We Obsessively Cover the Green Scene…

We began our Fiat 500e Los Angeles press-launch drive with 95 miles showing on our 500e's range gauge – interesting, since the car's EPA-rated range is 87 miles city/highway combined. Because the 500e's range-calculating algorithm looks at the last 100 miles, then the last 10 miles and the last five minutes, to account for recent change in energy usage, our 500e must have been hypermiled for some distance before we got into it to give us that starting point. Or the EPA's numbers are a bit conservative here.

"It handles like a heavy Fiat 500," observed my co-driver. "I like it."

We inserted ourselves into creepy-crawly LA morning traffic, then turned north up one of those twisty canyon roads where movie stars live. At the top, we headed west on the famous Mulholland Drive, and after a total of 11 miles, the last few uphill, we saw 47 miles of range remaining. Three miles further along curvy Mulholland, we were still showing 47 miles.

"It handles like a heavy Fiat 500," observed my co-driver from behind the wheel. "I like it." The 500e's heated and cooled 24-kWh battery pack is tightly packed under the floor to lower the car's center of gravity and minimize loss of cabin room. And we both agreed that the 500e was exceptionally quiet, even at wide-open-throttle.

Then, we turned downhill and started gaining range thanks to the regenerative brakes – 53 miles at 17 miles driven; 55 at 18.6 miles; 57 at 21.2. Then it was my turn to drive.

One other interesting and timely interview I was offered at this year's Detroit North American International Auto Show was with Don Butler, Cadillac's enthusiastic marketing VP. Why so timely? Because it was right after Cadillac unveiled the production version of its soon-to-come (early 2014) ELR extended-range electric vehicle. Not only is this edgy two-door compact coupe even sexier-looking than Cadillac's slick CTS coupe, it's powered by a slightly upgraded version of the same Voltec series-hybrid system that motivates the Chevy Volt plug-in hybrid.

ABG: The ELR is a beautiful car, but – as a 2-door coupe with a tight back seat, it's less practical than the Volt and will be priced much higher. Won't that make it harder to sell?

"First and foremost, we said, 'Let's make a vividly expressive vehicle.' And, yes, some things have to be compromised."

DB: A sedan would have been the practical choice, but the provocative choice was to do a coupe that is a true styling statement. And when it comes to really stunning design, you have to focus on that as your priority. We weren't thinking as much about practicality and utility as in having it act as an icon and a halo for the brand.

First and foremost, we said, "Let's make a vividly expressive vehicle." And, yes, some things have to be compromised. Because of the way it's styled, the interior roominess and the backseat are adequate, I would say, but not roomy.

ABG: Who will be your customer for the ELR?

DB: It will probably not be anyone's primary vehicle. It will be a second, third, maybe even fourth vehicle in the household. We are not after volume with this car, not looking for hundreds of thousands of sales. That's not what this car is about. but it will definitely appeal to design enthusiasts and people who tend to be trendsetters within their spheres of influence and circles of friends. We're looking for those few discerning individuals because they are very important to Cadillac as a brand. Some of our best marketing and advertising will show this car driving down the street, creating a bold presence for Cadillac.

I was fortunate to get one-on-one chats with two top GM technology leaders (John Lauckner and Larry Nitz) at this year's Detroit North American International Auto Show, but no other automaker offered that opportunity. However, while I was resting and enjoying lunch in Ford's media lounge, in walked Ford's newly-promoted chief operating officer (and likely successor to CEO Alan Mulally) Mark Fields.

Fields told us a year ago that Ford's powertrain strategy is to continue downsizing engines and using EcoBoost (turbocharging and direct fuel injection), and added that vehicle electrification will play a major role in meeting federal corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) requirements that mandate mpg boosts of more than four percent per year through 2025. "By the end of this decade," he said, "we'll see from 10 to 25 percent of our sales being electrified – conventional hybrids, plug-in hybrids and battery electrics."

