New EPA mileage numbers for hybrids
One of the major complaints from consumers about hybrids is that most people can't manage to get anywhere close to the EPA ratings.
Starting for the 08 model year, the EPA is adjusting their mileage numbers to reflect something closer to real-world numbers. Of note is that the testing procedure has not changed - the EPA is basically running the existing numbers through a correction formula to get the new ratings.
Also of note is that the fuel consumption really has not changed. The EPA is merely trying to give consumers a more realistic expectation when they are comparing vehicles.
So, here is what the changes give us (when available, comparable non-hybrid models are also listed). The each set of numbers are city/highway/combined ratings. The first set are the old ratings while the last column are the ratings under the new formula.
Starting for the 08 model year, the EPA is adjusting their mileage numbers to reflect something closer to real-world numbers. Of note is that the testing procedure has not changed - the EPA is basically running the existing numbers through a correction formula to get the new ratings.
Also of note is that the fuel consumption really has not changed. The EPA is merely trying to give consumers a more realistic expectation when they are comparing vehicles.
So, here is what the changes give us (when available, comparable non-hybrid models are also listed). The each set of numbers are city/highway/combined ratings. The first set are the old ratings while the last column are the ratings under the new formula.
Check your politics at the door - changes in the auto business and global warming.
Our world is changing.
Dispute the causes all you want, but the truth is that our climate is changing and we can either sit on our hands or we can do everything in our power to try to stabilize the climate (using the things we agree we can control) and protect the lives we've all become accustomed to (whether that means having to run your A/C a certain number of days a year or keeping your beach house above the ocean - though the whole in-house aquarium thing might become a selling point down the road).
There are countless little things that we can do as individuals to try to help. They all center around using less energy (either directly or in the things we buy).
Since this is a blog about cars...I'm not here to talk to you about switching to florescent light-bulbs (though that would be a cheap and easy start, if you are interested).
Ultimately, there are decisions that need to be made with regard to what we choose to drive. Evaluations need to be made about what we really need in a car and what the environmental impact of said choice will be. Since CO2 is a direct by-product of the amount of fuel you burn, the flip-side of this coin is that you can not believe in global warming as a human caused phenomenon and still justify a low CO2 emitting choice on the basis of fuel savings or reducing our national consumption of oil.
Of course, the decisions may get made for us in light of the US Environmental Protection Agency's new mandate (via the US Supreme Court) to regulate CO2 emissions as an official pollutant. This may force our and automakers' hands with regard to vehicle choice.
I, for one, would much rather make conservation choices now and send a message to automakers - giving them a head start - then to live through another 1980's fiasco where awful cars get built to meet a deadline from the government.
As consumers and/or government shift their thinking and make environmental factors part of the buying decision/production requirements, automakers will add offerings (or alter current offerings) in response.
...and what companies are best positioned to take advantage of this shift most quickly? A couple names might not surprise you, but I'm sure one will. You can also check out the latest report from the Union of Concerned Scientists rating relative pollution (including CO2) from the major automakers - even though they disagree with one of my choices below.
Honda, already an established producer of economical cars has made an enviable position for itself with its hybrid models, but also its new Fit hatchback. 
The Fit is a roomy, versatile, economical product - all while being quite a little go kart that keeps you from feeling like you sacrificed driving fun for your lower carbon footprint. Combined with Honda's IMA hybrid technology that can easily be retrofitted to just about any product they make and they could quickly put a hybrid of just about any product on the road.
Toyota, the 800lb gorilla of t
he current eco-car movement (even though they sell plenty of guzzlers as well) has their green poster child Prius (as well as the related hybrid versions of several Toyota and Lexus products). Less expensive are the eco friendly cars in the Scion line (xD and xB) as well as the Toyota branded Yaris sedan and hatch. Toyota certainly has a nice niche carved out for itself with products in several categories that would make nice alternatives to its competition all while providing higher economy (and subsequently lower CO2 emissions).
Now for the unexpected player in this 3-way eco race...GM.
