New Fuel MPG Standards Cut Confusion and Consumption Per Mile; Consumer Tradeoffs Required

Your 2012 - 2016 car/truck will (choose one):

A. Be smaller and lighter?
B. Have less power?
C. Cost more?
D. All (or two) of the above?

Back in January, I published a post in support of a single federal standard for emissions and fuel economy... as opposed to individual states or groups of states setting their own standards. Last week, the Obama Administration announced a proposal for a single 50-state standard that would raise the average fleet fuel economy from 27.5 to 39 mpg for cars, 23.1 to 30 mpg for trucks and 35.5 mpg overall by the year 2016. Reduced fuel consumption would also result in a reduction in CO2 / greenhouse gasses produced by these vehicles. Kudos to the President and his team for eliminating the potential confusion and waste by giving the global automakers a consistent set of rules for the US market.

What this means for consumers is that every vehicle type designed for sale during the 2012 - 2016 time period will be required to go significantly farther on a gallon of fuel, i.e., use less energy. How do you make a vehicle use less energy? The answer is in the four multiple choice questions at the beginning of this post.

Smaller and lighter - Basic physics (and everyday observations) tell us that it takes more energy to move a heavier object than a lighter object. The smaller the vehicle, the lighter the weight, the lighter the weight, the less fuel consumed.

Less power - Basic physics also tells us that more energy is needed to accelerate a vehicle quickly than what is needed to bring it up to (legal) speed moderately; i.e., Toyota Camry V6's that do 0 - 60 MPH in 6.2 seconds consume more fuel (19 city / 28 highway mpg) than 4-cylinder Camry's (21 city / 31 highway mpg) that take 8.8 seconds to reach 60. Global auto manufacturers will offer "more" less-powerful / fuel-saving powertrain alternatives to meet the new US fuel economy standards.

Cost more - Numerous mechanical, electrical and premium material technologies are available to help reduce the weight and increase the efficiency (power output per gallon) of today's vehicles. Examples of these are using light-weight (and more expensive) aluminum in place of steel in certain car body panels; turbo-charging smaller engines to increase their output while minimizing their fuel consumption; advanced electronic fuel metering and delivery systems (direct fuel injection) to boost engine efficiency; electric and hybrid-electric vehicles; diesel engines; and others. The federal government estimates that these technologies will, on average, cost an incremental $1300 per vehicle vs. today, but that consumers will recoup the added cost through fuel savings.

All / some of the above - By accepting a combination reduced size, higher cost and less power, consumers will be able to limit the extent to which they must make compromises in the vehicle attributes that they desire most.

Which trade-offs are you willing to make?
Which will your neighbors make?

The administration estimates that the higher fuel economy standards will save 1.8 billion barrels of oil and avoid emitting 900 million metric tons of CO2 over the 5-year period.

Assuming the price of gas stays the same, will we really achieve this reduction in consumption or will Americans just drive more, walk / bike less and avoid public transportation?

Toyota Prius vs. BMW M3 – Which One Wins?

Hint #1 – the competition is on a race track
Hint #2 – the competition is for best fuel economy
Hint #3 – the winner is not who you think

This comparison has a lesson for all of us

The test:
Last summer the British TV’s auto enthusiast show Top Gear performed a very interesting comparison test between the Toyota Prius and BMW M3 to see which vehicle would record the best actual fuel economy after driving 10 high-speed laps around the Top Gear 1.75 mile test track in Surrey, England. The Prius, designed for optimal fuel economy, would be the lead car and attempt to complete the 10 laps of the track as fast as it could. The BMW M3, designed for performance, would follow-behind and keep pace with the Prius.

The contenders:
2008 Toytota Prius Hybrid
1.5L 110 hp 4-cyl gas engine + electric motor
48 / 45 MPG city / highway EPA fuel economy rating

2008 BMW M3
4.0L 414hp V8 gas engine
14 / 20 MPG city highway EPA fuel economy rating

The results:
The Prius was driven flat-out, at times reaching speeds of 100 mph. The BMW M3, while going just as fast, was in no way struggling to keep pace. After 10 laps around the track, the Prius recorded an actual measured fuel economy of 17.2 miles per gallon and the BMW M3 recorded an actual measured fuel economy of 19.4 miles per gallon.

