When Ford showed the world its new crop of compact-based cars and MPVs at January’s Detroit Auto Show, it announced that its C-Max compact MPV would be coming to the US in 7-passenger Grand C-Max form. But in a strangely prophetic turn of events (see video above), the 7-passenger model refused to show up. Now, according to Ford, the 7-passenger Grand C-Max won’t be coming to the US… instead the 5-passenger version will be sold as a dedicated hybrid model with a plug-in option. Why? Because it’s big in Europe… and because “One Ford.” Hit the jump for Ford’s explanation, and then wonder along with us: seriously, why not sell the 7-seat version too?

At the suggestion of a well-wisher, I picked up the July copy of Motor Trend for my flight back home Iowa yesterday. Though some of the stories showed improvement in that publication’s quality of coverage, the item pointed out by our tipster [online here] was disappointing indeed. The piece, on Fiat’s ongoing acquisition of Chrysler’s equity includes the following paragraph:

Fiat is expected to obtain another 5 percent of Chrysler soon to bring its interest to 51 percent, provided it introduces a 40-mpg (highway) EPA-rated car built in the U.S. wearing a Chrysler brand badge before the end of 2011. With Fiat and Chrysler pulling the plug on electric car development, the 40-mpg car is likely to be a 1.4-liter Multijet-powered Dodge Caliber. The Caliber is scheduled for replacement in model year 2013, so the Multijet version could be a 2012 model only, with the powertrain carried on to its replacement.

So, what’s the problem? Well, as TTAC (and precisely nobody else) has reported, the government’s agreement with Fiat is not for that firm to build “a 40-mpg (highway) EPA-rated car.” It takes some digging through the corporate agreement between Fiat, Chrysler, the UAW and the Treasury, but it’s clear that the government requires that Fiat build a car that tests at 40 MPG combined, using the old “unadjusted” (Pre-1985) CAFE fuel economy rating. Which means that, although Fiat could build a car capable of 40 MPG EPA highway, the government’s agreement requires as little as 31 MPG EPA Combined. Which means M/T’s write-up technically falls on the wrong side of the truth. Although, to be fair, I have yet to find a media outlet that has got this story right…

The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers is taking to the internet ahead of a forthcoming increase in 2017-2025 CAFE standards, with a website called “ Consumers and Fuel Economy.” There you can find, among other things, this graph detailing the relationship between hybrid sales and fuel prices over the last three… summers? Did the fall and winter data not support the AAM’s goals? If so, and this graph has been constructed for maximum impact, it’s hardly a wildly convincing slice of data… or is it?

AutoNation boss Mike Jackson has long been the front runner to inherit Bob Lutz’s mantle as the most opinionated guy in the car business, and recently he’s been moving to lock up the distinction. Jackson recently gave the world the concept of the gas price “freak-out point” as well as delivering memorable quips on “green car” demand (while calling for higher gas prices), and has been outspoken about the industry’s struggles with “push” production, oversupply, fleet dependence and more. And now he’s laid out what may very well be the basis for a solid “car guy consensus” for political progress on safety issues. Autoobserver reports:

The main points of Jackson’s outline to improve road safety: 1) Make text-messaging illegal – and since that’s unlikely to make much difference, install technology to block text messages in moving vehicles; 2) Raise the gasoline tax to fund safety-enhancing and congestion-reducing traffic-management technology, including intelligent road signals and total automation of toll collection; 3) Get serious about lane discipline by restricting trucks to right-hand lanes and passing only in the left lane.

Can I get an “Amen”? Politics are one of the most divisive issues in American life, and TTAC struggles with the inevitable polarization caused by political topics every day… so hats off to Jackson for solidifying a non-partisan agenda that all (or at least most) car guys can get behind.

For years now, Detroit’s inability to compete in the increasingly-important hybrid drivetrain has been part of its larger perception issues, driving the view that the American automakers are both less environmentally responsible and technologically adept than their Japanese competitors. GM waorked through a number of underwhelming hybrid technologies, including its BAS “Mild” Hybrid system and its Two-Mode V8 hybrid, while Ford had to back away from Bill Ford’s precipitous promise that it would build 250k hybrids per year by 2010. For a while now, it’s seemed that Ford and GM were content to avoid direct hybrid competition, focusing on “leapfrog” technologies like pure EVs and the Chevy Volt extended-range electric car… but now it seems they’re going back into Prius-style “parallel hybrids” in a big way.

With new compact and subcompact models from Ford and GM enjoying respectable sales, the mainstream media has been indulging in some “feel-good” headlines, like the New York Times’s Detroit’s Rebound Is Built on Smaller Cars, or CBS’s more equivocal Can small cars rebound U.S. auto industry? It’s an understandable instinct, as the media has long battered Detroit’s inability to build competitive compact and subcompact cars, and in the post-bailout atmosphere of redemption, these headlines definitely help reassure Americans about the value of their “investment.” Unfortunately (if unsurprisingly), however, these pieces gloss over the full truth of the situation. Yes, Ford and GM are enjoying improved sales success with small cars. The “U.S. auto industry,” on the other hand, isn’t actually getting all that much out of the situation, beyond some fluffily positive press. Here’s why:

A lengthy Automotive News [sub] story on Scion concludes with Scion VP Jack Hollis restating the brand’s basic myth:

Scion was not created for Scion’s sake. Scion was created for Toyota’s sake. It is an investment in Toyota’s collective future.

