The problem is:

“Most of that technological progress has gone into compensating for weight and horsepower.”

Between 1980 and 2006, the average gas mileage of vehicles sold in the United States increased by slightly more than 15 percent. During that time, the average curb weight increased 26 percent, their horsepower rose 107 percent.  At the same time, the fuel economy of the engines actually increased by 60 percent between 1980 and 2006, Knittel shows in a new research paper, “Automobiles on Steroids,” published in the American Economic Review [$$$].  Most of those savings were used to buy more weight and horsepower.

If we would be driving cars of the same size and power that were typical in 1980, the country’s fleet of autos would have jumped from an average of about 23 mpg to roughly 37 mpg, well above the current average of around 27 mpg, Knittel says.

Currently, better fuel economy is mandated through complicated and sometimes skewed CAFE rules. Knittel thinks that compliance is easy: Maintain the rate of technological innovation experienced since 1980, and reduce the weight and horsepower of the average vehicle sold by 25 percent. Bingo, CAFE complied with.

If the country would shift back to the average weight and power common in 1980, a fleet-wide average of 52 mpg could be reached by 2020, Knittel calculates. However, Knittel does not think it will happen by itself.

The CAFE regulations will “end up reducing the cost of driving. If you force people to buy more fuel-efficient cars through CAFE standards, you actually get what’s called ‘rebound,’ and they drive more than they would have.”

Knittel’s solution?

“When it comes to climate change, leaving the market alone isn’t going to lead to the efficient outcome. The right starting point is a gas tax.”

(Hat tip to Dipl. Ing you-know-who)

Amid Volvo’s announcement of a plug-in hybrid for markets besides diesel-loving Europe came another tidbit about the lone Swedish brand’s future direction. Rather than 5, 6 or 8 cylinder engines like years past, Volvo will be downsizing, much like BMW – and using modular engines to boot, much like their Bavarian rivals.

While Volvo’s plans weren’t articulated as well as BMW’s modular engines, the 4-cylinder will not only form the core of Volvo’s lineup, but a 3-cylinder version is possible. Each cylinder will be 500 cc’s by itself, and use a variety of turbochargers to attain various power levels. Volvo is also claiming that fuel economy will be 30 percent better than their current engines without any sacrifice in performance.  Good news, considering that the XC60, which offers a punchy T6 engine that can move the XC60 and S60 sedan down the road pretty well (as much as 325 horsepower and 350 lb-ft depending on trim level), but also offers V8 fuel consumption, returning an EPA rated 19/25mpg.

Wamp wamp! That’s the sound of the sad trombone playing for the Chevrolet Volt, which missed its 2011 sales target by 2,329 units. General Motors hoped that the Volt would sell 10,000 units in 2011, but it was not to be.

Bloomberg reports that the bow tie brand sold only 7,671 Volts in 2011, but has plants to increase annual production to 60,000 units annually. 45,000 of those will be sold in the United States. The Volt had only been on sale nationwide for the final three months of 2011.

Adding insult to injury is the fact that the Nissan Leaf  had sold 8,720 units through November, compared to 6,142 Volts (according to data from Automotive News). Despite being hyped up as an electric car devoid of range anxiety, consumers evidently didn’t care, opting for the little Nissan instead.

While the Volt was helped by GM authorizing the sale of 2,300 demonstrator units in November, the Leaf, unlike the Volt, has still not been launched in all 50 states, instead remaining on sale solely in the coastal regions and the Chicago metropolitan area. It’s still to early to tell how the NHTSA investigation into the Volt’s battery-related fires has impacted sales, as our data only extends to the month of November, and the NHTSA announcement came on November 25th.

There was ample hand-wringing when Volvo announced the death of their iconic station wagon in North America. While enthusiasts mourned the death of a cult classic, Volvo also announced a plug-in hybrid version of their V60 wagon, powered by a diesel engine and a hybrid drivetrain. Naturally, this vehicle was not destined for sale in North America.

The non-available V60 plug-in constituted the ultimate slap in the face for the Volvo faithful. Here was the newest generation of Volvo wagon (as opposed to the warmed over XC70 offered recently) with an environmental bent and the Euro-cachet of a diesel engine – but where was it? As Jamie Kitman of Automobile magazine rightfully pointed out, their core buyer is “green” but refusing to import such a vehicle may not be “lunacy”, because the Swedes have something more suited for American tastes – the same hybrid goodness, packaged as a gasoline-powered crossover.

Rather than the V60 diesel-hybrid, North Americans are being treated to a plug-in hybrid based on the XC60. Set to be unveiled at the North American International Auto Show next week, the XC60 plug-in will use a 280 horsepower 4-cylinder gasoline engine and a 70 horsepower electric motor for a total output of 350 horsepower. The gasoline engine will drive the front wheels, while the electric motor will power the rear wheels. Volvo claims that the vehicle can be driven in electric mode for up to 35 miles and return up to 50 mpg. Stefan Jacoby, Volvo’s CEO, noted that the gasoline powered version will be an important car for China and Russia as well as the United States, as this likely has as much to do with the crossover body style as it does the gasoline engine.

On a personal note, my folks bought an XC60 T6 this summer, and I have spent ample time in it. While perpetually ignored in the marketplace, the XC60 is a car I’m fond of, with a powerful engine, a well-appointed cabin and good driving dynamics. At the time of purchase, I urged my parents to look at the XC70 T6, but it cost a few thousand dollars more and offered little appreciable difference to them. If a couple of upper-middle class car enthusiasts saw little value in opting for a wagon over a crossover, then what chance would a station wagon have with more conventional buyers, who are likely to be even more image-conscious and resistant to the idea of a wagon? On the other hand, my parents have a 5.4 mile commute through a downtown core to their office, and something like this would be right up their alley. Hopefully pricing won’t be so exorbitant that it cancels out any economic benefit for buying the XC60 plug-in.

