We Obsessively Cover the Green Scene…

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.

As regular readers know, I set out this year to interview as many Detroit automaker executives as I could at the Detroit and Chicago auto shows to get their takes on meeting future fuel economy standards. And these reports are generating a lot of comments.

For example, "Nick" responded to my Ford interviews: "I don't get how 'electrifying global platforms' is any good. They're essentially taking cars that were 100% engineered with ICE in mind, and 'adapting' them into EVs. Not an optimal solution, to say the least. You end up with a car that looks exactly like its ICE counterpart, costs $15k more, is heavy and has poor range. Tesla is a billion miles ahead of these clowns."

Nick is right that electrified conventional vehicles will be somewhat heavier and less efficient than dedicated-platform cars, but Ford has chosen the former path for its early EVs because the latter is hugely expensive. Ford (and virtually all others) believe that potential EV buyers will be willing to sacrifice some range for much more affordable prices.

The idea that designing, developing and building unique, dedicated-platform EVs instead of electrifying conventional ones would result in lower costs is completely wrong. And I'm wondering what credentials justify Nick's calling Ford's incredibly hard-working, capable and dedicated engineers "clowns." And why he thinks, "Tesla is a billion miles ahead" of them. Really? How many dedicated-platform EVs has Tesla sold?

That said, let's start our Chrysler CAFE interviews at the very top with Chrysler (and parent company Fiat) CEO Sergio Marchionne. "If you ask GM and Ford," he said, "we all have the same types of technology, and we all carry the same burden in terms of the sizes of vehicles we are manufacturing. The 50-plus miles per gallon by 2025 cannot be achieved by just redesigning established combustion technologies. We know that some type of hybrid solution needs to be implemented, and if we don't make [sufficient] changes in combustion engines, hybrids will become the mainstay in the United States. At that point, economies of scale will drive down cost. They will never be equivalent, but they will come down. But if you think we're going to get there without passing on additional costs to the consumer, I've got news for you: we will have to.

In response to my last column on this subject – Future Fuel Economy Mandates, Part I: 54.5 mpg is going to be hard to reach – commenter TxPatriot wondered why (non-hybrid) modern cars can't deliver the 53-58-mpg fuel economy he says his 1989 Geo Metro does. "I've yet to receive a satisfactory answer to this question," he wrote.

Well, for starters, that 23-year-old econobox did not have to carry the structure and all the equipment necessary to meet 2012 federal safety, damageability and emissions standards, or the suite of comfort, convenience and infotainment features even today's small econocars must have to compete. I'm guessing it probably weighs about two-thirds of what a current 30-to-40-mile-per-gallon subcompact does, and weight is the single most significant factor contributing to fuel efficiency.

As I wrote last time, I interviewed a large, diverse sampling of U.S. auto industry folks at this year's Detroit and Chicago auto shows to get their perspectives on the huge challenge of increasing their fleet's average fuel economy by four to five percent a year for the next 13 years. All agreed that it would be expensive and difficult, yet all were committed to doing it.

Is 54.5 mpg achievable... and what will it cost?



Ask the average driver whether he or she would like better fuel economy from they car they're driving now, and the answer will, of course, be "Yes!" Ask whether the feds should continue forcing automakers to improve fuel economy on a very aggressive schedule, and most will, again, agree. But many people have little real understanding of what that will take... or what it will cost.

The lasting legacy of America's first major fuel crisis in 1973 remains the federal government's response to it: Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) laws. The first one required automakers' 1978-model "sales-weighted fleet averages" to be at least 18 miles per gallon. This was no challenge for imports selling mostly small cars, but a tall order for domestics at the time. It meant U.S. makers would have to balance sales of profitable larger vehicles with (usually loss-making) smaller ones, whether or not anyone wanted to buy them. Light truck standards followed for 1979, beginning at 17.2 mpg for 2WD and 15.8 for those with 4WD.

Critics contend CAFE is a sorry substitute for reducing fuel usage through higher fuel taxes.

Critics contend CAFE is a sorry substitute for reducing fuel usage through higher fuel taxes, as other countries have done, because it puts the onus on automakers, regardless of market demand, and drives up vehicle prices. Still, CAFE was toughened each year through the early 1980s, softened slightly in the mid-'80s, then leveled off at 27.5 mpg for cars for 20 years, from 1990 to 2010. The truck number accelerated slowly to 20.7 mpg (combined for 2WD and 4WD) for 1996, stayed there through 2004, then climbed again to 23.5 mpg for 2010.

Then, on May 19, 2009, President Obama announced a new "national fuel economy program" mandating a fleet average of 35.5 mpg for by 2016 – a daunting 29-percent increase that moved the requirements of an existing 2007 law forward by four full years. Since 2012 models were essentially done, automakers would have just four model years to achieve it.

Mazda is a small Japanese car company – fifth in Japanese-brand U.S. sales behind the "Big Three" of Toyota, Honda and Nissan and just behind distant-fourth Subaru – that prides itself on being different, more youthful and more fun to drive. Hence its "Zoom-Zoom" marketing theme and the goofy toothless grin on the faces of most recent Mazda products.

