GM noted that Fox has issues with the Volt. They give Eric Bolling a Chevy Volt for a week. And this is what GM receives in return. Ingrates.

Actually, I still know nothing about the car carriers that sail the high seas. The Nichioh Maru is a coastal ship. It steams, well, diesels up and down the Japanese archipelago on its route between Oppama, Kobe and Kyushu. On four decks, the Nichioh Maru has room for 1,380 cars. Yesterday, the ship completed its first day on the job by bringing cars to Oppama. Today, it loads Leafs while I watch.

By comparison, the Panama-flagged Eternal Ace that swallows cars for overseas shipping in the dock next door has room for 5,563 cars. That according to Jane’s merchant ships. If you want to get the inside track on a 5,000+ unit class car carrier, simply multiply this story by three and a half, and then deduct the green.

Did I say green? After building zero emission vehicles like the Leaf, Nissan is tackling the ships that bring them. The Nichioh Maru is not quite zero emission yet, but the ship achieves a 20 percent reduction of fuel used and CO2 produced over conventional ships, I am told today.

The ship does so with an electronically controlled 18,000 hp diesel engine (produced by MAN.) The ship has LED lighting in the ship’s hold and living quarters, and its hull is painted with the latest in low friction coating.

The top of the ship is covered with solar power panels, the first time on a coastal ship in Japan, my handlers say. The solar panels create a hefty 50 kW of power, some of it stored in a battery for when the sun don’t shine. That ship is so green that the fire extinguishing system is foam type, and not CO2. Even when in flames, that ship won’t emit unnecessary CO2.

For the nautical gearheads, the engine is an MAN B&W 8S50ME-C8. That is an eight cylinder, super long stroke, 50 centimeter piston, M-program, electronically controlled, “compact” engine, Mark 8. Glad you asked.

Inside, the ship looks like a big multistory garage. Except that there are tie-downs in the floor. To prevent the ship from rolling too much (with possible ill effects on not tied down cars), the ship can shoot water from port to starboard ballast tanks, and back.

First 40 cars loaded. Only 1,340 more to go.

On the bridge of the Nichioh Maru.

I couldn’t find a steering wheel on the bridge until I found this small thing. The ship appears to steer itself.

It does so assisted by the latest in on-board navigation. Front and stern thrusters obviate tugboats. Just line up with the dock, push a button – dozo!

No messes in this ship’s mess. Everything is neat and tidy, this is a Japanese ship.

And yes, take your shoes off, this is a Japanese ship.

Galley. The crew can dine in style.

A half-empty bottle of sake is quickly removed. I am being assured that its content was offered solely to Shinto deities to bring good luck to the ship.

Captain’s wardroom. More space than in an average Japanese apartment.

An that’s it – tour’s over! While I write this, the Nichioh Maru is already underway to Kobe and Kyushu.

Regulators are hoping to offer additional incentives and credits to spur sales of the vehicles. Hydrogen re-fueling infrastructure will also be supported, though details of how this would be approached were scant. The new rules would also favor vehicles such as the Chevrolet Volt, as CARB feels that it is closer to an electric vehicle than a conventional plug-in hybrid. The Volt has been dubbed a ”transitional zero-emission vehicle”.

Organizations such as the California New Car Dealers Association say that demand for these types of vehicles has been overestimated, but CARB chair Mary Nichols told a conference call that car manufacturers were in favor of the new rulings. “Probably the most heartening aspect of this whole rulemaking was the level of cooperation that we received from the industry. Overall, the degree of support for the package was just extraordinary.”

A Chevrolet Volt owner in Ottawa, Ontario has been blocked by his condominium board from charging his Chevrolet Volt – even though he has offered to reimburse the board for the $1 (approximately) in electricity it takes to charge the Volt at local rates.

Mike Nemat, who bought a Volt a couple months back, lives in a high-rise condominium building where tenants collectively share the cost of things like electricity bills. Nemat has an electrical outlet near his parking spot, originally intended for an engine block heater, that he’s been using to charge his Volt.