It’s been a few years since we last detected much of a pulse from Honda [Ed: in fact, Paul Niedermeyer declared Hyundai the "new Honda" in terms of engine technology leadership way back in 2009]. But just when we were wondering if all hope was lost, and that it might be time to pull the plug…signs of life. In Japan, for the Tokyo auto show, Honda has unveiled ambitious new powertrain plans [via Automotive News [sub]].

The highlights:

A new “Earth Dreams” family of four-cylinder engines, all with DOHC and (after just about everyone else) direct injection [Ed: another shift from Honda's 2009 position, which was that direct injection wasn't worth the investment compared to hybrids]. With the shift to DOHC, Honda seems to have accepted the conventional wisdom that using a complex valvetrain to operate four valves per cylinder with a single cam entails too many compromises. One strong possibility with DOHC: more complex and nuanced variable intake AND exhaust valve timing.

The 2.4-liter four or the next Accord will kick out 181 horsepower, while the Civic’s 1.8 will make 148 and the Fit’s 1.5, for the largest and most needed bump, 127. All more competitive, but nothing earth-shattering. And the final production numbers will likely be a little higher. It’s possible that fuel economy was a higher priority, with an increase here of at least ten percent.

A new 3.5-liter V6 remains SOHC, but gains 30 horsepower, to 310.

A 1.6-liter diesel that’s as powerful as the current 2.2, but with much better fuel economy. I wouldn’t count on this one coming to North America.

For us: four- and six-cylinder “two-mode” hybrids. “Two-mode” in this case likely refers to the engines’ employment of VTEC to switch between the Atkinson and traditional Otto cycles, not a complicated transmission like that employed by GM in its large SUVs. At least the V6 hybrid will pair with a seven-speed dual clutch automated manual. In case that isn’t enough novelty for one powertrain, in a potential all-wheel-drive variant an electric motor will shunt power to the outside wheel in turns, curbing understeer. Combining a hybrid engine that can switch between two cycles with a dual-clutch transmission and a new approach to SH-AWD? This is the sort of out-of-the-box combo we used to be able to expect from Honda, but which we haven’t seen in a while. (No, the Acura ZDX doesn’t count.)

And the transmissions for the new conventional four-cylinders? Apparently Honda has decided to triple down on CVTs, developing three of them. Given Honda’s history with new transmissions, and the history of CVTs in general, these will warrant a close watch in TrueDelta’s Car Reliability Survey. Performance-oriented engines will continue to be paired with manuals and conventional automatics.

Toyota’s Chief Engineer Satoshi Ogiso figures that efficiency improvements of traditional gasoline engines may soon hit a wall. He gives the gasoline engine an improvement potential of “maybe 10 to 20 percent.” Today, we have proof that it is a fight of diminishing returns. Mazda is now at a point where it saves up to 10 percent of gas by idling the alternator. How is that done?

Mazda’s developed a regenerative braking system that uses a capacitor. Compared to batteries, a capacitor can be charged and discharged rapidly. Also, it does not wear out like a battery. Mazda stores the regenerated energy in the capacitor. It does not use it to power the car. That would need a hybrid system Mazda does not have. Also, even the new Electric Double Layer Capacitor (EDLC) Mazda uses would not get you far. Instead, Mazda uses the electricity to power the climate control, the audio system and other gizmos in the car that want electric power. As we know, the gizmos proliferate with abandon. And why does that save gas?

The electric power generated by the car’s alternator does not come free. The alternator demands power from the engine. As a rule of thumb, 5 hp are usually used, however, this changes with the amperage and type of the alternator.

Mazda calls its system “i-ELOOP.” It comes from “Intelligent Energy Loop.

The system uses a new 12-25V variable voltage alternator, a low-resistance electric double layer capacitor and a DC/DC converter. ‘i-ELOOP’ starts to recover kinetic energy the moment the driver lifts off the accelerator pedal and the vehicle begins to decelerate. The variable voltage alternator generates electricity at up to 25V for maximum efficiency before sending it to the Electric Double Layer Capacitor (EDLC) for storage. The capacitor can be fully charged in seconds. The DC/DC converter steps down the electricity from 25V to 12V before it is distributed directly to the vehicle’s electrical components. The system also charges the vehicle battery as necessary. Says Mazda:

“As a result, in ‘stop-and-go’ driving conditions, fuel economy improves by approximately 10 percent.”

The system will begin to appear in Mazda vehicles in 2012.

Mazda does not have hybrid technology and instead is betting on optimizing the ICE with Mazda’s Skyactiv Technology and other fuel saving tricks. As we see, the engineers have to get very creative to save a few more drops.

Everyone knows TTAC hearts data, so this little NPR/Edmunds collaboration, which maps hybrid and EV sales by locality, is right up our HOV lane.

Last Monday, we regaled you out with stories of Toyota coming to grips with the “new peak oil,” and other topics related to the growing gap (or lack thereof?) between global production and consumption oil. This week I’m feeling a little less apocalyptic, and little bit more indulgent. And really, why not celebrate those precious hydrocarbons while they’re still cheap and plentiful? This Mercedes SLS AMG Black Series may burn ‘em by the bushel, but it sure sounds good doing it. And though cars like the forthcoming 650 HP Shelby Mustang GT500 prove that performance is still alive in the 21st Century, high-revving, large-displacement, naturally-aspirated V8s like the AMG Black’s are going to be facing special challenges under future emissions standards. Which makes its gargling, chortling music all the sweeter to my ears…

Volkswagen had painted a bulls-eye on Toyota and wanted to beat the Japanese by 2018. At least in terms of production numbers, Volkswagen will have Toyota beat this year. Instead, VW has to contend with GM.

The long-term new energy strategy of Volkswagen and Toyota on the other hand could have been devised in a joint planning session. Volkswagen believes that near-term, the plug-in-hybrid has a great future, whereas Volkswagen’s CEO Martin Winterkorn won’t live long enough to witness the boom of the pure electric car.

The German newspaper Handelsblatt has an interview today with Winterkorn. It echoes in large parts the interview which I had ten days ago with Toyota’s Chief Engineer Satoshi Ogiso. The two sound amazingly similar: Bullish on plug-in hybrids. Cautious on EVs.