But how will Ford keep costs down to get their sales volumes up? "Our approach is electrifying platforms, as opposed to single vehicles," he said, "which has a lot of engineering efficiencies. And our manufacturing strategy will allow us to flex. For example, our Wayne [MI] Plant will produce the regular gas-powered Focus, the electric Focus and the C-Max hybrid."

This year, I hit him again with the big CAFE question first.

Anyone who still doesn't believe that General Motors is serious about advanced technology in general, and vehicle electrification in particular, hasn't yet learned that post-bankruptcy GM is a very different company run by different people with a different set of priorities, most of which we would all applaud. One clear sign of this was the company's offering of a long list of key executives, including top technology leaders, for media interviews during January's Detroit Auto Show.

"I hope that we can look back at the Volt in 20 years as the inflection point where we started this journey."

While it's typical for automakers to put sales, marketing and (sometimes) design execs out there, if anyone else sent its top technology types out for media grilling at Detroit this year, I was unaware of it. And that is why I had the opportunity to interview both GM chief technology officer John Lauckner and global electrification director Larry Nitz. I began by asking Nitz about the cost vs. benefit of GM's mild-hybrid eAssist system standard on the mid-size Buick Regal and available on the Buick LaCrosse and Chevy Malibu.

John Lauckner, one of the masterminds behind General Motors' breakthrough Chevrolet Volt EREV, has a full bag of big responsibilities these days that he calls the "technology trifecta." First, he is GM's chief technology officer. Second, he's R&D vice president. Third, as if those two jobs were not enough, he's president of GM Ventures, the company's venture capital subsidiary. "Basically," he says, "I'm deeply involved in technology."

I caught up with him for a brief chat at the Detroit North American International Auto Show in January and started with the same big question I've asked a lot of industry executives lately:

ABG: How will GM, or any full-line manufacturer, meet future Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) mandates, and California's ZEV mandate? You will be required to sell increasing numbers of zero-emission EVs and other electrified vehicles regardless of consumer demand for them?

JL: We're going to have to schedule some invention. If you look at the technology we're working with today, you have one view of what's possible. But the technology is rapidly changing, so we focus on five areas where we think important breakthroughs will likely occur:

• One, automotive clean tech and propulsion-related technologies. That means batteries. motors, power electronics, emissions control devices and fuel economy technologies.
• Two, connected vehicles and infotainment, where information and entertainment intersect.
• Three, advanced materials – lightweight, eco-friendly and space-change materials, and forming technologies – the kinds of materials that cars and trucks of the future will be made of.
• Four, sensors, processors, and memory. There is a lot of capability that more advanced sensors, processors and memory will let us unlock.
• And five, manufacturing-related technologies.

"Within the fuel-economy regulations, there is a "check-up" in 2017."

Those are not the only areas where we will see new technology, but those are the ones where we believe that having a competitive advantage will probably drive longer-term and more sustainable benefits. Also, within the fuel-economy regulations, there is a "check-up" in 2017, where we will see where we are and figure out what that means for the regulations in place for beyond that time.

Automotive journalists have been hearing a consistent message from Korean automakers Hyundai and Kia: their attributes top the competition. Over the last few years, they have claimed superiority for most of their products in nearly every measure that matters, from power and torque to interior and cargo capacity to, most importantly, fuel economy.

When Hyundai introduced its new compact Elantra a couple years ago, execs poked fun at rivals for using asterisks to designate that their 40-mpg compacts – vehicles like the Chevrolet Cruze ECO, Ford Focus SFE, Dodge Dart Aero and Honda Civic HF – were special high-efficiency models. The Elantra and friends, they boasted, needed no such disclaimer because every model was EPA rated at 40 mpg highway. Yet they also claimed better power, torque and performance.

As a recovering engineer, I have wondered how that could be possible. How can nearly every Korean car and crossover boast better power, torque and fuel efficiency than every other in its segment? Could Korean engineers be that much smarter than everyone else? They certainly are smart, and hard working. But so are Japanese, Germans and Americans.