The lesson for all of us:
I’ve written before about the many steps that can be taken to reduce gasoline consumption immediately... instead of putting all of our hopes behind waiting for consumers to adopt hybrid-electric and all electric vehicles. The Top Gear test illustrates how driving habits play a major role in fuel consumption. Drive a Prius full-out and you loose all of the engineered-in fuel savings benefits, and then some. If you increase the time you incorporate moderate, fuel-saving driving habits when driving your performance car - or any car for that matter - then you will reduce your fuel consumption, immediately. No need to wait for 2011+ electric cars.

MINI Convertible Launch Ad Reminds Us That Cars Are About FUN!

With all of the negative news stories about declining global auto sales, parking lots of unsold vehicles collecting around the world, CO2 emissions, fired CEOs and potential bankruptcies, it's easy to forget why we love automobiles.

For many of us cars are about great design, performance, emotion, innovation, passion, individuality and fun!

A great example of this is MINI's ad for the launch of their new generation Cooper / Cooper S convertibles. They even show you how they made the video on MINI USA's own You Tube channel - www.youtube.com/MINI.

Check it out!
And don't try this at home!

“What Gets Measured Gets Fixed” - Measure Gallons of Gasoline Consumed in the US, Not Just the Number of Electric Vehicles (EVs) on the Drawing Board

- There are many steps we can take right now to reduce petroleum consumption, instead of just waiting for electric vehicles

- Obama Administration should make a reduction in barrels of gasoline consumed per day one of its measurable objectives

According to the US Energy Information Administration (EIA), in 2007 the US consumed 9,286,000 barrels of gasoline per day (390 million gallons/day). In the year 2000, US gasoline consumption was 8,472K barrels/day, in 1990 – 7,235K barrels/day and in 1980 – 6,579K barrels/day. The first year the EIA recorded this data was 1945 – 1,587K barrels/day. Our nation’s daily consumption of gasoline has gone up 41% since 1980, the year I first started driving (legally). (Diesel fuel oil consumption in the US was 4,196K barrels/day in 2007, but I will leave diesel out of this discussion for simplicity.)

While the electrification of the automobile is a long-term solution to reducing petroleum consumption, there are plenty of things that we as consumers can do to reduce gasoline consumption immediately. Until electric vehicle designs evolve to the point where they can offer consumers the capabilities and driving range of gasoline vehicles, and at comparable prices, EVs will not become a significant percentage of the 13 - 15 million light vehicles sold (in normal times) in the US per year.

We’re not going to be driving Chevy Volts or Teslas en masse anytime soon. Price will remain a barrier for some time. Therefore, to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and reduce the impact of the automobile on the production of greenhouse gasses, the Obama Administration should make the immediate reduction of the number of barrels of gasoline consumed per day one of its measurable objectives. Low-cost steps that the Federal Government can take to encourage consumers to reduce gasoline consumption include:

- Educate the public on our current national gasoline usage and the rationale for reducing it

- Incentivize consumers to purchase smaller vehicles

- Incentivize consumers to purchase vehicles with smaller, more fuel-efficient engines

- Set the example by replacing government and municipal fleets with smaller-engine vehicles, including two-wheelers

- Educate the public on driving and vehicle maintenance habits that reduce consumption

- Encourage automakers to continue to develop and implement commercially viable (affordable) technologies that improve fuel efficiency - gas direct-injection, turbo chargers, dual-clutch transmissions, lightweight material use throughout vehicle, improved aerodynamics, etc.