Winterkorn on EVs:

“I cannot imagine that the whole fleet will run on pure electric power in the foreseeable future. A current technology lithium-ion battery weighs 250 kilograms, and in the best case, it will take you 150 kilometers down the road. Maybe this can be optimized a little, but I expect significant progress only from the next generation of batteries. From our current perspective, this could be based on lithium-sulfur. This battery could be good for 300 kilometers.

A decisive technology leap could be lithium-oxygen batteries. This is a topic that still needs a lot of research. With this technology, a car could have a pure electric range of 450 to 600 km. That would be the breakthrough.

But I don’t expect it before 2030. It won’t happen in my life – at least not in my life as CEO of Volkswagen.”

Winterkorn on plug-in-hybrids:

„The bridge to the future will be the plug-in-hybrids. You can charge their battery from a wall socket. You can drive 50 or 6o kilometers on electric power, then, an efficient internal combustion engine powers the car. Right now a gasoline engine, at some point in time a diesel.

That way, the battery can be down to two thirds of both the weight and the price of a pure EV. Don’t forget, the battery of a pure EV alone costs €8,000 to €10,000. Together with Bosch, we want to reduce the price of the battery to € 5.000, but that is still a lot of money. A battery for plug-in-hybrids runs us only €3,000 today.”

Interesting: Winterkorn didn’t mention hydrogen at all. Volkswagen used to be gung-ho on hydrogen.

Between the tsunamis, floods, and poorly-received Civic, Honda has had  a rough 2011. But the brand is hoping to put all that behind it by emphasizing its environmentally-friendly product portfolio, announcing a Fit EV which will be made available in California, Oregon and six east coast markets next summer. Unlike Nissan, however, Honda isn’t actually selling the electric commuter cars, but is offering them at a $399/month lease rate. And no wonder: Honda only expects 1,000 of these Fit EVs to find homes over the next three years, probably due at least in part to its north-of-$36k price point. Which may be why the natural gas-powered Civic GX just won the Green Car Of The Year award for Honda. It may not be as radical or purely “green” as a pure EV, but it can sell in volume… in fact, Wards Auto [sub] just reported that Honda is bumping production of the CNG Civic in order to catch up with demand. At a time when Honda is desperate for some good news (and nobody is losing their mind over the new CR-V), a little publicity for one of Honda’s most unique and under-marketed vehicles probably feels like manna from heaven…

Over the last few days we’ve been discussing the implications of the growing gap between global oil demand and production, looking at the responses of a global automaker, a radical startup and the oil industry itself. And make no mistake, it’s an uncertain future out there… unless you’re selling cars in the US. In that case, your future just arrived, planned all the way through 2025. That is, if you think this proposed rule will survive four presidential elections and one industry-government “mid-term review.” Want to familiarize yourself with this pre-planned fuel economy future? All 893 pages await your perusal, in PDF format here. Or, hit the jump for a few broad strokes.

So, what does this mean for specific classes of cars? According to an EPA factsheet (PDF here), this is how cars in the year 2025 will have to perform:How about trucks?

 Now that may seems scary, but you have to remember that these numbers are not comparable to the EPA’s “window sticker” numbers. For inexplicable reasons, probably having to do with the political benefits to both industry and politicians of making the number seem higher than it is, NHTSA’s CAFE fuel economy uses a different test than the EPA. Edmunds Autoobservercovered this issue well a few years back, but the upshot is that a 2025 full-size pickup will be required to get a window sticker of around 25 MPG combined, not 33 MPG. Still tough, but considering that full-sizers are getting over 20 MPG on the freeway already, this does not seem like a hill that can’t be climbed in a decade or so. Especially when you can slap a hybrid drivetrain in there and get a 20 grams of CO2 per mile credit.

Of course these standards will cost consumers. The EPA estimates that the proposed rule will add some $2,000 to the price of each vehicle on average, but insists

Those consumers who drive their MY 2025 vehicle for its entire lifetime will save, on average, $5200 to $66003 (7 and 3 percent discount rates, respectively) in fuel savings, for a net lifetime savings of $3000 to 44004 — assuming gasoline prices remain at essentially current levels.  For those consumers who purchase their new MY 2025 vehicle with cash, the discounted fuel savings will offset the higher vehicle cost in less than 4 years, and fuel savings will continue for as long as the consumer owns the vehicle.

Of course if gas prices aren’t kind enough to “remain at essentially current levels,” those fuel savings could be wiped out… but then, if gas prices rise too precipitously, this entire rule could become moot. The future is notoriously resistant to our mortal plans…

The big news around here yesterday came from Bertel’s interview with Toyota’s Chief Engineer, in which it became clear that Toyota takes the developing world’s growing demand for oil very seriously. With global demand already outstripping supply, the giant automaker’s embrace of a petroleum-constrained business model seems to make it clear that gas prices will play a significant role in the future. But markets are, by their natures, both difficult to predict, and shaped by predictions. And Edmunds CEO Jeremy Anwyl reckons that, although gas prices are high and could well go up in the short term, fears of a runaway gap between supply and demand may not materialize over the longer term. He writes:

Here’s the twist: As I said, the consensus belief (or story) on future oil prices is that they will be higher. And short term, this may be the case if and/or when the global economy recovers and/or demand grows in emerging markets.

But there is a longer-term story as well. This story suggests that peak oil may be nigh and the future holds shortages and sharply higher prices. Buying into this story, companies, acting individually, will see profit in expanding exploration, developing sophisticated new extraction technologies, etc.

The aggregate result of all these individual activities is that the future supply of oil will improve and prices will actually drop.

In fact, we have seen this paradox play out before. Through the Seventies, we were first shocked by rapid price increases and then conditioned to believe they would continue. And, of course, oil prices collapsed in the Eighties.

Anwyl butresses his argument by pointing to an NYT story on exploration of promising new reserves of hydrocarbons, arguing that new finds could stave off the kind of undersupply that has Toyota and others so worried.