Under the condo’s rules, Nemat is allowed to use a block heater, which consumes almost as much electricity as a Volt. But if Nemat wants to use his outlet for charging purposes, the board says he must install a separate electrical meter, at a cost of $3,000. The board claims that they do not subsidize the fueling of other vehicles, and therefore shouldn’t be paying for electricity for the Volt – Nemat offered to reimburse the board for any electricity used, but the board still declined (though without a meter, a precise figure couldn’t be determined), and will disable that particular outlet.

One of Nemat’s neighbors had a pragmatic take on it, suggesting that someone using a toaster or leaving the lights on all night is just as much of a drain on electricity as Nemat’s Volt. Increasing numbers of Canadians in urban areas live in these buildings, and some are friendlier than others – one Toronto condo even hosts Tesla Toronto’s vehicles and allows them use of a 240V charging station. Nemat and his Volt are likely the tip of the iceberg with respect to this issue – as plug-in vehicles and higher density housing take root (and really, a downtown condo owner is the kind of person that a Nissan Leaf is perfectly suited for), there will be increased demand for charging stations.

Disclaimer: The above photo is not Nemat’s Volt. I tested a Volt for a week in December, and parked it at a public garage which has a 240V EV charging station. One day, a Durango took my spot, and so I parked it next to a standard 110V outlet and used the factory trickle charger. I came back to find the unit unplugged, thus ruining my 4-day streak of not using a single drop of gasoline. In typical Canadian fashion, the cord was neatly drapped across the side-mirror, the charge port door had been closed and the trickle charger unit placed off to the side and out of harm’s way. I can only assume it was done by a security guard who thought I was “stealing electricity” from the garage.

Do you live in the Boston, Hartford, New York, Los Angeles, Sacramento, San Diego, or San Francisco MSA (Metropolitan Statistical Area)? Do you see yourself as an adventurer and explorer? In that case, BMW wants to talk to you. BMW has pegged adventurers and explorers as “front-runners of innovation and advocates for sustainability.” These are the people BMW wants to “recruit” for a “field trial” of its  Active E electric vehicles.

It will be a transformative experience. You will be turned into a green lab rat.

If you are amongst the 700 “Electronauts” chosen by BMW , the Munich-based company will allow you to lease its BMW ActiveE for $499 per month for 24 months with a down payment of $2,250. You can start the recruitment process at www.bmwusa.com/ActiveE.

But that’s not all. According to a BMW press release, you also must agree to provide “car- and driver-generated data and anecdotal feedback” which “will be collected by BMW to deepen its knowledge about the everyday use of EVs and to provide actionable insights into electric mobility in urban environments.”

Don’t do anything embarrassing in the Active E car, because “once the field trial commences, information collected from the Electronauts will be made available for all EV enthusiasts and media at www.BMWActivateTheFuture.com.”

As a test specimen, you can be proud that

“the learnings from the field trial will provide direct insight into electric mobility in advance of series production of BMW’s first purpose-built, mass-produced electric vehicles, the BMW i3 in 2013 and the i8 in 2014. Concepts of the i3 and i8, the first two vehicles from the new BMW i brand, made their official North American debut at the Los Angeles Auto Show on November 16 and 17, 2011.”

Don’t think that BMW gives their car just to any adventurer and explorer. BMW says that

“prospective lessees will complete a charging station consultation with BMW partner AeroVironment. The purpose of the consultation is to ensure that prospective Electronaut’s homes are capable of supporting an AeroVironment charging station and participants fully understand all aspects of maintaining and charging an electric vehicle before signing a lease.  Once the consultation is completed, the prospect’s information will be forwarded to their selected BMW ActiveE center to finish the lease process.”

Scary, no? Driving an EV with the charge indicator on empty is a high stress environment. BMW must be sure that you have the right stuff. You’ll understand.

The  car industry has high hopes for the young. Automakers have invested and are investing billions into hybrid and electric vehicle, so far with lackluster success. In the U.S., the take rate of hybrid cars is actually coming down from a 2.78 percent peaklet in 2009. The 0.14 percent market share of EVs is too small to move the plotter’s needle. To recoup the investment, new tech vehicles have to be sold in more meaningful numbers. It is the generation Y that is supposed to set the needle in motion. A study of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu promises that Generation Y will make a humongous difference.