'What?!' I hear you saying. 'Isn't GM a long-in-the-tooth sign of everything that is wrong in the auto industry? Aren't they a company that has made their name selling low-mileage, CO2-spewing, low-tech junk for decades.' - not anymore (not to mention that their reputation of selling low-economy is way overblown) . Witness the following:
GM developed arguably the most sophisticated electric vehicle ever to see production, the EV1, in the 1990's. Lack of customer acceptance killed that electric car - GM was well within their rights to pull them all back in - given the legal requirements to keep parts on the shelf for years after they went out of production. The only reason you've heard that they 'killed the electric car' is because some very influential and money-ed individuals in Hollywood had their feathers ruffled when GM wouldn't give them exactly what they wanted.
GM is a global company with incredible reach with regards to technology that they can bring to bear. They have subsidiaries with incredible expertise in technologies as diverse as electric powertrains, biofuels, diesel, fuel cells, and efficiency increasing technologies for the workhorse gasoline engines.
One example of this is the 'skateboard' chassis that they have had in development for years. It would allow a wide range of hydrogen fuel-cell products to be brought to market quickly and cheaply (of course, first we would have to see significant efficiency gains for the fuel cells and a hydrogen infrastructure for refueling).
A second example is the recent Volt concept from Chevrolet - using a technology GM calls 'E-Flex' the architecture shown by this concept is much closer to reality than the 'skateboard' in that it uses existing electric powertrain elements from hybrid cars and allows for a supplementary power unit that could be a conventional gas engine, a diesel, a small fuel cell, or any of a wide range of biofuel options. The E-Flex concept would allow for high effective fuel efficiency products that could also leverage recharging via a conventional wall-outlet (and therefore drawing power from what could be a more eco-friendly point source of pollution).
A third example is GM's broad investment in ethanol fuels. Millions of GM vehicles already on the road could be fueled by an E85 blend of gasoline and ethanol - and, once ethanol production is shifted away from a corn-only system, would be close to carbon neutral. Saab is the GM subsidiary that is taking the lead in ethanol vehicles and has recently shown a Saab 9-5 wagon that is optimized to run on E100 (100% ethanol).
Forth and most recent is GM's serious consideration of micro or city cars.
These are quite a bit smaller than some of the smaller cars available already on the US market - but would be recognized immediately in Europe or Asia. GM is preparing to have 4-seat cars that would have 1.0 litre gas or diesel engines, perhaps with hybrid technology as well and seating for 4 adults. At the New York Auto Show, they showed 3 different flavors of this class of car, a micro crossover called the Trax, a 4-door shrunken version of the Chevy HHR (or PT Cruiser, if you prefer) called the Groove, and then a tiny 3-door with a sporty vibe that looks like a shrunken version of Honda's Fit.
So, as you can see, while our cars might get smaller with smaller engines (or no engines whatsoever) - regulations that might force lower CO2 emissions won't put consumers into quite the bind that you might expect. Some manufacturers are already set to provide what the market will need and others will follow suit. And, once consumers realize the fun and functionality that can be had in these packages - we will all be able to breath a bit easier.
Dispute the causes all you want, but the truth is that our climate is changing and we can either sit on our hands or we can do everything in our power to try to stabilize the climate (using the things we agree we can control) and protect the lives we've all become accustomed to (whether that means having to run your A/C a certain number of days a year or keeping your beach house above the ocean - though the whole in-house aquarium thing might become a selling point down the road).
There are countless little things that we can do as individuals to try to help. They all center around using less energy (either directly or in the things we buy).
Since this is a blog about cars...I'm not here to talk to you about switching to florescent light-bulbs (though that would be a cheap and easy start, if you are interested).
Ultimately, there are decisions that need to be made with regard to what we choose to drive. Evaluations need to be made about what we really need in a car and what the environmental impact of said choice will be. Since CO2 is a direct by-product of the amount of fuel you burn, the flip-side of this coin is that you can not believe in global warming as a human caused phenomenon and still justify a low CO2 emitting choice on the basis of fuel savings or reducing our national consumption of oil.