From the high Arctic waters north of Norway to a shale field in Argentine Patagonia, from the oil sands of western Canada to deepwater oil prospects off the shores of Angola, giant new oil and gas fields are being mined, steamed and drilled with new technologies. Some of the reserves have been known to exist for decades but were inaccessible either economically or technologically.

Put together, these fuels should bring hundreds of billions of barrels of recoverable reserves to market in coming decades and shift geopolitical and economic calculations around the world. The new drilling boom is expected to diversify global sources away from the Middle East, just as the growth in consumption of fuels shifts from the United States and Europe to China, India and the rest of the developing world.

“Use whatever hackneyed phrase you want, like tectonic shift or game-changer,” said Edward L. Morse, global head of commodity research at Citigroup. “These sources will dramatically change the energy supply outlook, and there is little debate about that.”

The major complaint with these new “unconventional” hydrocarbon sources is that they are more carbon intensive than oil, an argument that some will find more convincing or troubling than others. But the reliance on this critique shows that unconventional hydrocarbon sources hold the potential to undermine the major impetus for the “new peak oil,” which is based solely on the economics of growing emerging-market demand outstripping global capacity increases. If these hydrocarbons prove economically viable at a price point that holds off a challenge from battery technology, we could well see the industry slow-rolling parts of its high-efficiency toolbox. After all, the last few years have proven that American consumers respond to sharp upward changes in oil prices more than the actual price. If these new reserves can keep oil closer to $100/barrel than $200/barrel, we’ll see the market evolve slowly, with efficiency improvements driven more by CAFE regulation than market demand.

On the other hand, it’s not clear how much oil prices constrain development in the fastest-growing economies around the world. If gas prices soften on the strength of these new discoveries, there’s little reason to believe that these young but strong economies won’t turn up the wick on growth, eating up new gains in production. Furthermore, “game changing” automotive technology is worth developing simply because energy markets still rely on a semblance of order in chaotic parts of the world. With chaos always one suicide bomb away and global pressure on oil supply mounting, the short-term possibilities of a dramatic spike in gas prices makes rapidly-deployable, high-efficiency technology (for example, Nissan’s unmatched investment in global Leaf EV capacity, or Toyota’s ability to hybridize most of its vehicles) a worthwhile investment policy. Even if Nissan gets a few years of panic-fueled bumper EV sales before new “unconventional” reserves (generally from friendlier, more stable regions) come online, it will have made a huge leap over unprepared competitors. And after such an event, the EV market will not go away (as the hybrid market has not completely gone away since the Summer of 2008).

Of course nobody has a crystal ball, and if anyone knew for sure what was going to happen with oil prices over the short, medium and long terms, they wouldn’t tell anyone (or, more likely, they wouldn’t be believed by anyone). But there definitely seems to be more angst about energy prices among auto industry types than we’ve seen in several years. And with billion of dollars riding on every market fluctuation, that’s the only thing about this discussion that isn’t at least a little surprising.

With traditional compact pickups growing into the new “midsized” segment, Scion has long been tipped as a likely candidate to lead the US market back towards smaller, car-based pickup trucks. And, Scion’s VP Jack Hollis tells TTAC’s sister site Autoguide that such a vehicle, though not a certainty, could be possible.

Versus other vehicles, I can’t say it’s priority one. I’m very interested in it. A lot of prospective owners are interested in it and every meeting I have in Japan, I’m asking, what else can we do.

Hollis reveals that he has, in the past, pushed for an imported Daihatsu pickup for Scion’s US lineup, but that regulatory issues killed the business case. But now he’s suggesting that Scion and Daihatsu might jointly develop a small, fuel-efficient pickup… just as Subaru and Toyota/Scion developed the FT-86 together. If that happens, I’d expect something larger than Daihatsu’s typical kei-style trucks, for reasons hinted at in the video above. And to help you understand the legacy that a Daihatsu-Scion pickup might draw upon, here are a few random images of Daihatsu “trucks” (or possible inspirations) through the ages.

Think hybrid and electric cars are expensive? Wait until automakers start selling hydrogen fuel cell cars. Toyota tells Automotive News [sub] that it’s targeting global sales of a “few thousand” fuel cell vehicles by 2015. But because the technology will be rolled out due to emissions standards rather than widespread market demand, expect the price for the hydrogen Toyotas to be breathtakingly high. Says Toyota Europe’s Vice President for Product Planning & Marketing Alain Uyttenhoven

We could expect a fuel cell vehicle to retail at about 100,000 euros in Europe.

Phew! All of a sudden those EVs aren’t looking so overpriced, are they? Which might be why Uyttenhoven adds

We see pure battery-powered vehicles to be just a solution for small trips in the city, while a plug-in gasoline-electric hybrid is the best solution both for weekday urban commuting and weekend trips. Our research shows that more than 80 percent of urban daily trips are less than the 20km.

The last time Jaguar built an entry-level car based on front-drive architecture, it built the X-Type, a car that was nearly universally panned as “not quite a real Jaguar.” At thee time though, Ford was desperate to make a little money on its Premier Auto Group, and bringing Jaguar downmarket was the only way to do that relatively cheaply. And, all things considered, it could have been a lot worse: at least Ford was working from a good basis in the form of the Mondeo (Contour), which at the time was considered one of the better driving mass-market sedans. But if anything, the fact that the Jaguar brand was being used as Ford’s corporate pawn was a big part of why the X-Type flopped (the company’s overly-earnest insistence that the X-Type was in fact a ‘proper Jag” (see above) didn’t help either). And flop it did: sales topped out at 33k units in the US, and enjoyed only four years of rapidly-declining five-digit sales. While reviewers like Robert Farago used terms like “laughable distraction” to describe the baby Jag.

But those who don’t learn from history are destined to repeat it. Now owned by India’s Tata Motors, Jaguar is once again aiming at the entry-luxury market, and it’s planning… a front-drive sedan.