Generation Y could be the “generation that leads us away from traditional gasoline-powered vehicles,” Craig Giffi, who is in charge of  Deloitte’s  annual survey of Gen Y auto consumers, told the L.A. Times. The paper summarizes:

“According to the Deloitte survey, 59% of Gen Y respondents said they preferred an “electrified vehicle” over any other type of car or truck. They generally defined “electrified” as a hybrid gasoline-electric vehicle. Just 2% said they wanted a pure battery electric vehicle, which reflects the very small number of such cars that people are purchasing.  Just 37% of the respondents preferred vehicles with the traditional gasoline-only powertrain.”

Giffi loves the Y generation, so much that he recklessly collides with TTAC’s jargon vigilantes: The enthusiasm for hybrid vehicles turns Gen Y consumers in the U.S. into “game changers,” Giffi said.  And he continued:

“At nearly 80 million strong, they are one of the biggest automobile buying market segments and the largest consumer segment since the baby boomers.“

Sure, once they have a job and make money.

Let’s hope Generation Y sticks more to its principles than previous generations. I have seen study after study where customers announced their environmentally responsible intentions, only to reneg on their promise once they were in the showroom.

General Motors announced changes to the Chevrolet Volt’s design after a NHTSA investigation into why a Volt caught fire following crash testing.

The changes will go into effect once production restarts at the Hamtramck, Michigan facility, but customer cars already sold will follow a different protocol.

Starting in February, GM will initiate a “voluntary customer satisfaction program” to make the necessary changes to the Volt. According to GM’s Rob Peterson said that  formal recalsl must be initiated by NHTSA, and their lack of movement prompted GM to enact a voluntary one instead.

The fix involves changes to the Volt’s battery pack housing, as well as a coolant temperature sensor and a special bracket to prevent overfilling. The previous system allowed the battery housing to be punctured, which then resulted in coolant overflowing onto a circuit board causing an electrical short. The short was determined to be the cause of the fire.

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.

Ethanol trade groups have said that the industry would survive the loss of the subsidy, now that the US ethanol production industry has become established. The industry is still protected by congressional mandates that call for 15 billion gallons of renewable fuels by 2015 and 36 billion gallons by 2022.

The ethanol issue involves a number of powerful players, corn growers and affiliated industries on one side and food interests, automakers and engine builders on the other. Then there’s the EPA to consider. The EPA has approved the use of E15, an 85/15 gasoline/ethanol blend, for use in post 2001 cars. Manufacturers say that without modifications, E15 will damage engines. In February, in a bipartisan move the House voted 285-136 to block the EPA from moving ahead with E15 regulations.

While ending the subsidy would seemingly discourage ethanol’s use, the end of the 54 cents per gallon tariff on imported Brazilian ethanol might do more to encourage that use than the subsidies did. Brazil is one place where it makes sense to use ethanol as a fuel because of Brazil’s huge sugar industry. The ratio of energy needed to produce it vs the energy obtained in the fuel for ethanol made from corn is barely greater than one, 1.3:1, compared to 2:1 for using sugar beets and 8:1 for sugar cane, the feedstock for Brazil’s ethanol. It costs half as much to make Brazilian cane ethanol as it does to make American corn ethanol. According to one academic study transportation costs to US ports eliminate that competitive advantage, but if that was a certainty, Brazilian sugar cane producers wouldn’t have threatened to start a trade war if the tariff wasn’t ended.

At the Tokyo Motor Show, the announcement that Toyota and BMW are in cahoots over batteries, diesel engines and possibly more was the talk of the show. Back in Bavaria, BMW displays a promiscuous bent. BMW will cooperate with GM, yes GM, on fuel cells. This at least if the German magazine Wirtschaftswoche is correctly informed.

Sources told Wirtschaftswoche that a cooperation between BMW and GM is as good as done. A MOU will be signed with great fanfare at the Detroit motor show in January, says the magazine.