- Communicate the nation's progress toward reducing gasoline consumption

As the saying goes, “what gets measured gets fixed / managed / improved, etc.” By setting an objective to immediately reduce US daily gasoline consumption from 9,286K barrels/day, we can start to focus on implementing the simple solutions that can make a difference now… without breaking our wallets. Many of these simple solutions are being overlooked as we look ahead to electric and fuel cell vehicles. I just replaced my 4.4L V8 car with a 3.0L 6-cylinder car (albeit one with twin-turbos that help it to produce 300hp). This counts too, right?

State-by-State Fuel Economy and Emissions Standards – A Costly and Inefficient Idea

Late last year, California and twelve other states requested a waiver from the federal law that gives the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) the authority to set motor vehicle fuel economy and emissions standards nation-wide. Their rationale was that they wanted to have a greater impact within their states’ boarders on reducing oil consumption and the contribution of automobiles to global climate change. President George W. Bush rejected the 12 states’ proposal citing that the resulting “patchwork” of requirements would require additional costs for both the manufactures and the government. President Bush was right.

Non-value adedd complexity - A uniform set of standards for all states is a more efficient form of regulation. Meeting these emissions regulations requires specific vehicle design / engineering solutions affecting the vehicle’s engine, fuel system and exhaust system hardware and electronic control systems hardware and software. Multiple regulations would require multiple hardware and software configurations to meet them. Multiple hardware and software configurations require multiple service parts and procedures to fix and maintain them. Have we moved so far from being a nation that “makes things” that we cannot understand the simple logic behind this? Part of the reason that the European Union was formed was to eliminate some of the inefficiencies that were caused by varying regulations across the boarders of neighboring countries.

More bureaucracy, more cost - The complexity of multiple regulations will also require added costs from the government to monitor and ensure compliance. Multiple regulations will mean higher costs in some states and lower costs in others. If you live near the Hudson River, chances are, you buy your gasoline in New Jersey because it’s cheaper than buying it in New York. I expect that vehicle sales would follow the same pattern in cities near state borders with different emissions regulations. Also, what impact would this have on the secondary / used car market? Will a vehicle originally bought new in Iowa be saleable to an eBay used car buyer in California? Multiple regulations and regulatory bodies will offer no benefit to the most important person in the car-buying equation, the consumer.

Some would argue that the solution to this is to just go with the higher emissions and greenhouse gas standards set by the states, but this approach is also flawed. The EPA is a federal agency charged to make regulations in the best interest of the United States. They likely take a bigger picutre view towards balancing the preservation of the environment with other national priorities. State agencies, like the California Air Resources Board (CARB), are primarily focused on the interests and priorities of their respective states.

The customer is still king... $4 gas is the real "decider" - Consumers say they want cleaner more efficient vehicles, but when gas is relatively cheap, they vote with their wallets for more size and power. You cannot legislate away the laws of physics. Regardless of the energy source, larger and more powerful vehicles will always require more energy. More regulations and more regulatory bodies will not change the basic fundamentals that drive the consumer – (1) what they want and (2) what they can afford.

What will Obama do? And, other options for states - Today, President Obama ordered his new EPA chief to increase fuel economy standards in 2011 and re-examine the California proposal for separate and higher state vehicle emissions regulations. It is my hope that he will consider the total cost implications and not just what comes across well in a sound bite. In his announcement, the President stated, “It will be the policy of my administration to reverse our dependence on foreign oil.” If so, the most effective way to do this would be to increase the price of gasoline through a higher gas tax. Similarly, if states want to regulate the mix of vehicles in their state towards fuel efficient vehicles, they can base their registration fees on engine displacement or CO2 output - higher license plate fees for pick-ups, lower fees for fuel-efficient compacts. Consumer incentives and disincentives like higher fuel prices will make consumers drive less, live closer to where they work and choose one of the many (slow-selling) fuel efficient vehicles that are already on the market today. Nothing moved consumers away from large SUVs and pickups faster than the $4 / gallon gasoline of last summer. Now that gas has dipped below $2 / gallon, sales of Honda Civics and hybrids are down and personal-use truck sales are picking back up.