Of course, times have changed a bit since the go-go 90s, when Jag last dove into the volume market. Mercedes has a a front-drive CLS coming, Buick’s Verano is warming up the segment, and a new Audi A3 will continue to build interest in entry-compact luxury sedans. Besides, it’s not that Jaguar wants to build another X-Type… but American CAFE standards demand that Jag return to the scene of its greatest mis-step in recent history. According to Autocar

Despite the reputation of the unloved X-Type, Jaguar’s decision to build a range of front-drive cars is being partly forced on the company by the stringent new CAFE fuel economy regulations due in the US from 2016.

According to the CAFE rules, by the time the 2016 model year arrives, Jaguar needs to be selling significant numbers of petrol-engined vehicles capable of more than 50mpg, as a result of the US market’s lack of interest in diesel. These fuel economy demands will then become progressively more stringent by 2025.

Anyway, on to the car itself.

the new model is thought to be about 4.5 metres long and will be powered by Jaguar Land Rover’s all-new three-cylinder, 1.5-litre engine and four-cylinder, 1.8 and 2.0-litre turbocharged petrol and diesels. Sophisticated new-generation eight and nine-speed automatic gearboxes are also thought to be on the menu.

Of course there’s far too little information out now to know how this car will turn out, or how it will impact the Jaguar brand (for example, it’s not clear if this car will be based on the Evoque’s platform, or a new “mixed-materials” architecture). But there’s no lack of awareness among the Jag boys about the fact that they’re treading on dangerous territory. Jag’s global brand director Adrian Hallmark admits

We’ve got to be careful, and not be too British and think that just because we didn’t hit the bull’s-eye first time [with the X-type], we can’t hit it a second time

Of all the Japanese automakers, none are as far behind on hybrid technology as Nissan. For some time there was a sense that Nissan’s (relatively) huge investment in electric vehicle production would represent a “leapfrogging” of hybrid technology, but now the firm is using the common industry response to questions about future technology: a suite of options, rather than one single technology, will meet tomorrow’s low-energy transportation needs. As a result, Nissan’s been playing catchup, as it admits in a recent press release [PDF]

“We must have a tougher job than any other hybrid team in the industry,” says Mitsunobu Fukuda, a senior powertrain engineer at NATC. “Because our CEO, Carlos Ghosn, used to be known as skeptical about the value proposition of hybrids we had to make a really compelling case that we could deliver value to customers to get him to validate a hybrid program.

In 2004, as a stopgap measure, Nissan licensed hybrid technology from Toyota for use in certain markets.

“It was a bit of a blow to our pride, but that was the right thing to do under the circumstances,” Fukuda says.“Instead of rushing out a ‘copy-cat’ hybrid we wanted to take the time to develop our own hybrid, one that is clearly different – and better. I think we’ve managed to do that.”

What makes Nissan’s forthcoming hybrid system so different? For one thing, it uses Nissan’s “one motor, two clutch” system (currently found only on the Infiniti M Hybrid), which enables a compact design. For another, it’s supercharged.

Nissan’s first in-house hybrid, the Infiniti M, highlights the firm’s approach to hybrids, with its simple two-clutch system that is fitted to the omnipresent continuously variable transmission. But having validated the rear-drive luxury version (see video above), Nissan is taking that design to the transverse, front-drive package. And because the “one motor, two clutch” design takes up the same amount of space as a traditional drivetrain (according to Nissan), this new hybrid system should be able to fit into many of Nissan’s mass-market products.

Supercharging has not played much of a role thus far in the industry-wide move towards downsized, forced-induction engines, playing its best-known role as half of VW’s “Twincharger” technology (which combinde both super- and turbocharging). But Nissan is already ahead of the curve, with its new Micra DIG-S, which combines a 1.2 liter, three-pot engine with a supercharger for its first sub-100 g CO2/km model. The key to supercharged efficiency? As Eaton points out, “downspeeding” can be as important as “downsizing.” Unlike turbos, superchargers don’t need high revs to build boost, so it can boost low-end torque more efficiently (which is where small engines most need the help). Combine that characteristic with a CVT, which can keep the engine operating at a near-maximum level of efficiency, and the benefits of a supercharging become more clear.

Of course, we still have a lot to learn about Nissans new supercharged hybrid. We do know that it is based around a 2.5 liter supercharged unit that Nissan says will spit out the same power as its 3.5 liter V6. This should help Nissan downsize its vehicle underpinnings as Hyundai has done, further benefitting fuel economy. Otherwise, we’ll have to wait until a 2013 debut before we know too much more about this new drivetrain. But one thing is certain: we’re going to have to get used to the idea of supercharging as a green technology, as well as a quick, bolt-on method of squeezing more power out of an engine.

The president of the International Association of Vehicle Manufacturers OICA says that U.S. auto makers risk being left behind. In an interview with Wardsauto, OICA-head Patrick Blain warned that European and Asian car companies are setting the pace while working together with their governments to reduce emissions and rising fuel costs.

OICA is the world’s umbrella organization of all auto manufacturer associations. OICA also represents the global auto industry at the United Nations. As OICA president, Blain is the auto industry’s ambassador to the UN.

In the interview with Wardsauto, Blain voiced his displeasure that U.S. auto makers who resist the adoption of U.N.-based international vehicle regulations, especially regarding emissions reduction.

Blain sees the July CAFE agreement as a step in the right direction, but only as the beginning of a tour along a rocky road:

“At last, they are entering into the natural discussion. Fighting like hell against technical regulations that make some sense to save the planet is a mistake. I think they have been fighting for too long, and they have been paying the price.”

Consumers are increasingly aware of emissions and fuel prices. According to Blair, American manufacturers are not ready to supply cars that meet those needs, while their Japanese and European competitors are.

Blair thinks the time is right for a truly global adoption of international standards, but he doubts that it will happen anytime soon.

 “Twenty years ago, you had mature markets fighting with new markets to accept the same standards because that was easier for them, with new markets fighting to protect themselves. Now, it is more equilibrated. The world is now becoming truly global, so there is a common interest to have common standards.”