Now Mazda is taking a very different approach to meeting government and customer demands for fast-increasing fuel efficiency that may (or may not) pay off. Instead of betting billions on plug-in and hybrid vehicles, Mazda's approach is a comprehensive effort to substantially increase the efficiency of every element of every vehicle, beginning with engines and transmissions and continuing through bodies and chassis.

Mazda has been working on these efficiency-enhancing technologies for half a decade and is now applying them – beginning with new powertrains in its revamped 2012 Mazda3 compacts (pictured), which join the vaunted 40-mpg highway economy club – under the marketing name "Skyactiv." Some critics say the name is dumb. To some it may conjure images of flying cars or clear, blue skies over active lifestyles. Mazda says it means, "The sky is the limit."

But what really matters is, how well will it work? And will it sell more Mazdas?

I wrote last time that I had done two recent stories for popularmechanics.com having to do with the Chevrolet Volt. The first was on Volt (and Nissan Leaf) sales – both still limited by supply, not demand, as production and distribution ramps up. For the second, I was asked to clean my crystal ball and predict the future for Volt, and extended range EVs in general.

There are good reasons why the Volt was 2011 North American Car of the Year and has earned numerous other awards. An arguably attractive 5-door, 4-seat hatchback with appeal to environmental and technology enthusiasts alike, it runs on exhaust-free grid power for 30-40 miles, then seamlessly switches to gasoline when more miles are needed.

But to do that, it needs to tote around both a gas engine and an electric propulsion system, including a 435-lb lithium-ion battery pack, plus a multi-clutch planetary gearset and 10 million lines of sophisticated software to efficiently and transparently marry the two. That makes it both heavy and pricey for its size, with a $39,995 base sticker price for 2012.

There's no end to people's emotions surrounding GM's Chevy Volt. Those with hate-GM and/or hate-Obama agendas are duty-bound to rage against it because they resent the bailout and see the Volt as a direct result of that money (even though it's not). Those who can love only "pure" battery electric vehicles must disapprove because it burns some fossil fuel on days when it runs out of battery juice.

On the other pole is just about everyone who has spent time in a Volt, including virtually all automotive media and the few thousand owners, including a local gas service station owner who bought the second one in my area and flat-out loves it. An eco-minded businessman who also paid big bucks to install the only E85 pump in our town a couple years ago, he drives it daily and encourages customers to take it for a spin.

Volt critics seem delighted that Chevy's range-extender EV has been selling in the low three digits monthly. This is a sure sign, they chortle, that the plug-in hybrid is too pricey and/or nearly no one wants one. No doubt it's expensive ($40,000 for the 2012 model, minus the $7,500 federal tax credit), which doesn't help. But Volt sales (like the Nissan Leaf's) are still limited by short supply, not lack of demand. There are waiting lists for both.

Al Gore melted down recently while speaking in Aspen, CO, swearing repeatedly while accusing evil non-believers of doing dastardly deeds to refute human-caused "climate change," a theory he refuses to debate. "They pay pseudoscientists to pretend to be scientists to put out the message," he railed. "'It may be volcanoes.' Bulls**t! 'It may be sunspots.' Bulls**t!... There is no longer a shared reality on an issue like climate" (listen to the clip here).

It must be terribly frustrating to him and faithful followers that, despite near-universal media, political and even industry lip service, impartial polls increasingly show that more and more Americans are no longer buying the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) mantra that has made him a very wealthy man.

Frustrating that one Arctic scientist's oft-cited report that polar bears were drowning as their habitats melted has proven bogus. "A new government investigation into the supposed science surrounding this...has revealed that it was likely nothing more than a pseudoscientific hoax propagated by faulty math and perfunctory observations," the International Business Times reported on Aug. 19. Charles Monnett of the U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management is currently suspended and being investigated for scientific misconduct, while the polar bear population has swelled by 400 percent in the last four decades.

De Lorenzo is a name well-known in auto circles. When I was a rookie writer in the early 1970s, Anthony De Lorenzo was GM's public relations vice president. He apparently believed his responsibilities to be wining, dining and schmoozing a handful of top reporters while ignoring the rest of us and trying to make sure that none of us found out whatever we were trying to find.

His son, Tony, Jr. was a talented sports car racer who, along with business and driving partner (and Chevrolet engineer) Jerry Thompson, won a lot of races and championships in high-powered Corvettes in the 1960s and '70s. His nephew, Matt, is a highly respected auto journalist who worked his way up from small trade magazines to Detroit editor for Road and Track to RT's editor-in-chief, where he is doing a terrific job.

Then there is Peter De Lorenzo, Tony Sr.'s other son. Not only did he choose the opposite side (journalist vs. PR) of his father's former business, but for many years has channeled his energies into one of the most successful automotive blogs, Autoextremist, where more often than not he has been a royal pain in the ass to his father's former employer. I recently found his thoughts on the Chevy Volt most interesting, as you can read after the jump.