When I've questioned such "better at everything" claims at Hyundai and Kia new-product introductions, I've received little response beyond smiles and smugly shrugged shoulders. But US auto engineers – who routinely test, analyze and benchmark competitive products – have told me (off the record) that, in their own testing of Hyundai and Kia vehicles, they've been unable to achieve the Koreans' advertised numbers.

Wouldn't it be embarrassing and image damaging for them to get caught cheating?

Could it be, I wondered, that Hyundai and Kia have been fudging their fuel-economy numbers, especially those very important 40-mpg EPA highway claims? Doesn't our all-powerful EPA audit and check automakers' claims to keep them honest? Wouldn't it be embarrassing and image damaging for them to get caught cheating? Yes, sort of and yes.

But how many Americans recall that these same Korean companies were caught a decade ago inflating their power and performance claims? Very few apparently remember, or care, since both have enjoyed record-setting US sales since then. But cheating on EPA fuel economy ratings? How could they do that, and how have they gotten away with it?

Why Not Improve The Cheap Chemistry?



When General Motors launched its pioneering two-seat EV1 in 1997, its batteries were "advanced" lead acid (PbA). That means they were big, heavy, had low energy density and a limited life. But it was the best available chemistry at the time. That first EV1's T-shaped pack of 27 PbA modules weighed nearly 1200 pounds and stored the energy equivalent of a half-gallon of gas. The fact that you could coax 50-70 miles of (warm-weather, flat-road) range out of that tiny amount of on-board energy was a testament to the extreme efficiency of that car.

Then, by working hard with Nickel Metal Hydride (NiMH) developer Ovonic Battery Co., GM was able to offer an optional NiMH pack for the '99 EV1. Roughly the same size and weight as the PbA pack, it required the addition of a cooling system and was much more expensive, but it approximately doubled on-board energy. So, 1999 model year NiMH EV1 drivers could leave home with the equivalent of an entire gallon of gas in their "tank" and drive 100-plus miles.

But lithium-polymer, the next generation battery technology that was supposed to make BEVs much more affordable and practical, never came close to matching expectations. And it wasn't long before PbA's low energy and NiMH's much higher cost put an end to California's ridiculous EV sales mandate – and all the major automakers' production pure EV programs – for a while.

It was lucky for me that GM's recent media forum on its electrification efforts was in San Francisco, since I would already be there for the press launch for the Ford C-Max Energi plug-in hybrid. And GM promised a session with its new global product guru, Mary Barra, and a brief drive of a prototype 2014 Chevy Spark EV.

Ford C-Max Energi

The C-Max is Ford's answer to the Toyota Prius – especially the more cargo-capable Prius V – and the plug-in Energi version takes on the Prius plug-in and trumps it in a number of ways, including performance, dynamics, EV range and efficiency.

The plug-in C-Max Energi takes on the Prius plug-in and trumps it in a number of ways.

Billed as "America's most fuel-efficient plug-in hybrid," it offers 188 (gas/electric combined) horsepower vs. the plug-in Prius' 134 and 100 combined MPGe (equivalent) EPA economy vs. the Prius' 95. Ford also claims an electric-only range of "up to" 21 miles vs. the Toyota's 15, although both fall short of those numbers in real-life driving. The C-Max Energi typically starts its engine at 12 or 13 miles, the Prius plug-in at six or seven.

I finally got to drive a Fisker Karma (great model name!), and found it better than expected. The occasion was the annual Motor Press Guild (MPG) "Track Days" at Auto Club Speedway in Fontana, CA, where four Karmas were lined up to be driven by attending media. Not on the track of course, but on the straight, smooth public roads around it.

Three journalists and a Fisker representative piled into the car, and I spent the first several minutes wedged into the right rear seat. Like the rest of the car, it was better than expected ... not especially roomy for a 6-foot, long-legged male, but not uninhabitable. The only major difficulty was extracting my feet from under the front seat when it was time to disembark.