While the rest of the world either officially or for all practical matters adopts the UNECE standards, the U.S., and by extension Canada, becomes insular. Exports from the U.S. would become much easier if the U.S. automakers would abandon their resistance to global standards.

Patrick Blain was elected president of OICA in February 2011. Blain is president of the French Automobile Manufacturers’ Association CCFA. Blain spent most of his career at Renault (from 1977), where he held various managing positions. Blain replaced Dave McCurdy who had headed OICA in his capacity as president of the U.S. Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers.

What’s the most powerful number in automotive marketing? No, not zero, as in “zero down, zero percent interest”… the answer we’re looking for is 40, as in “40 MPG hwy.” With the compact segment heating up, 40 MPG on the highway is very nearly a price of entry… if your base model doesn’t achieve the magic number, you’d better have a special edition that does. But even as “40 MPG” becomes more and more important as an industry benchmark, it inevitably raises a perennial question: do EPA numbers mean anything in the real world? Hyping the highest possible number rather than a “combined” figure is a classic marketing move, but one that risks exposing the EPA highway number as a meaningless metric. And if nobody actually gets the rated efficiency, it’s only a matter of time before the market begins to demand more accurate reporting.

Reporting from the launch of the latest 40 MPG contender, the Mazda3, the DetN’s John McCormick notes

At the Mazda3 launch in Los Angeles, the company conducted informal but revealing real-world mileage observations on its own cars and five leading rivals.

As driven by the media over a mixed bag of city, highway and even mountain driving conditions, the following overall mpg results were obtained: Civic, 34.5; Mazda3, 33.7; Focus, 32.1; Corolla, 30.7; Elantra, 29.9; and Cruze, 29.8. While hardly scientific, these numbers do underscore the fact the 40 mpg figure is an illusion.

Is the only way to get 40 MPG highway in a diesel or hybrid? Or have any of you, TTAC’s Best and Brightest, recorded 40 MPG in one of the new generation of gas-powered compacts or subcompacts? How gingerly do you have to drive to match EPA highway numbers? Are some cars closer than others? Is it time to pressure marketers to switch to a combined MPG number, or will that be just as misrepresentative?

A one-year ‘time out’ is necessary as EPA and (California) are setting national fuel economy standards without explicit authorization by Congress, under laws not designed to regulate fuel economy

According to the DetN, “the proposal would let the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration go forward with setting fuel economy requirements, but under the law it could only set new requirements through 2021.” And unlike past battles over CAFE, opposition this time around does not appear to be coming from the OEMs, but from NADA, the new car dealer lobby group. The only OEM to not sign onto proposed 2017-2025 standards is Volkswagen, which is reportedly in talks with regulators over the proposal.

Meanwhile, environmental groups lashed back at NADA, with a number of groups sending a letter to the lobbying group arguing that

These standards are supported by major automakers, the United Auto Workers, California and other clean car states, and numerous consumer, environmental, business and national security organizations. By continuing to oppose these standards, NADA is trying to sell Congress, dealers and the American people a lemon

The response from dealers?

Dealers face the customer every day and fully understand what will happen if vehicle prices rise $3,000 to $10,000. None of the organizations that sent this letter, DOT (Department of Transportation) or EPA, fully understand the cost of these fuel economy increases and the impact that it will have on auto sales.

The revived debate comes just days after Edmunds CEO Jeremy Anwyl argued that proposed regulations failed to take consumer preference into account. With Rep Darryl Issa attacking CAFE and GHG regulation on all fronts, and with plenty to criticize in the proposed standards, expect this debate to rage on.

As the automaker that’s least-prepared for upcoming increases in federal fuel economy standards, it was more than a little surprising to find that Fiat’s five year plan for Chrysler did not involve any significant plans for hybrid drivetrain development. But more recently, CEO Sergio Marchionne has said a hybrid Chrysler 300 would be offered in 2013, and the firm hooked up with the feds to work on a hydraulic hybrid drivetrain. And though new CAFE regulations offer generous credits for hybrid pickups, a policy choice that rescues Chrysler’s investment in “Two Mode” hybrid technology, more will have to be done. For, in the words of Marchionne [via Automotive News [sub]],

I have no other way of getting to 2025 numbers than by going to hybrids

But Chrysler won’t rely fully on hybrids in order to make the significant fuel economy improvements it needs. In fact, it will be relying as much on diesels and compressed natural gas (CNG) drivetrains as anything else.

AN [sub] reports

Marchionne said Chrysler’s hybrids would be in addition to a broad offering of diesel-powered vehicles in the United States.

He said Chrysler will begin offering a diesel-powered Jeep Grand Cherokee in 2013, and thereafter most Chrysler Group large vehicles will offer a diesel in the United States.

Which is an interesting revelation. First of all, it calls into question Bob Lutz’s analysis of the difficulties of bringing diesels in line with US emissions standards. Lutz argues that the benefits don’t outweigh the costs and compromises, but clearly Marchionne disagrees. And yet he clearly realizes that there are easier feats: Chrysler’s five year plan called for a stop-start, diesel Wrangler in 2010… and yet that still hasn’t materialized. Jeep CEO Michael Manley noted back in early 2010 that

We have no plans at the moment for diesel Jeeps in North America

Clearly that’s no longer the case… which means Chrysler’s product plans are relatively fluid. And if diesel were a cure-all, we’d be seeing them already. It seems that Chrysler’s approach to the new CAFE standards are based more in desperation than any clear strategy. That impression is compounded by Chrysler’s talk of CNG drivetrains. Though the technology holds great promise for energy independence, and Fiat is Europe’s leader in CNG technology, Marchionne’s comments on the prospect of US-market CNG offerings are fairly equivocal:

The likelihood of that happening is uncertain, but I’m still hopeful that at least a sizable portion of the U.S. market will develop CNG capability. And we are ready

In short, Chrysler has no clear plan to become competitive in fuel economy, which I happen to believe is as important for ongoing commercial success as it is for meeting US CAFE standards. Chrysler may beat back some of its over-reliance on full-sized RWD cars and large pickups and SUVS by bringing more Fiat-based vehicles to market, but the projected impact of those models seems to be on the decline. Subcompact B-segment cars planned for Dodge and Chrysler have been canceled, as has a compact Chrysler, and the firm will be stuck with its not-wildly-efficient midsizers until 2014. Moreover, Chrysler is going to have to rebuild a reputation for smaller, more fuel-efficient vehicles at time when its domestic competition will be solidifying their new reps for quality small cars on the strength of products that are already on the marketplace (think Fiesta and Focus, Cruze and Sonic… to say nothing of Hyundai’s emerging dominance in this area).