Hollis’s argument is bolstered by the scenario in which a youngster is attracted to a Scion store by the brand’s youth-oriented marketing, only to leave in a Corolla. Hollis argues that this model means Scion doesn’t have to worry about its sales volume… which is a good thing, considering the brand’s steady sales decline over the past four years. Hollis explains:

We still don’t go with a set [volume] number. Scion wants to be more influential. We want to talk to more people. We’re getting the right people, so the real question is: How do we get more of them?

I don’t know about you, but creating a brand to be “influential” and to “talk to more people” sounds like some vintage, dry-aged, old-school GM branding nonsense. And given that Scion’s sales decline coincided with the rollout of less-distinctive, more Toyota-like products, Scion’s apparent comfort with its recent declines smack of Old GM-style apathy as well (Scion execs respond with the old “but we gave customers what they wanted” chestnut). But don’t worry… Scion has a plan!

Fisker’s powertrain partner Quantum Fuel System Technologies has partnered with the US Army’s Tank Automotive Research, Development and Engineering Center (TARDEC) to produce a diesel-electric, series hybrid Clandestine Extended Range Vehicle (CERV). GreenCarCongress reports

the prototype CERV is equipped with a 1.4-liter diesel to drive the genset, and is designed for quick-paced mobility operations such as reconnaissance, surveillance and target designation. CERV pairs Quantum’s advanced all-wheel-drive diesel hybrid-electric powertrain with a light-weight chassis to produce a torque rating that exceeds 5,000 lb-ft (6,780 N·m) [Ed: after gear reduction].

The unit can maintain speeds of 80 mph (129 km/h) and climb 60 percent grades while reducing fuel consumption by up to 25% compared with conventional vehicles of comparable size.

As Ronnie Schreiber’s piece on the Arsenal of Democracy shows, military developments can have a profound affect on the private transportation market. As the military pursues efficiency for strategic and tactical purposes, let’s hope more advanced drivetrains trickle down into the civilian realm.

These two graphs preface NHTSA’s recent Vehicle Safety and Fuel Economy Rulemaking and Research Priority Plan [ PDF] for the 2011-2013 period.

What does the data tell you? What’s a safety regulator to do? Oh, and you might want to look at this graph before you answer…

The release of A Road Forward: The Report of the Toyota North American Quality Advisory Panel [ PDF], probably raised a few eyebrows around the industry this week, particularly at the headquarters of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers in Washington D.C… but not for any obvious reason. The report’s findings about Toyota’s internal reforms in the wake of last year’s recall scandal aren’t particularly mind-bending, and are well summarized in an introductory passage

First, the Panel believes Toyota needs to continue to adjust its balance between global and local control giving weight to local control in order to improve its communication and speed in responding to quality and safety issues. Second, the Panel believes that Toyota needs to ensure that it listens and responds as positively to negative external feedback as it does to negative internal feedback. Third, the Panel believes that Toyota must persist in more clearly distinguishing safety from quality and continue its efforts to enhance its safety practices and procedures.

In addition to identifying specific areas for improvement, the report places a heavy emphasis on “the leadership of Toyota’s top executives as they navigate the road forward, as well as the company’s leadership in the industry” as a way to avoid the traps it fell into prior to the recall scandal. And this emphasis on leadership could have some interesting effects…

Gallup has just released a new poll asking Americans to rate their likelihood of making certain lifestyle changes based on different hypothetical gas prices. The result: 57 percent refuse to consider buying an “electric car that you could only drive for a limited number of miles at one time” no matter how high gas prices go. Only moving or changing jobs encountered more resistance. Clearly betting the farm on pure EVs is going to face some challenges…

On the very day that the federal government announced it would buy 101 Chevrolet Volts, President Obama released a new Presidential Memorandum requiring fleet purchases “achieve maximum fuel efficiency.” Regardless of cost, apparently, as the Volt costs over $40,000 and is the size of a $17,000 Chevrolet Cruze. Moreover, the new policy does not appear to reflect the Government Accountability Office’s recent lambasting of government’s use of E85 “flex fuel” vehicles to fulfill previous alt-fuel mandates. Hit the jump for Obama’s full memo

The average price of regular unleaded gasoline was $3.96 this week, an increase of 38 percent over the same time last year. US Senator Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) on Tuesday proposed to temporarily reduce that cost by 18.4 cent cents by suspending the federal gas tax. Under the freshman lawmaker’s plan, the highway trust fund would be replenished by reducing payments made to foreign governments.

“Let’s have a gas tax holiday,” Paul said in a floor speech. “Let’s take the money from foreign aid and let’s give it back to the American people who worked hard to earn it…. That would help people, that would lower the price of gasoline and that would be a stimulus to the economy.”

Pickuptrucks.com reports that you may not have to wait for Mahindra to work through its legal issues to get an efficient diesel-powered pickup, as the DOE has funded development of a four-cylinder Cummins diesel engine which is being demonstrated in a Nissan Titan. According to the report

Cummins refers to the engine by the codename “LA-4” with a 2.8-liter displacement (170 cubic inches). Initial power figures on the engine dyno have the mule test engine producing 350 pounds-feet of torque at around 1,800 rpm. A chart in the presentation shows targeted power levels to be approximately 220 horsepower and 380 pounds-feet.