BMW has no comment, but confirms that there are negotiations with GM. BMW is not known for its fuel cell prowess. According to the information of Wirtschaftswoche, highly profitable BMW will share the cost of fuel cell development with GM, and will be supplied with hydrogen-powered fuel cells by GM.

The on-again, off-again hydrogen fuel cell is definitely on again.  In our interview a month ago, Toyota’s chief for new technologies, Satoshi Ogiso, confirmed that the technology is ready for prime time, the only remaining problem is cost. Toyota will launch a mass produced fuel cell car in 2015. Ogiso promised it will be affordable by 2020. GM is looking back at a long history of fuel cell development and will also sell a hydrogen-powered car by 2015. So will Hyundai. Nissan (cooperating with hydrogen-pioneer Daimler)  likewise signaled that it will not place a single bet on EVs, and that fuel cell cars are in the cards.  BMW once had planned to launch an ICE that runs on hydrogen (see above), but that idea, well, bombed.

This is both an interesting and a strange article the The Nikkei [sub] has on GM. First, the interesting part.

While commenting on the fact that GM will jointly develop carbon fiber automobile components with Tokyo-based Teijin, The Nikkei detects a “radical shift in the U.S. auto giant’s business strategy.” The paper comments that GM was once known for its insistence on developing its own technologies. Which, says The Nikkei, played a part in the company’s downfall, because it drove up costs.

“But since emerging from bankruptcy in 2009, GM has shown a willingness to work with companies across industries to develop green technologies.

GM agreed with South Korea’s LG Group in August to jointly develop electric vehicles, expanding on previous agreements to procure batteries and work together on electrical systems.

In September, the U.S. automaker signed another electric-vehicle cooperation agreement, this time with China’s SAIC Motor Corp.

Furthermore, GM has a tie-up accord in battery technology with U.S. start-up A123 Systems Inc.”

So far, so good. Ok, so we get it that GM is getting over the “not invented here” thing and reaches out to other partners. This has been going for a while in the whole industry, and is picking up pace. The costs and challenges are simply too great to shoulder alone, the payback too far out.

What is slightly odd is The Nikkei’s conclusion:

“As it moves to tap the strengths of partners around the world, GM may become a major rival of Japanese automakers even in the field of green vehicles.”

Does that mean that Japan’s leading business daily is giving GM no green-cred for past and current work?  Does The Nikkei think that Japanese makers hold an exclusive on green cars?

Edmunds emission-tested a 2011 Ford F-150 SVT Raptor Crew Cab and a 2012 Fiat 500 against an Echo PB-500T and a Ryobi RY09440 leaf blower.

The Raptor has a 411-horsepower 6.2-liter V8. The Fiat 500 is powered (if you can say that) by a 1.4-liter four.

The leaf blowers tested receive their blow from a 50.8cc two-stroke air-cooled single-cylinder engine for the Echo and a 30cc four-stroke engine for the Ryoby. Which pollutes more?

I guess you saw that coming. Pretty amazing, still. Expect a backlash against leaf blowers.

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 capitalized on the pre-Tokyo Motor Show buzz and presented its plug-in hybrid Prius PHV to the press. The car is not quite ready for launch, it will be launched in Japan on January 30, 2012. However, dealers accept orders as of today. The venue of the press conference was carefully chosen: The National Museum of Emerging Science and Innovation.

Toyota sees this car as the “mainstay next-generation eco-vehicle following the EV.”

In carefully chosen words, Toyota managers pooh-poohed the pure plug-in. They pushed the usual buttons, namely range anxiety or time to charge. They subtly dissed the pure plug-in by saying that green vehicles are only good for the environment if they are widely used.

The EV cruising range is not far: 26.4 km, or 16.4 miles. After that, the Prius PHV will switch seamlessly into hybrid mode, using the familiar 1.8 liter series hybrid technology. Why such a short EV range? It is a careful balancing act of weight, space, and price.  A big battery adds heft and hefty cost. The Prius PHV is only 50 kg (110 lbs) heavier than the regular Prius. Its lithium-ion battery is small enough to not take away trunk space.  Trunk is the same size as that of the Prius. 16 miles is enough to get to the store and back or to roll out of town without polluting the air.