Forbes Magazine's Jerry Flint, who has covered the global automotive industry for decades, offers his insightful analysis of this issue in his article titled - What Detroit Needs From Washington - The auto industry has been around for over a century, but politicians still do not understand the business. - By Jerry Flint. Check it out.

President Obama's New Ride - How To Make It "More Green"

During his campaign for the Presidency, then Senator Barack Obama replaced his Chrysler 300 with a Ford Escape Hybrid SUV. I expect that both of these vehicles provided significantly better driving and ownership experiences then the old Ford Granada in which he learned to drive.

Today, the new President "gets the keys" to his new ride - the 2009 Cadillac Presidential Limousine. Previous state vehicles were heavily-modified high-security versions of commercially available Lincolns or Cadillacs. The last presidential limo was based-off of the 2006 Cadillac DTS. President Obama's new limo is a unique, purposefully-built high security vehicle that's unlike any other Cadillac. Nicknamed "The Beast", the new 2009 limo was built by General Motors using components from a variety of GM vehicles. While it looks like a large Cadillac sedan with a high roof, the underpinnings (frame and chassis) for the 2009 limo are reportedly based-off of a GM heavy-duty pickup and medium-duty truck. Its all-wheel-drive system is similar to that offered on the Cadillac Escalade SUV. The Secret Service has not released engine specifications, but some reports speculate that it is a 6.5L turbodiesel, which would be appropriate to propel the weight of this heavily-armored vehicle's 5 - 8" thick bulletproof doors. Hand-stitched leather and a 10-disc CD changer round out the options. However, given the new President's penchant for technology, I expect the CD-changer will be replaced by an iPod adaptor.

Given the need for the presidential fleet to always be in a state of readiness, I don't expect to see a conversion to full-battery power anytime soon. For security reasons, even relatively short battery charge times would be unacceptable. However, I expect that we could see future vehicles employ versions of the Two-Mode hybrid gas-electric system that was jointly developed between GM, BMW and the automaker formerly known as DaimlerChrysler. This system incorporates two electric motors in the transmission, along with a nickel-metal hydride battery pack, to assist in propelling heavier more substantial vehicles while using less fossil fuel. This technology has been successfully applied to city busses and large SUVs like the Chevrolet Tahoe, GMC Yukon and Cadillac Escalade. Automobile Magazine named GM's Two-Mode Hybrid Electric System its 2008 Technology of the Year.

New York City Fleet Helps “Drive” Switch to Electric Cars

MINI USA announced Friday that it is loaning ten of its new MINI E electric vehicles to the City of New York for one year. The City will use these vehicles to monitor road conditions around the five boroughs. Based on the MINI Cooper, the limited edition MINI E is a lithium ion battery powered all-electric vehicle with a range of 150 miles per charge. The battery can be re-charged in 2 1/2 hours. MINI's parent company, BMW AG, created the MINI E as part of a project to research alternative energy of transportation solutions for urban areas.

Government and municipal fleets are logical early adopters of alternative fuel / energy vehicles. The NYC road group will put 100 miles per day on the cars - well within the MINI E's battery range. At the end of a day's operations, the cars will be returned to a municipal garage where they can conveniently be plugged-in and charged, eliminating the need for a well-developed charging infrastructure. A common home location for these vehicles also means that maintenance and repairs can be completed in a timely and efficient manner. Fleet managers can also collect data and report any performance issues to the manufacturer.

First-hand feedback is invaluable to the OEM's product development process. During my years as a vehicle development engineer for a major manufacturer, we would commission vehicles to be used as taxi cabs in Las Vegas. These cars would often accumulate over 100,000 miles (through the desert heat and dust) in less than one year. The learnings from how these vehicles performed under these adverse conditions were immense.

Wide consumer adoption of alternative fuel vehicles will require commercially viable solutions to the issues of vehicle price, alternative fuel availability, charging infrastructure and maintenance availability. These barriers are significantly lower for business and government fleet customers. Fleet sales of alternative energy vehicles can have an immediate impact on gasoline consumption, even as the alternative energy technology is under development.