The engine is likely a derivative of the four-cylinder ISF architecture that Cummins builds overseas, with 2.8-liter and 3.8-liter displacements. The overseas 3.8-liter is rated at 168 horsepower and 443 pounds-feet of torque…

To meet U.S. clean-diesel standards, the 2.8 would use diesel exhaust fluid to scrub nitrogen oxide emissions, like Ford and GM use today in their heavy-duty diesel pickups. It would also feature a so-called passive NOx storage system that would capture and hold NOx during cold starts, releasing the gas when temperatures rise to levels of max efficiency for DEF. The passive system would save fuel used today to jumpstart NOx scrubbing when the system is cold.

The upshot? 28 MPG combined, according to pickuptrucks.com. Given the discrepancy between EPA fuel economy numbers and the CAFE method, that means this engine could make a Titan (which gets 13/18 MPG EPA with its stock V8) more than compliant with the 2015 30 MPG truck standard. And because the DOE spent only $15m, this probably qualifies as one of the more promising government fuel-economy improvement programs in some time. After all, improving truck efficiency is one of the toughest aspects of CAFE compliance… and if a Titan can get nearly 30 MPG combined (about the same as current four-cylinder family sedans), the government’s $15m just bought it a crushing blow to the industry’s anti-CAFE carping.

When Chrysler Group Design boss Ralph Gilles said yesterday that “nothing has changed from the Five Year Plan,” I failed to mention one of the issues that made his statement less than entirely accurate: the planned “mid-sized pickup” which was supposed to debut as a 2011 model. The planned unibody pickup was labeled as “under consideration” at the time, and since nobody has mentioned it since (and because Honda’s Ridgeline has been losing sales), most industry watchers seemed to think the idea was stillborn. Not so, reports wheels.ca. Citing insiders and suppliers briefed on the program, Wheels says the new truck will be built in Windsor, Ontario on Chrysler Group’s minivan platform as

an insurance policy that the plant will continue on three shifts at full capacity.

Which isn’t as thrilling a justification as, say, “the compact pickup market has been shamefully neglected for years, and rising gas prices and CAFE standards make well-developed, modern, fuel-efficient pickups a no-brainer,” but it will have to do. And since Chrysler is reportedly targeting only 15k-20k units per year, it’s not particularly surprising either. In honor of Chrysler’s return to front-drive, compact pickups, be sure to check out the Curbside Classic on its progenitor, the Dodge Rampage.

Does that headline seem ripped from the pages of TTAC’s 2008-2009 headlines, or what? But really, who’s shocked? Chrysler spent early 2009 trying to convince the government that it was worth a (second) taxpayer-funded second chance, and now that it’s looking for a private-sector bailout in order to escape the terms of its publicly-funded bailout, Chrysler’s still got some ‘splaining to do. The DetN reports:

Chrysler Group LLC does not intend to speed up plans for new cars despite media reports that investors see a high degree of risk in an automaker that has been so dependent on truck sales…

“Nothing has changed from the five-year plan,” [Chrysler Group VP of Design and Dodge boss Ralph Gilles] said.

New small and midsize cars for Chrysler, engineered by Fiat, “are coming strong and heavy,” Gilles told reporters following a speech. “There is no need to speed up.”

Now, nobody would suggest that Chrysler should mess with its product timing simply to please some bankers. If it’s even remotely possible to hurry new products to launch without cutting serious corners, Chrysler should/would be doing it anyway ( ask Sergio). Still, Gilles’ “nothing has changed” sound bite isn’t exactly true.

Why do consumers like CAFE? Well, the short answer is that a gas tax (which is infinitely superior from a pure policy perspective) hits them directly in the pocketbook, while CAFE forces automakers to absorb the cost increases before passing them along to consumers in the form of higher MSRPs. But underlying this fact is a larger issue that’s driving support of increased emissions regulation: gas is getting more expensive. As I pointed out in my recent editorial on the subject, for all the automakers’ whining about CAFE increases, it seems that energy prices are moving the market in the same direction anyway (the average family will spend $3,100 on gasoline this year).

According to a Consumer Federation of America study [ PDF], the steadily-rising price of energy has consumer’s even more concerned about gas prices and dependence on the volatile Middle East than they were during the height of the last fuel price shock in the Summer of 2008. As a result, support for a 60 MPG fuel economy standard doesn’t go below 49% (among Independents) even assuming a ten-year payback period, and earns the support of 63% of Democrats. And before you dismiss this support as hysteria, consider the underlying economics for a moment…

Who’s the most efficient automaker of them all? According to TrueCar’s projections for May, Smart, MINI, Hyundai, VW and Scion top the list for sales-weighted fleet fuel economy. Meanwhile, the industry average of 22.4 MPG might not sound like much, but when you convert it to the “unadjusted” numbers used for CAFE, that 22 MP turns into about 28 MPG. Considering the 2015 CAFE standard is 35.5 MPG between cars and trucks, that average shows the industry to be fairly well on-track to comply with the initial CAFE ramp-up. In fact, since 35.5. MPG CAFE equals about 27 MPG EPA, it seems that the top three brands on this list (Smart, MINI, Hyundai) can pretty much twiddle their thumbs between now and 2015, as they’re practically in compliance with the 35.5 MPG standard already.