A lot more has been said today. A lot of it is already known to TTAC readers via our interviews with Chief Engineer Satoshi Ogiso.  Because there was so much, we make the whole press conference available to you via video as if you’ve been there yourself.

Toyota plans to sell 60,000 Prius PHV a year around the world. 35,000 to 40,000 are scheduled for Japan, the rest for the rest of the world. The car should arrive in the U.S. in Spring at a starting price of $32,000. People in Europe will have to shell out €37,000.

Leave it to Reuters to say why GM should be worried:

“General Motors Co is also looking to win over environmentally conscious consumers with its Volt plug-in hybrid, although its price tag of $41,000 is considered prohibitive.

The Volt also hit a snag recently, with U.S. regulators deciding last week to investigate the safety of the car after its battery pack caught fire in crash tests.

The Volt uses “range extender” technology to generate electricity on-board with the gasoline engine and carries 180 kg (400 lbs) of batteries.”

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…

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…

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.

This chart, showing production and deliveries since the Detroit-Hamtramck plant was retooled shows a softening of demand and a small but undeniable downturn in Volt production. Wondering why GM was trimming production of a car it says it will build 60k units of next year (including 45k units for the US market), I reached out to GM to ask about the cutback. A spokesman replied

Our 2011 target is 16000 units global production and we’re right on target. The dip in Volt production is made up by an increase in Ampera production for export.

In other words, Det-Ham isn’t making fewer Volts, they’re just building more of them with Opel badges for Europe. But what about anecdotal evidence showing that US demand for the Volt is weak? Where are the 6,000 or so Volts that have been produced but not sold this year? GM’s breakdown is as follows:

As of Oct 31 we had built roughly 10500 vehicles, sold 5000, shipped 2300 dealer demos, had over 1400 in-transit (includes roughly 300 demos) and about 1800 on dealer lots… nearly 85 percent of the 2,600 participating Volt dealers have only one or zero Volt’s in stock. Of the 1400 dealers currently with no stock, roughly half have received a Volt and sold it and half are waiting to receive their first unit.

So, 1,800 units are currently on 1,200 lots. Presumably the 1,400 in-transit” units are headed to the 1,400 lots that have no Volts for sale. And now, Automotive News [sub] reports that GM is now allowing dealers to sell demonstrator-model Volts, noting

The move will increase the number of Volts available for sale to 4,100, from 1,800… Another 1,100 units are in transit.

GM will reimburse dealers $1,500 to compensate for depreciation and for the cost of removing some decals from the demo models. Dealers must sell their demos by Jan. 3 to qualify for the payment

In other words, if demand is as strong as GM is claiming, there should be no problems selling 10k units this year. Production is rolling along and inventory is building (AN [sub] says it was at 83 days supply as of October 1); though still a long way from the volume needed to sell 45k units in the US next year, sales are still growing as well. Over the next few months supply should build to the point where Volt demand should become discernible. One downside to the demonstrator-sale strategy: dealers will be giving up what GM calls its strongest halo car, which The General says draws customers who end up leaving in a Cruze. In any case, we’re about to learn a lot more about the real level of demand for the Volt… for now, however, we’ll have to stay patient.

Germany’s Autobild continues to bang the drum about HFO-1234yf, an air-conditioning coolant sold by US supplier Honeywell as an “environmentally-friendly” alternative to other refrigerants. Problem is, C02 seems to be not only more environmentally safe, but safer for humans (notably rescue workers) as well…

Though the basic problem is that nobody outside of the manufacturer of the substance has much of an idea of what its real risks are, there are a couple of lines of criticism that researchers want to test.