In short, Chrysler is living proof that the auto bailout will not produce the promised “new generation of green cars.” And its emerging plan gives no reason to expect that to change anytime soon.

It’s a phenomenon with some precedent: import manufacturers will get nowhere with a certain bodystyle or drivetrain until one of the US domestic brands jumps on the bandwagon and popularizes it. And Jeff Breneman, executive director of the U.S. Coalition for Advanced Diesel Cars, is hoping the same dynamic plays out in the world of diesel power when Chevy brings its Cruze Diesel to the US. He tells WardsAuto

The fact that Chevy will offer a diesel Cruze in 2013 is huge. The gas-powered Cruze will get 40 mpg (5.9 L/100 km), so the diesel is expected to get 50 mpg-plus (4.7 L/100 km), and that will make it a game-changer.

Ford, Toyota or Honda haven’t got a diesel for the U.S. yet, but get ready for 2013-2014. That’s when we’re going to see a lot more diesels.

And, as the diesel booster-in-chief, it’s not surprising that Breneman would come to that conclusion. But what are folks inside GM saying about the Cruze diesel? In a recent interview with TTAC, senior advisor Bob Lutz suggested that we shouldn’t expect the Cruze diesel to conquer America or “change the game” all that much.

Our conversation had turned to emissions regulation, and Lutz had just mentioned that Europeans “cheerfully” pay the equivalent of nearly $40k for a Cruze LTZ with a diesel engine. Since he brought up the Cruze diesel, I asked if he had any insight into the decision to bring it to the US. He answered.

Yeah, it’s almost impossible. We’ll do some because we’ve got  them in Europe anyway, and we’ll make them compliant and GM will sell a few just to show that we’re part of the game. But I don’t think anyone sees much of a future for diesels in the states because our emissions regulations are six times tougher than Euro 5, and multiple times tougher than Euro 6, which nobody even knows how to do yet. The companies that are selling diesels in the United States, last time I checked which was over a year ago, are all operating on EPA deviations. So nobody meets even current diesel emissions standards. The EPA renews the deviations on an annual basis, but they’re not  supposed to renew for more than three years.

It’s just so tough. You need the urea tank and everything, and in order to do the post-combustion NoX reduction in the catalyst, you have to deviate fuel to the catalyst because every two minutes a burn takes place to fry all the oxides of nitrogen and particulates. Well, that reduces the diesel advantage. So now you’re talking $2,500 of hardware and a big urea tank, and instead of a 30% gain in fuel economy, you’re looking more like 18% or 20% and you’re using a fuel that costs 18-20% more per gallon than gasoline. You tell me how this makes sense.

I mean, it’s cool. Owners of Volkswagon diesels love to go around saying [affects a voice dripping with self-satisfaction] “I have a turbodiesel,” and everyone says “wow.” But Ford canceled their passenger car diesel program, they canceled their midsized SUV diesel program, we canceled ours, we canceled passenger car diesels for the US. We were at one point talking to Honda to see if we could collaborate jointly on, say, a two-liter diesel for passenger cars, and we both came to the conclusion that it wasn’t worth the trip. They were hopeful (and frankly so were we) that with all they know about engine and emissions that they would be able to somehow conquer this emissions conundrum… they gave up. So all the major producers gave up on diesels for the US.

Now, I don’t understand US and EU emissions regulations well enough to fact-check some of Lutz’s technical claims, but his deep pessimism can best be captured by his modest ambitions for the Cruze diesel. Lutz rarely misses an opportunity to praise a GM product, so his “we’ll sell a few just to show that we’re part of the game” line seems quite revealing. Unless things change fundamentally between now and its launch, I wouldn’t expect the Cruze diesel to blow the lid off the diesel market in the US.

The Chevy Volt’s best news in ages broke yesterday when GreenCarReports, er, reported that the Fisker Karma had received EPA approval at 32 miles of EV range, and 20 MPG (combined) thereafter. Moreover, the MPGE (the “e” is for “equivalent”) rating of 52 on electric power is nearly half the Volt’s 94 MPGE rating, suggesting that the Karma is not the most efficient car even in EV mode. And, at nearly 5,600 lbs (per evo.co.uk), you don’t have to look far to find out why. But if you ask Fisker, the problem isn’t the car… the problem is those darn EPA numbers, which you should probably just ignore anyway. After all, nobody drives less efficiently than their car’s EPA numbers, right?

Says CEO Heinrik Fisker

We firmly believe that most owners will get up to 50 miles of driving range on a single charge and will use our electric-only mode most of the time they drive the car

Unless they keep the car in Sport Mode (which boosts acceleration by 25%, taking 0-60 times from 7.9 to 5.9 seconds), thereby making it “sufficiently potent to avoid damnation as a slug” (per C&D’s Google-topping review). Which, given the “about a hundred grand” price tag, seems like a reasonable expectation. But even if the Karma weren’t fast or fun, it might have a chance by making green cars sexy… but this doesn’t seem like much of a “green car.” Nor will it, when you’re showing off ala Ashton Kutcher and your range extending engine roars to life, mid-eco-boast.