When Lotus showed five new cars at the Paris Auto Show last summer, the British Sports Car brand raised a number of eyebrows amongst the motoring press. Not only was Lotus abandoning its lovable but hugely unprofitable enthusiast/trackday niche, but it was also reaching for Ferrari and Porsche-style brand recognition while offering an ambitious but underwhelming (on paper anyway) vision of its future product lineup. Five new vehicles (three mid-engine, two front-engine, four two-door coupes, one four-door sports sedan) is a lot of development work, and initial reports that Lotus would use Toyota power including hybrid drivetrains didn’t create much for enthusiasts to get worked up over. Lotus has since backed away from using Toyota power, but developing engines for five new vehicles creates a whole new set of challenges. And, as it turns out, Lotus has quietly backed away from the most ambitious elements of its plan, and the firm now plans to launch only two cars at first. Has Lotus turned the corner from hype machine to credible competitor?

It started as a flippant Twitter comment, in which GM Global Marketing Officer Joel Ewanick agreed to champion a return for the “El Camino” if 100,000 potential buyers raised their hands for it. Smelling an opportunity for some publicity, Jalopnik quickly picked up on the “challenge” and urged readers to leave a comment in support of the trucklet. At first Ewanick tried to hedge, saying he needed 100k deposits, rather than blog comments, to approve an El Camino for the US market. But now the former Hyundai marketer has taken Jalopnik’s challenge to Chevy’s Facebook page, giving a surprising amount of credibility for a “challenge” that began with a throwaway tweet. What makes Chevy’s endorsement of the “El Camino Challenge” even more surprising: the total lack of apparent enthusiasm.

TTAC has paid close attention to the fortunes of ethanol in the United States, where grossly wasteful subsidies have forced the corn-derived fuel into the fuel supply in growing percentages, drawing backlash from small but vocal portions of the population. But much of the ethanol ire is directed at higher blends like the recently-approved E15 and the increasingly-unpopular E85 mixtures. Meanwhile, most Americans regularly fill up their tanks with E10, which has become standard at pumps across the nation. But in Germany, where E10 was only just introduced, people are rejecting the low-ethanol blend that even the most vocal American ethanol opponents use every day. Initially, the biofuel industry in Germany blamed a lack of education for suspicion of E10, but according to Autobild, some 75 percent of German drivers now know whether their vehicle takes E10 (and most do)… but still, only 17 percent actually chose E10 for their last fill-up. And only 39 percent who know for a fact that their car can take E10 have ever used the ten-percent ethanol fuel. Why? Despite the high level of education, 52 percent of respondents still feared motor damage from the ethanol. Another 50 are opposed to “filling up with food.” Sometimes the more you know about something, the less you like it.

The war of words over a possible 62 MPG 2025 CAFE standard is accelerating this week, as letters in support of the standard [sub] are vying with industry responses against the proposal for media attention. And though environmentalists are quick to point out the often-misunderstood difference between EPA and CAFE mileage ratings (a fact that even the industry-friendly Automotive News [sub] concedes, if only in a blog post], the industry’s response is miles away from any kind of compromise, saying

The alliance believes it is inappropriate to be promoting any specific fuel economy/greenhouse gas at this point

How’s that for some old-school, don’t-tread-on-me corporate attitude? No room for compromise, no sense of nuance… and yet, that doesn’t actually represent the industry’s position at all.

Rated at between 21/28 (2.5l, manual) and 27/34 (2.0l, auto), the Nissan Sentra is a fairly efficient car, albeit rapidly falling out of contention with its new 40 MPG competitors. Using a computer simulation, the developers of the “split-cycle” Scuderi engine showed that their unique, downsized, turbocharged engine can improve up to a 35% improvement in a “stock” Sentra’s fuel economy, when paired with the firm’s AirHybrid system. It’s not clear, even after listening to a podcast with VP Steven Scuderi, which engine-transmission combination was simulated as the “stock” baseline, but for practical purposes the best-performing Scuderi engine (tuned to match the “stock” engine’s power) achieved between 40 MPG and 32 MPG combined (around 50 MPG CAFE combined, or approaching the 2025 standard). Or, not. The EPA city test reportedly does not show improvements with idle fuel shutoff (stop-start), but Scuderi’s simulated stop-start system shows a 14% improvement over the non-start-stop “stock” Sentra on the same FTP-75 test. Was Mazda bluffing (it’s since said it would bring stop-start to all its cars), or is Scuderi’s simulation off? Scuderi (which has nondisclosure agreements with 11 OEMs and is in discussions with 4-5 more) says it will release more information next week at the Engine Expo 2011 in Stuttgart, Germany.

As the graph above [via NHTSA’s latest CAFE data, in PDF here] shows, passenger car fleet economy has actually leveled off after a brief spike in recent years. Possibly even more surprising is the fact that imports spent a portion of the last decade actually beating the imports in passenger car economy after a 20+ year slide in import CAFE performance [ more long-term fuel economy charts here]. These trends illustrate that the sides in the emerging “Battle of 62 MPG” may not as easy to characterize as you might think… as does a new hint from NHTSA about the shape of future CAFE increases. According to the Detroit News, NHTSA is signaling that

it is researching the impact of raising fuel efficiency in the 2 percent to 7 percent annual range.