Then it was my turn to drive. The controls and instruments were unconventional but easy to learn and use. The driver's seat was supportive and 6-way-adjustable. The available acceleration, even with four aboard, was strong. Despite the car's prodigious weight, the Brembo brakes were also strong (and fairly linear) when needed, with just a hint of noticeable transition from regen to friction. Can't comment on cornering, since I never got a chance.

The cabin design is modern and pleasing – founder Henrik Fisker is a gifted designer, so likely had much to say about it as well as the long, sensuous, bulge-fendered body) – and suitably plush for the price. Perhaps my biggest surprise was the 2.0-liter turbocharged 4-cylinder range-extender engine's unobtrusiveness when it ran. My only real dislike was the fuzzy velour (actually "EcoSuede") on the dashtop and steering wheel.

An affordable, semi-practical, entry-level EV



I've driven a fair number of electrics over the last couple decades, beginning with General Motors' bullet-shaped 1991 Impact concept car and continuing through a progression of Geo Storm-based mules, prototype and production EV1s with both lead-acid and later range-doubling Ni-MH battery packs. And since returning to this side of the business, my list has expanded to include the Chevrolet Volt, Nissan Leaf, MINI E, BMW ActiveE, Tesla Roadster, Smart ED and a right-drive, Japanese-market Mitsubishi i-MiEV.

All have shared the EV blessings of strong, near-silent, shiftless acceleration, home "refueling" and no more gas station stops with fluctuating fuel prices. All have also shared the EV curses of big, heavy, expensive batteries, the resulting high purchase/lease prices and (excluding the Volt) limited range, long recharge times and occasional range anxiety.

Most recent EV encounters have been brief – a few miles around town or a parking lot. But last year I was fortunate to enjoy a working week with a Volt and a couple days with a Leaf (see past columns). And I was recently offered a three-day loan of a U.S.-spec Mitsubishi i.

All are looking good for now... but it depends



As you probably know, Chrysler has reported its best quarterly profits in 13 years, has just introduced a very nice new Dodge Dart compact sedan and continues to gain sales and market share. GM has also been highly profitable with a string of solid product hits, though it has not gained share working with just half of its former eight U.S. brands.

As you also know, both of these iconic American car companies were upside down four years ago and likely would have been dissolved – along with millions of good U.S. jobs – had both the Bush and Obama administrations not decided to invest taxpayer money in saving them.

Now, with election season heating up, we'll be hearing much from both sides on the GM and Chrysler "bailouts." Democrats will rightly claim credit (though it began under Bush) for saving the U.S. auto industry and millions of jobs. Republicans will correctly counter that they did it all wrong (stiffing private investors, destroying thousands of dealer businesses for no good reason and handing Chrysler to Italy's Fiat) and for the wrong reason (to save the UAW).

"Let them fail," conservatives crowed then, and still. "That's how capitalism works."

"Let them fail," conservatives crowed then, and still. "That's how capitalism works." But there was no private capital in late 2008 for business loans or bankruptcies, so federal support was the last resort. Ford had sufficient capital to weather the crisis only because it had run out of money two years earlier, when it still could (and did) mortgage itself for working capital.

There has been no end to political rhetoric about creating new jobs, but little knowledgeable discussion around saving those millions of auto (and industry-dependent) jobs that we already had. What very few outside the industry – including financial gurus and media pundits – understand is how this industry is a huge, fragile, interdependent house of cards.

Political agenda trumps Volt facts on "fair and balanced" channel



Political liberals have long hated General Motors, partly because long-ago GM leaders did bad things and built bad products, but mostly because it was really big, successful and profitable. And most probably still do. Never mind that it's now a very different company run by very different people with very different – including very "green" – priorities.

But in the last couple years it's become fashionable for conservatives to hate GM as well because "Obama bailed it out." And to deride and despise GM's Chevrolet Volt extended-range EV because they think Obama forced GM to build it. Never mind that his predecessor began the auto bail-out as the U.S. housing and financial markets collapsed in late 2008, bringing the country's economy crashing down around them. And that the Volt's development began nearly two years before the 2008 election and continued full-steam through GM's 2009 bankruptcy and recovery. Obama and his minions had absolutely nothing to do with it.