And in the meantime, Fisker has been delivering vehicles to at least one celebrity client before EPA confirmation even arrived… which is an interesting strategy. Fisker also raffled off the first UK Karma, despite having not yet passed emissions in Europe (and possibly having a problem with start-up emissions, per autoblog.nl) But again, Fisker is running on hot, green air rather than facts and test results, simply claiming the Karma

is the only luxury sedan in the world that meets future fuel consumption and emission requirements, making it suitable for any international city.

Sorry, but 52 MPGE for 32 miles and 20 MPG thereafter is the ultimate in future-proof technology… especially when the (arguably overpriced itself) Chevy Volt does better at less than half the price. Might the Department of Energy be rethinking its $528.7m loan to Fisker right about now?

In an era of increasingly-globalized automobiles, the “market-to-market adjustments” which modify a global vehicle to “local tastes” are becoming an interesting source of insight into a company’s perspective. And  Chevrolet Europe boss Wayne Brannon revealed one of the more significant adjustments in recent memory (because nobody reads the press releases), when he told Automotive News [sub]‘s Dave Guilford

I just switch it into extended range mode, and I drive on fuel until I get there. When I drive in the little villages and towns, I drive in electric mode.

The reason it was important here is we have cities — like London — where you don’t have to pay a congestion charge if you’re running purely on battery. You save the battery for when you need it.

Gosh, that’s an interesting idea. It would certainly help clear up some of the confusion in the marketplace about why the Chevy Volt is the way it is. Imagine the tagline: “Gas or electric? You decide.” So, how about it, GM? Will that feature come to the US?

According to GM’s Volt spokesman Rob Peterson,

There are no plans to add this feature in the U.S., as regulations require the vehicle to operate in its most fuel-efficient/ lowest emission mode first.

But as Guilford points out, Fisker’s Karma can switch between all-EV and range-extended modes (more on the Karma’s efficiency shortly)… and the EPA can’t think of any reason why GM couldn’t include this mode. The problem, it seems, is that it would lower the Volt’s already weak-for-a-green-halo-car range-extended efficiency. European fuel economy numbers for the Volt aren’t yet available to confirm that theory, but Chevrolet Europe claims “over” 500 km from the Volt’s 9.3 gallon gas tank, working to about 7 l/100 km, or 33.4 MPG. That seems roughly in line with EPA numbers, but even when official European numbers are released, differences in testing methods will make apples-to-apples comparisons difficult.

At its heart, the Volt is a car that appeals to an emotional conundrum: the desire for gas-free driving without the range limitations of EVs. Instead of relying on computers to continually adjust the gas-electric mix as a Prius does, it empowers drivers to use it as efficiently as possible, plugging in as often as possible. And yet, as this European-market feature reminds us, that uncoupling of pure-EV and gas-dependent modes is actually an illusion. This reality, along with a grandstanding media culture, explains why so many people freaked out when they found out that the Volt’s gas engine gets more involved in “EV mode” than GM had let on.

Here’s the point: nobody is going to change their mind about the Volt over a few range-extended mode MPGs. But giving the power of pure-EV driving (or not) to consumers can’t help but help the Volt’s marketing effort with the “I want an EV, sort of” crowd. The Volt has never been about pure efficiency, it’s a source of psychological satisfaction. The choice of gas or electric power seems to play right into that positioning. And now we know it’s possible. Over to you, GM…

This report presents information about the effects of decisions that a driver can make to influence on-road fuel economy of light-duty vehicles. These include strategic decisions (vehicle selection and maintenance), tactical decisions (route selection and vehicle load), and operational decisions (driver behavior).

The results indicate that vehicle selection has by far the most dominant effect: The best vehicle currently available for sale in the U.S. is nine times more fuel efficient than the worst vehicle. Nevertheless, the remaining factors that a driver has control over can contribute, in total, to about a 45% reduction in the on-road fuel economy per driver—a magnitude well worth emphasizing. Furthermore, increased efforts should also be directed at increasing vehicle occupancy, which has dropped by 30% from 1960. That drop, by itself, increased the energy intensity of driving per occupant by about 30%

So, the industry (and its government regulators) still have a huge impact on overall on-road fuel economy, as there is still a major swing between the most and the least fuel-efficient car. But, as the chart above shows, even if you do pick an efficient vehicle (36 MPG in this example), it’s still possible to operate it at a serious penalty to fuel economy. According to the report, consumers have the power to cut emissions by a much as 45% by paying closer attention to the following issues:

Maintenance: Keeping your engine tuned, using fuel-efficient tires, and using low-friction engine oils.

Route selection: Maximizing highway use, optimizing the route’s grade/elevation profile, avoiding traffic

Driving techniques: Minimizing idle time, minimizing engine revolutions, using cruise control, minimizing a/c use, and driving less aggressively

And this emphasis on personal responsibility for fuel economy even touches lifestyle choices you never associated with driving. For example, the study notes

the average adult in the U.S. in 2002 was about 24 pounds heavier than in 1960 (Ogden, Fryar, Carroll, and Flegel, 2004). This weight gain results in a reduction in fuel economy of up to about 0.5%.

In other words, fuel economy as a holistic goal is a partnership between the industry and consumers. After all, even if the government mandates super-high fuel economy standards, it’s still up to consumers to operate their vehicles such that they actually achieve their promised efficiency. The power is in our hands to ruin our own fuel economy by as much as 45%, whether we drive a fuel-sipping subcompact or a gas-guzzling pickup. The only problem is that consumers no more want to drive super-efficiently than manufacturers want to make super-efficient cars. But sooner or later, something’s got to give… especially since on-road fuel economy has improved by .04 MPG per year since 1923.

In 2012, Toyota will take part in several races of the FIA World Endurance Championship, including the Le Mans 24 Hours, with a prototype “LMP1” car featuring a gasoline-electric hybrid powertrain.

Get Hyundai on board, and bring BMW’s new i brand into the mix, and the international racing business could be re-energized by the the competition to demonstrate the perfect compromise between performance, reliability and efficiency. As many of the top racing series see declines in viewers and manufacturer participation due to their increasing irrelevance to mass-market vehicles and brands, the golden age of endurance racing could just be dawning.