• Flammability. Honeywell knew HFO-1234yf is flammable, and initially marketed it mixed with a fire extinguishing substance. That igniion-retarding iodine compound was later implicated in ozone depletion, and Honeywell now simply downplays concerns about flammability.
• Toxicity: HFO-1234yf breaks down into trifluoroacetic acid, a phytotoxic substance Autobild calls an “insidious poison.” In an experiment undertaken for Autobild, a chemist exposed a pig’s head to ten grams of the substance and “within a half hour, its skin had turned grey and its eyes had become dull and milky.”
• Alternatives: German automakers abandoned HFO-1234yf in 2007 for these very reasons, but went back on their decision in 2009. Industry-watchers blame lobbying and the automakers’ desire to increase the volume of their orders from Honeywell (which also supplies other systems) for the about-face, although the official reason was that the main alternative (C02) was more expensive. Autobild argues that this is a specious argument, as C02 is a far cheaper refrigerant, and that it amortizes its extra up-front cost after “a few refills.”

Rescue workers are now leading the charge to undertake independent testing of the coolant, which was first produced in 1946. Alex Lechleuthner, Head of the Cologne Fire Brigade’s Department of Emergency Medicine says there are “very high operational and personnel expenses” associated with such tests, but that they independent testing is crucial as “previously known information from the manufacturer could be judged very differently depending on the viewing angle.”

And there’s more than just the possible risk of eye-dulling toxicity for rescue workers: according to one EPA document’s abstract:

Automobile air conditioning HFO-1234yf emissions are predicted to produce concentrations of TFA (trifluoroacetic acid) in Eastern U.S. rainfall at least double the values currently observed from all sources, natural and man-made. Our model predicts peak concentrations in rainfall of 1264 ng L(-1), a level that is 80x lower than the lowest level considered safe for the most sensitive aquatic organisms.

But what kind of world would we live in if C02 emissions were less harmful than their alternatives? Especially if one of those alternatives were proprietarily manufactured by a supplier that could charge $150 per kilo for the stuff? Well, when faced with the Autobild attack, that very supplier Honeywell responded [presentation PDF here], arguing that

The new gas has already been approved for use in the US, Japan and Europe and was recently given the all clear by the German firefighter association Deutscher Feuerwehr Verband (DFV) which said it was convinced it had the same safety standards as R134a. The DFV described the toxicity of R1234yf as low and comparable to R134a and was safe for passengers and emergency services.

The chemical manufacturers point out that HFO1234yf has undergone significant testing for safety and efficacy by independent testing groups, including the SAE International Cooperative Research Program, which comprises leading automakers. The SAE testing found HFO1234yf to offer “superior environmental performance” to CO2 while having “the lowest risk for use in mobile air conditioning systems in meeting environmental and consumer needs.”

Separately the EPA reports [PDF] that the SAE test found that

the risk for excessive HF exposure is less than one ten-thousandth the risk of a highway vehicle fire and one fortieth or less of the risk of a fatality from deployment of an airbag during a vehicle… The highest risk identified for HFO-1234yf is potential consumer exposure to HF from decomposition and ignition, which is of the same order of magnitude of risks of HF from the current most common automotive refrigerant, hydrofluorocarbon collision

Dig around long enough and you’ll find a middle ground in HFO-1234yf analysis, like this one from the Auto Parts Accessories Journal, which identifies the long-term risks of TFA buildup and Honeywell/DuPont’s monopoly on supply (and the resulting high price of the substance) as the two major drawbacks of the coolant. That piece concludes

As people who love good engineering, we admit to being just a bit regretful that the CO2 systems were not at least given a chance to prove themselves. It’s difficult to believe that in terms of total environmental impact, from manufacture, distribution, maintenance and actual use, that CO2 would not have a greatly reduced environmental impact over any complex chemical refrigerant. We’ve just emerged from an era where the poor decisions of major automakers have caused their businesses to collapse. Often those decisions were made on the basis of what was most convenient, rather than what mechanics would recognize instantly as good technologies. Let’s be hopeful that HFO-1234yf turns out to be a good technology, and not just a convenient one.

We had better hope that’s the case, as the forthcoming 2013 GM products will be the first in the US market to use HFO-1234yf, starting next year.

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.

Advocates of diverting tax money raised from motorists on mass transit insist doing so is essential for protecting the environment. Data published in August by the UK Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) show that buses outside London produced an average of 221 grams per kilometer of greenhouse gas emissions. This is more than the figure given for small gasoline-powered cars, 210. Small and medium diesel-powered cars also beat the bus with scores of 172 and 215.