The agency said it has “tentatively concluded” that 7 percent annual increases is the maximum that is technically feasible.

Before it sets a requirement, NHTSA must take into account a number of factors, including the costs of the regulation and safety impacts.

NHTSA and the Environmental Protection Agency said previously they are working together on 3 percent to 6 percent annual increases.

The high end of that range would result in the much-discussed 62 MPG by 2025 standard, an achievement the government insists would only cost as much as $3,500 per vehicle. The industry points to cost estimates closer to $10,000 per vehicle for that level of CAFE increase. The battle continues…

President Obama devoted his weekly address to energy and transportation policy this week, speaking to the nation from an Allison hybrid bus transmission plant in Indiana. A White House blog post accompanying video of the President’s speech included a large infographic on “The Obama Energy Agenda And Gas Prices,” the transportation-oriented section I’ve excerpted above. This one section is actually a fairly good representation of Obama’s auto-related energy policy preferences, and illustrates why I often find myself criticizing the president here at TTAC.

In TTAC’s early years, we spilled much digital ink over GM’s bloated brand portfolio, wondering again and again what brands should be cut, which should move upmarket and which should move downmarket. It’s a fun exercise, but one that history has largely passed by. Not only did GM cut Saab, Hummer and Pontiac in its bankruptcy, but Chrysler has more than doubled the potential number of brands to be sold through its distribution channels, shifting the brand-clutter center of gravity towards Auburn Hills. But GM isn’t done struggling with the legacy of the Sloan system, as GM North America boss Mark Reuss tells Automotive News [sub] that GM still has at least one major branding battle on its hands: Chevy versus GMC.

We need to make sure that we drive the differentiation in the product and the price to create that separation that we know we can on GMC and Chevrolet. I don’t think we have the margin opportunity set up quite right with GMC.

A massive study by the Government Accountability Office into “Opportunities to Reduce Potential Duplication in Government Programs, Save Tax Dollars, and Enhance Revenue” has turned up an interesting finding. It seems that the government’s desire to buy more “alternative fuel vehicles” (AFVs) may actually increase the amount of gasoline used by government fleets. Why? Because agencies largely buy E85 ethanol-powered vehicles to fulfill their AFV requirements, and there aren’t enough E85 pumps to actually fuel the fleet, forcing agencies to obtain waivers to buy regular gasoline. Hit the jump for the report’s full findings on this, the latest unintended consequence of America’s ongoing ethanol-subsidy boondoggle.

A number of plug-in hopeful firms have been testing their future products in fleets, keeping a close eye on the data coming back as they prepare for their consumer launches or wider availability. One such vehicle, Toyota’s plug-in Prius has been testing for some time now, and while the results of US and European testing hasn’t been publicized yet, Wards Auto reports that the company has disclosed the results of Japanese testing with some interesting conclusions. With BYD and Chevrolet releasing data from their own plug-in testing, we should have the basis for some interesting insights. Hit the jump for more on the lessons learned and the data gleaned from this testing of next-gen drivetrains.

A lot has changed in the auto industry in the three years since I started writing here at TTAC, and one of the more heartening developments has been the move towards ever greater transparency for all kinds of data, from sales breakouts to incentives to sales-weighted fuel economy. Though I’d like to think that TTAC played a role in helping push towards greater transparency and disclosure, the real heroes of this story are Hyundai (which has begun to release its sales-weighted fuel economy each month and is moving towards quarterly fleet sales breakouts) and TrueCar, which has possibly done more to put information in the hands of auto consumers than anyone else (TTAC included). TTAC thanks everyone who is helping push the industry towards ever more disclosure, and invites you to take advantage of these newly-available data points in order to better understand the ever-evolving face of the US auto industry. Here we present TrueCar’s TrueMPG data for April, which shows a .2 MPG improvement across the industry since April 2010.

This video says it all.

The slide above shows Chrysler’s product plan for the 2010-2014 timeframe, and as it shows, after the new 300 and “refreshed” 200 and T&C, the next Chrysler was supposed to be a C-segment compact sedan. But, reports C&D’s Justin Berkowitz, the subcompact car (essentially a rebadged Lancia Ypsilon) has already been canceled for being positioned too close to the Fiat 500. Meanwhile, it seems that now only one of Chrysler Group’s brands will get a forthcoming compact sedan, and since Dodge has confirmed that it will get a Fiat-based Caliber replacement next year, it seems Chrysler won’t be getting any help in one of the most important segments in the market. So, without a subcompact or compact car coming down the pipe, what does Chrysler have to look forward to? Another crack at the D-segment, come 2013, and a crossover based on the same platform. Apparently the Chrysler brand, which is supposed to be a Lancia-style luxury brand in the Fiat empire, doesn’t need more than four products.

