?

[Sources: Green Car Advisor, NissanEVSonTwitter]

GM says Volt will get 230 MPG rating. Seriously...

Lock this down in your memory banks: 230 MPG.

That’s the EPA city fuel mileage the 2011 Chevrolet Volt will get when it goes on sale next year, according to an announcement this morning from Government Motors CEO Fritz “The Cat” Henderson, just one month after the automaker emerged form U.S. bankruptcy protection.

If the 230 MPG (BTW, for all you imperialists out there, that's in American gallons) number sounds outrageous, it is.

That’s about four times better than the new 2010 Toyota Prius. And it means the Volt is the first car on the planet to obtain a triple digit fuel economy rating.

While conspiracy theorists might say the Environmental Protection Agency and GM are both U.S. government agencies (nudge-nudge, wink-wink), GM estimated the Volt’s 230 number based on a new EPA methodology for determining a draft fuel economy standard for extended-range EVs like the Volt—which, right now, is the only vehicle of its kind.

(You can plug the Volt in to recharge the batteries. When the batteries die—which GM claims is in the 64 km range—the Volt’s tiny gas engine kick in to charge the batteries as you continue to drive.)

We’re all are aware of the “your mileage will suck” caveats.

And I’m sure when leadfoot journalists get hold of production Volts next year, we won’t see anything close to 230 MPG.

But will the “230” number come back to haunt the automaker?

Is this a huge marketing coup for GM, or just a desperate PR stunt to show some sign of life?

If this was Toyota, would the claim be more credible?

Green is Good: The incredible shrinking engine

Dearborn, Mich – With media types here at Ford Ground Zero getting the low-down on Ford’s 2010 lineup, the Detroit automaker confirmed today what most industry watchers considered a given: a four-cylinder EcoBoost engine is on the way (in some kind of Ford) for next year.

You may already know about Ford’s EcoBoost strategy.

Or that it’s first application— in 3.5-litre V6 format—is in a  bunch of large 2010 Fords and Lincolns.

Or if you’re a real EcoBoost geek, you may remember a 1.6L I4 version was displayed in the Lincoln C Concept from last January’s Detroit show.

Whereas that little EcoBoost four only made 180 hp and lb-ft of torque, Ford said the debut EcoBoost four-banger will be 2.0L in size, all the while pumping out a healthy 230 hp and 240 lb-ft—or about what we’ve come to expect from a run-of-the-mill naturally aspirated V6—but with an expected 20 to 30 per cent reduction in fuel consumption.

Ford is nudge-nudge wink-winking that the EcoBoost 2.0 may not necessarily roll out in a car. Methinks the Escape compact crossover would make a nice choice to take on the just revamped Chevrolet Equinox, non?

So what do you think about Ford’s EcoBoost?

Do you think a blown-six can take the place of a burly V8?

Will customers go for fours where only sixes went before?

Or are should we button down the hatches for another round of fuel-economy-first powerplants, like the dreadful mid-1980s turbo-four Mustang SVO?

[Source: Ford]