We can argue all day about how and why the U.S. auto industry was saved. Private investors – including mutual and retirement funds – were stiffed, the UAW was strengthened and gained partial ownership, Chrysler was handed to Italian automaker Fiat, and an auto-industry-ignorant presidential task force compelled GM to drop four U.S. brands and both GM and Chrysler to put thousands of their dealers out of business for no good reason. Much of that was bad, but it's undeniable that both are coming back strong with their best-ever products.

It's foolish to contend that the U.S. auto industry did not need to be saved. Center for Automotive Research (CAR) studies have long shown that as many as 10 other jobs – at suppliers, dealers and small businesses surrounding and supporting auto industry facilities nationwide – depend on each automaker job. That means that if hundreds of thousand of auto jobs had been lost, millions of Americans would have found themselves out of work as a result.

"Come on, Gary. You talked to GM and never asked my question? ...Won't you please ask [automakers] why they don't have a significantly improved, simple, gas-powered 58-mpg runabout for the early 21st century American market (considering they've had 22 years, technology has advanced, etc.)?" – TxPatriot.

Thought I answered that question a couple columns ago. There is no need to ask automakers why they can't do simple, cheap, 50-plus-mpg conventional (non-hybrid) cars today – even though some did decades ago – when you already know the answer. The fact is that federal safety, damageability and emissions regulations – on top of customer demand for full loads of comfort, convenience and infotainment features even in small, relatively inexpensive models – has made modern cars way too heavy to manage more than low-40s-mpg EPA highway and mid-30s average real-world efficiency, at least with current technology.

That will have to change, since corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) mandates are scheduled to ramp up relentlessly over the next 13 years. But while those 50-plus-mpg (average) cars of the future may be small, they will not be able to sacrifice safety or widely popular features (in fact, they'll need more of both) so will be far from simple or inexpensive. The old racing axiom – "Speed costs money; how fast can you afford to go?" – is equally applicable to fuel economy: "Efficiency costs money; how fuel efficient can we afford to be?"

So this time we put our CAFE-related questions to some key GM leaders responsible for marketing and design, starting with Chevrolet marketing director Russ Clark. "Cars are developed for people's wants and needs," Clark said, "and whether they want a sports car or an SUV, one objective for all is better fuel economy. The technology does add to the cost, but they'll save some money on fuel."

How much of GM's CAFE-compliance challenge will fall to Chevrolet? "We have the widest portfolio within GM, so we will need to develop as many new small cars as we can, and make sure they're all good. We'll also need to continually develop technology, and that is where the cost will come."

There were lots of comments on my last two columns (speaking with Ford and Chrysler execs about CAFE regulations), and some were very savvy on EVs and hybrids. But most seem to have little knowledge of what really goes into designing, developing, validating and successfully marketing a desirable, reliable, long-term durable, incredibly complex, affordable and federally legal modern automobile – let alone making an honest buck doing it. But then who would, without substantial industry experience?

My new friend Nick, no fan of Ford's EV engineering capabilities, countered our earlier exchange with: "Tesla really IS a billion years ahead of these clowns, they've sold many times more EV platforms than Ford ever has, and is about to launch products that are far ahead of anything out there."

Really? Aren't Tesla's 2,100 $100,000-plus BEV roadsters converted Lotus sports cars, hardly dedicated-platform EVs? And won't its beautiful but long-delayed Model S and (much further out, the Model X) start around $50,000 after federal tax credits? That's not so affordable.

Nick also wrote: "Ford's EV tech development was outsourced to Azure Dynamics and Magna." True enough for the small-volume Transit Connect BEV commercial van conversion, but not Ford's upcoming Focus Electric and other electrified vehicles.

Anyway, I cornered so many General Motors folks at the auto shows that I'll divide their CAFE compliance comments into two columns, beginning with engineering leaders and following with designers and marketers. First up was Mary Barra, who replaced the colorful and controversial Bob Lutz as VP of Global Product Development.