Hyundai updated its web-only “save the asterisks” video for the New York Auto Show, as it continues to highlight fuel economy as a key brand value. And the brand didn’t miss the opportunity to talk about future fuel-efficient products either, as InsideLine reports that Hyundai is promising two more vehicles rated at 40 MPG highway or above in the “next couple of years.” One is the Prius competitor, which was previewed with the Blue Will concept, and which appears to now be a dedicated hybrid-only model, after having been initially tipped as a plug-in hybrid. The other? Hyundai won’t say, but an exec does tell the Edmunds blog that

The strategy of further developing the internal-combustion engine, with significant increases in fuel economy, is where we see the market going

So, something non-hybrid… perhaps the i10 A-segment hatch that Hyundai USA recently let us drive? The Europe-only i40 wagon? What about the Euro-market ix20 subcompact MPV? Or are we waiting for something brand new?

Especially since the Legacy/Outback started ballooning and the Forester got a dealer-demanded homogenization, the Impreza has been my personal favorite Subaru (my significant other owns an ’08 wagon). It may not win any fuel economy contests in its size class, but the weight of its AWD system and grunty 2.5 liter engine make it a solid baby grand tourer compared to its front-drive competitors. But with gas prices now climbing steadily towards “freak-out” levels and competitors lounging on the 40MPG beach, a consistent 26 MPG no longer cuts the mustard. And so the new Impreza will lose its 2.5 liter engine in favor of a 2.0 unit which, along with some weight loss and a CVT will power the new Impreza to a 27/36 MPG EPA rating (25/33 with the manual transmission). Far be it from us to complain about less weight and more fuel economy, but it feels like the Impreza may be giving up some of its niche appeal in search of mainstream acceptance… not that there’s anything wrong with that.

Bringing out a V6 version of a full-size truck like the F-150 is a good way to get truck guys suspicious, especially if you try to assuage their fears by talking about the engine’s direct-injection, turbocharging and other high-tech frippery. Ford’s solution: emphasize the “power of a V8, efficiency of a V6” simplification, and hope the market catches on as gas prices rise. But does Ford’s marketing concept actually hold true in real life? Does an Ecoboost F-150 get the mileage of a six cylinder even when doing tough truck-guy work? Thanks to some great work by Pickuptrucks.com, you can decide for yourself using the data from a fantastic infographic used to illustrate their test of a loaded and unloaded Ecoboost F-150.

Rising prices at the pump make people do dumb things. Some buy a new car to save at all costs. Not only will they never recoup the cost of the new car, the tsunami in Japan turned fuel efficient Japanese cars into everything else than a bargain. Others do something particularly stupid: They drive their car until it runs out of gas.

What keeps powertrain engineers up at night? C’mon, get your mind out of the gutter. The move towards downsized, turbocharged engines is creating a number of new engineering challenges, and “torsional excitations” grabbed the spotlight at this year’s Society of Automotive Engineers Congress. Steven Thomas, manager of Ford’s global transmission and driveline, research and advanced engineering, illuminated the issue [via Wards].

As we reduce the engine torque, particularly just off idle prior to the boost coming on, we’re going to adversely impact the ability to accelerate the vehicle. I would challenge you all to think about new ways of dealing with this. We could really use new designs to deal with these challenges to optimize the fuel economy, but at the same time deal with (noise, vibration and harshness) and performance issues presented by these new engines.

The problem: the increased inertia of forced-induction engines. The practical example: a turbocharged Fiesta. A worthy adversary, a worthy cause. Let’s do this.

In the grand old days of the European auto industry, rival houses would battle for supremacy in endurance, road, rally and formula racing, the results of which were treated as far more important than (or, at least the basis for) such prosaic concerns as sales volume or profitability. In the modern era, this fierce competition slacked, as racing became about brand-building and competition moved into the arenas of sales and profits. Now, however, a new competition has erupted between every brand with a presence in the European market, only this time participation is compulsory and the stakes are survival in a super-competitive, mature market. And neither speed nor endurance will win this race against time: only reaching an EU-mandated carbon emissions goal by 2015 will do.

The NYT reports:

The Environmental Protection Agency has revised its alternative-fuel conversion regulations for light and heavy-duty vehicles, making it easier for manufacturers to sell conversions that are compliant with clean-air laws. The 186-page ruling provides an exemption from a Clean Air Act prohibition against tampering when converting an engine to run on alternative fuel.

In the past, a manufacturer of alternative-fuel conversion systems was required to certify its products in the same manner that a vehicle manufacturer certified its vehicles — an expensive and difficult process. The new regulations provide a way to comply with clean-air standards through streamlined testing.

In essence, the rule change creates a graded compliance structure, depending on the age of the converted vehicle, making it easier to retrofit older vehicles. Read all about it at the EPA’s website.

Compared to March 2010, Ford enjoyed the greatest improvement in sales-weighted fleet MPG in the US market on an adjusted (EPA) basis. But the new king of efficiency, Hyundai, also saw its fleetwide efficiency improve, rising to 26 MPG, some 1.9 MPG better than the next closest competitor, Honda. No wonder the Koreans are the first (and only) automaker to disclose its CAFE fuel economy (as well as the first automaker to publicize the difference between CAFE ratings and the adjusted numbers you see here). For the first quarter of this year, Hyundai’s CAFE rating (as calculated by the automaker) stands at 35.8 MPG, with some 22 percent of its sales mix coming from vehicles rated at 40 MPG on the highway (28% for March). [chart courtesy of TrueCar]

In the post-Veyron, post-Horsepower Wars world, “Responsible Performance” has been the catchphrase on the lips of every purveyor of performance cars. And with Audi and Nissan already set to brawl for EV sportscar niche that’s being abandoned by Tesla with the forthcoming end of production of its Roadster, diesel power seems to be benefiting from a second look by would-be “responsible performance” vendors.