“Perhaps those who criticize lone car drivers should turn their attention to empty off-peak buses instead,” Association of British Drivers environment spokesman Paul Biggs said in a statement. “Although buses provide an important public service, even London can only manage an average occupancy of around fifteen passengers. Modern efficient cars outperform buses not just for CO2 emissions, but for genuine pollutants as well.”

Greenhouse gas emission figures represent the output of carbon dioxide — the harmless gas emitted by all human beings as an essential part of the respiratory process — combined with nitrous oxide and methane. Government official in the UK and US maintain these substances are causing global warming.

DEFRA’s bus figures are based on actual fuel consumption by bus operators and ridership data. It is consistent with figures obtained from a 1999 test by the Los Angeles, California Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA). Diesel bus engines were tested on a central business district route simulation burning fuel at a rate of 4 miles per gallon with carbon dioxide emissions of 2571 grams per mile or 1597 grams per kilometer. Assuming the bus carries nine passengers on average, the carbon dioxide emissions were 174 grams per passenger kilometer (DEFRA’s figure was 184). A solo driver can beat that figure in a Toyota Yaris at 127, a Honda Civic diesel at 140. Even a large SUV like the Porsche Cayenne achieves a solo figure of 236, but with an average occupancy of 1.6 the Porsche still beats the per-passenger figure of the bus.

A March 2009 report by Transport and Travel Research Ltd found that on a per passenger kilometer basis, bus travel produced more particulate matter and other pollutants than automobiles.

“This report confirms that traveling by car is ‘greener’ than traveling by bus,” Biggs said on the report’s release. “Bus companies will have to invest heavily in fleet modernization and the retrofitting of emission abatement technology to even stand a chance of keeping up with increasingly cleaner cars. This is a ‘wake up’ call to politicians who persist with the transport and environmental mantras of, ‘The answer’s a bus, now what’s the question?’ Given that buses and coaches carry only 6.3 percent of passengers compared to the 86.5 percent who travel by car, van or taxi, should 6 percent of passengers be given up to 50 percent of the road via bus lanes?”

A copy of the DEFRA conversion report is available in a 1.8mb PDF file at the source link below.

Source:  GHG Conversion Factors for Company Reporting (UK DEFRA, 8/3/2011)

[Courtesy: Thenewspaper.com]

According to Tesla CEO Elon Musk, the EV luxury brand has pre-sold all 6,500 units of its new Model S to be built next year, and the company is on-track for a 2013 profit. Bt if you’re comparing Tesla to the erstwhile EV darling BYD in order for it to look good, you have to wonder how good things really are. If anything, Tesla should be compared to Audi, an established (and hot) luxury brand with the same EV technology and one of Tesla’s founders on board. Losses for this fiscal year are estimated at $437m, and Tesla’s crucial loans from the Department of Energy are attracting a distracting investigation in the wake of the Solyndra scandal (but hey, Musk is “personally guaranteeing” those loans, so no worries…). And, in a truly puzzling move, Tesla is ignoring the SAE J1772 protocol for rapid EV charging because it isn’t sexy looking enough. As EV guru Chelsea Sexton puts it to the New York Times

It’s hardly unusual for Tesla to zig where the rest of the industry zags. But it’s particularly counterintuitive not to use the J1772 standard, since Model S drivers will be more interested in public charging than Roadster owners. Tesla’s proprietary connector choice requires getting customers to care about form over function on one of the most utilitarian aspects of the car. How many people stare at a gas nozzle and think, ‘If only that were better looking’?

Selling out of a first-year production run is good news, but hardly surprising (all plug-in vehicles are currently capacity-constrained). Preventing buyers from using public charging infrastructure because it’s unsexy is the kind of surprising news that could seriously damage Tesla’s long-term efforts. Meanwhile, we still don’t know how this company will do with regards to manufacturing quality and reliability, especially as volumes ramp up to 20k units per year. After all, Tesla’s hype and niche marketing efforts are well-proven… it’s all the other aspects of building and selling cars that we’re still unsure about.