Unsurprisingly, the tuning houses are promoting their diesel efforts, as EV tuning presents significant challenges to the ICE-based tuning community. And the BMW modifiers at AC Schnitzer are leading the way with this Z4 “99d,” a 188 HP, 310 lb-ft two-liter turbodiesel roadster capable of 146 MPH. Oh yes, and 99 grams of CO2 per Km, or (very roughly) 60-ish MPG (non-EPA). Sound like a healthy compromise between “responsibility” and performance? The only thing you’ll have to give up is the $210,000 that Automobile says this Schintzer concept would cost if it were built.

A new report [full PDF here] from the Government Accountability Office tears into the Department of Energy’s Advanced Technology Vehicle Manuacturing Loan (ATVML) program, the $25b “retooling loan” package that was the subject of TTAC’s first-ever Bailout Watch.

Although the loans represent about a third of the $25 billion authorized by law, the program has used 44 percent of the $7.5 billion allocated to pay credit subsidy costs, which is more than was initially anticipated. These higher credit subsidy costs were, in part, a reflection of the risky financial situation of the automotive industry at the time the loans were made. As a result of the higher credit subsidy costs, the program may be unable to loan the full $25 billion allowed by statute.

Well, no wonder GM pulled out of the program… it and Chrysler were asking for more than the remainder of $25b would have supported anyway, so if there is actually less than $25b to be spent, the high road away from the “Government Motors” image makes a lot more sense. But a lack of available funding isn’t the only problem with the program…

As I write this, President Obama and his top environmental and auto regulators are gathering for a speech on “American energy security” at Georgetown University. In this speech, the President is expected to make the case for ramped-up CAFE standards, EV subsidies and other transportation-related energy efficiency goals, and based on his politically pragmatic framing of the issue as being about “energy security” rather than environmental prerogatives, it seems that he’s serious about creating new policy rather than merely playing to his base. But, according to the Detroit News, the automakers are not going to take increased regulation sitting down, but appear to be gearing up for the first major legislative clash over automotive regulation since the green-tinged bailout. Automakers have begun to push back on both fuel economy and stalled safety legislation, explains Alliance of Automotive Manufacturer’s spokesperson Gloria Bergquist.

Automakers have always supported legislation and regulations that are driven by data and sound science, and there have been some examples where there was more wishful thinking and targets being selected that weren’t based on the data. So we have become more outspoken on the need for data to drive policy decisions.

Of course, automakers haven’t always supported regulation of their industry… but this is clearly a change in tone from the cowed industry that collapsed into the government’s arms just a few short years ago. A battle is brewing, so let’s look at some of the flashpoints in this forthcoming conflict.

Reflecting on the recently-previewed Chevy Colorado Concept, Automotive News [sub]’s Rick Krantz notes

During an interview this year at the Detroit auto show, Jamie Hresko, then vice president of GM global powertrain engineering, strongly suggested the automaker was exploring a new mid-sized pickup. He resigned in late February to pursue other opportunities.

To meet proposed higher U.S. fuel economy and lower emissions standards, automakers that sell in the United States eventually will need to develop a leaner range of pickups, Hresko said.

At some point, especially with the likelihood of higher gasoline prices down the road, a smaller, lighter-weight pickup is inevitable…

We love staying ahead of the curve with new engine technologies like the Ecomotors OPOC engine, but without an engineering degree it can be hard to tell the the posers from the next big thing. So when something like the Wave Disc engine comes along, we throw ourselves upon the collective wisdom of our Best and rightest to help us make sense of it. In the video above, the Wave Disc engine’s creator, Michigan State’s Norbert Muller, explains his invention and its benefits including simplicity, light weight and efficiency. And, he claims, the technology is close enough to reality to have a Wave Disc-electric hybrid within three years. Hit the jump for more technical details, and be sure to let us know if this is worth watching or just another engineering dead-end.

President Obama’s goal of having a million plug-in vehicles sold in the US by 2015, like almost every other political goal these days, has become a divisive issue. For ever American who sees it as a courageous step away from oil addiction or ecological disaster, another sees it as market manipulation or a fool’s errand. But like most political debates, the row over government encouragement for plug-in vehicles serves more as a venue for other political cold wars (typically global warming and fiscal policy) than as a way to move towards a sane, equitable strategy. And, argue to the authors of a report that points out the poor chances of success for Obama’s goal, the political discussion over EV subsidies will stay stuck there until we figure out a lot more about who buys EVs and why. The problem: there is no national demonstration program to collect the data on which a real conversation about EV subsidies could be based.

As the former “car czar,” who led the government’s restructuring of GM and Chrysler, Steve Rattner has a considerable interest in portraying his pet projects as having turned the corner. But in a recent CNBC appearance, Rattner acknowledges that the market is “spooked” by GM’s increased reliance on incentives and the “unexpected” departure of its Chief Financial Officer. Ford, meanwhile, simply gets rapped for not communicating a slightly lower Q4 profit than Wall Street expected. And though Rattner’s not the guy to press the point home, there’s a clear distinction to be made between a much-hyped stock aligning itself with expectations (while making a tidy $6b+ profit) and a company that’s losing key personnel while leaning on incentives to recover the volume lost on brand and dealer cuts. But Rattner’s got bigger worries than short-term financial performances, or incentives or personell changes… he sees another, equally familiar problem that’s fixing to give GM (and, to a lesser extent, Ford) the fits: rising gas prices.

How do you goose fuel economy? Lower the cubic inches. Then add a little blow. Honeywell hopes that usage of turbochargers will double in new U.S. automobiles by 2015, “as tighter fuel economy standards foster an emerging market,” writes Bloomberg. The U.S. has among the lowest turbo use in the world, making it an “emerging region from a turbo standpoint,” Alex Ismail, head of Honeywell’s transportation systems division, said.

House Republicans took the first steps towards banning the EPA’s regulation of greenhouse gases, as the Energy and Power Subcommittee of the House Energy and Commerce Committee approved HR 910, the Energy Tax Prevention Act of 2011. In their statements today, Republican committee leaders cited rising gas prices and negative impacts on American businesses as the main reasons for attempting to strip the EPA of its ability to regulate emissions of

Water vapor, Carbon dioxide, Methane, Nitrous oxide, Sulfur hexafluoride, Hydrofluorocarbons, Perfluorocarbon and any other substance subject to, or proposed to be subject to, regulation, action, or consideration under this Act to address climate change.

Intriguingly, subcomittee Chairman Ed Whitfield’s statement [ PDF] names a number of industry groups who support HR910, including the National Association of Manufacturers, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, American Farm Bureau Federation, National Mining Association, National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, National Petrochemical and Refiners Association, and the National Association of Realtors… but no auto industry group was named as a supporter of the bill (current regulation of GHGs only cover power stations and large-scale emitters). HR910 has been fast-tracked to the full Energy and Commerce Committee, which will begin hearings on Monday. According to Bloomberg, Senate Democrats are vowing to block the bill, arguing that Republicans attempts to link the bill to gas prices are misleading and that if passed, it would increase harmful pollution.

Thinking about getting an EV? Better move to a balmier state.

“It turns out batteries are like people. They love room temperature,” Bill Wallace, director of Global Battery Systems at GM said at an energy forum at the University of Chicago. He had come under fire, ammunition courtesy of Consumer Reports which said its tests showed the battery’s range of the Chevy Volt would last only 23 to 28 miles in cold weather.

I don’t think the industry learned a lot of lessons from 2008—they will this time around

…said GM CEO Dan Akerson at the Geneva Auto Show [via the WSJ]. But which “lesson of 2008” is Mr Akerson referring to? Overproduction? Incentive and fleet sale dependency? There were so many lessons to be learned in 2008… right Dan?

It would not be a good thing to see $5-a-gallon gas right now.

Oh, he’s talking about getting caught flat-footed by gas price spikes. Fine, let’s ignore the other “lessons of 2008” and hash out the truth behind Akerson’s comment: is the industry ready for $5 gas? Remember, consumer choice tends to exaggerate changes in the price of oil. Or, is it possible that some OEMs are “too ready” for high gas prices? After all, if automakers overcorrect for high gas prices, profits will suffer when the spike subsides. Or is, as BNET’s Matt Debord suggests, Akerson just trying to get the market to price risk into GM’s stock value?

Hyundai may have taken the unprecedented step of publicizing its sales-weighted Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) number, but as the Korean automaker itself has pointed out, CAFE numbers are based on unadjusted (non-EPA) numbers that do not reflect window sticker ratings. Into that gap step the auto data-philes at TrueCar, who have created the first index of sales-weighted EPA fleet fuel economy for the US market. According to TrueCar’s release

TrueCar is seeking to provide transparency and truth in average fuel economy, providing an alternative view to Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) ratings that can be confusing and misleading. TrueCar’s monthly average fuel economy helps keep in perspective what each manufacturer’s average miles per gallon per car sold using EPA’s window sticker.

Unsurprisingly, Hyundai takes the top average efficiency rating, at 26.6 MPG, while Chrysler trails the pack at 19.5 MPG. More surprisingly: Toyota’s car fleet became 1.6% less efficient in the last year but still held onto its lead at 28.7 MPG. Also, GM’s truck fleet actually became less efficient over the last year, even as Ford and Chrysler’s trucks improved 1.1 and .6 percent respectively. For more fleet average breakdowns by segment, just hit the jump.

Keeping a nervous eye on oil prices? Curious how each increase in the price per barrel translates into price at the pump, and what impact that actually has on consumers? Zerohedge comes through with this handy primer on the real-world consequences of each increase in the price of oil. And what, pray tell, does the “Nomura” note scrawled over the $220/barrel price refer to? Why, t he prediction by Nomura Investment Bank analyst Michael Lo, that if Libya and Algeria stop oil production due to unrest, the price of crude will hit $220/barrel. Are you ready to start spending an extra ten percent of your household income on gas?