Of course, the decisions may get made for us in light of the US Environmental Protection Agency's new mandate (via the US Supreme Court) to regulate CO2 emissions as an official pollutant. This may force our and automakers' hands with regard to vehicle choice.
I, for one, would much rather make conservation choices now and send a message to automakers - giving them a head start - then to live through another 1980's fiasco where awful cars get built to meet a deadline from the government.
As consumers and/or government shift their thinking and make environmental factors part of the buying decision/production requirements, automakers will add offerings (or alter current offerings) in response.
...and what companies are best positioned to take advantage of this shift most quickly? A couple names might not surprise you, but I'm sure one will. You can also check out the latest report from the Union of Concerned Scientists rating relative pollution (including CO2) from the major automakers - even though they disagree with one of my choices below.
Honda, already an established producer of economical cars has made an enviable position for itself with its hybrid models, but also its new Fit hatchback. The Fit is a roomy, versatile, economical product - all while being quite a little go kart that keeps you from feeling like you sacrificed driving fun for your lower carbon footprint. Combined with Honda's IMA hybrid technology that can easily be retrofitted to just about any product they make and they could quickly put a hybrid of just about any product on the road.Toyota, the 800lb gorilla of the current eco-car movement (even though they sell plenty of guzzlers as well) has their green poster child Prius (as well as the related hybrid versions of several Toyota and Lexus products). Less expensive are the eco friendly cars in the Scion line (xD and xB) as well as the Toyota branded Yaris sedan and hatch. Toyota certainly has a nice niche carved out for itself with products in several categories that would make nice alternatives to its competition all while providing higher economy (and subsequently lower CO2 emissions).Now for the unexpected player in this 3-way eco race...GM.
'What?!' I hear you saying. 'Isn't GM a long-in-the-tooth sign of everything that is wrong in the auto industry? Aren't they a company that has made their name selling low-mileage, CO2-spewing, low-tech junk for decades.' - not anymore (not to mention that their reputation of selling low-economy is way overblown) . Witness the following:
GM developed arguably the most sophisticated electric vehicle ever to see production, the EV1, in the 1990's. Lack of customer acceptance killed that electric car - GM was well within their rights to pull them all back in - given the legal requirements to keep parts on the shelf for years after they went out of production. The only reason you've heard that they 'killed the electric car' is because some very influential and money-ed individuals in Hollywood had their feathers ruffled when GM wouldn't give them exactly what they wanted.
GM is a global company with incredible reach with regards to technology that they can bring to bear. They have subsidiaries with incredible expertise in technologies as diverse as electric powertrains, biofuels, diesel, fuel cells, and efficiency increasing technologies for the workhorse gasoline engines.
One example of this is the 'skateboard' chassis that they have had in development for years. It would allow a wide range of hydrogen fuel-cell products to be brought to market quickly and cheaply (of course, first we would have to see significant efficiency gains for the fuel cells and a hydrogen infrastructure for refueling).A second example is the recent Volt concept from Chevrolet - using a technology GM calls 'E-Flex' the architecture shown by this concept is much closer to reality than the 'skateboard' in that it uses existing electric powertrain elements from hybrid cars and allows for a supplementary power unit that could be a conventional gas engine, a diesel, a small fuel cell, or any of a wide range of biofuel options. The E-Flex concept would allow for high effective fuel efficiency products that could also leverage recharging via a conventional wall-outlet (and therefore drawing power from what could be a more eco-friendly point source of pollution).A third example is GM's broad investment in ethanol fuels. Millions of GM vehicles already on the road could be fueled by an E85 blend of gasoline and ethanol - and, once ethanol production is shifted away from a corn-only system, would be close to carbon neutral. Saab is the GM subsidiary that is taking the lead in ethanol vehicles and has recently shown a Saab 9-5 wagon that is optimized to run on E100 (100% ethanol).
Forth and most recent is GM's serious consideration of micro or city cars.
These are quite a bit smaller than some of the smaller cars available already on the US market - but would be recognized immediately in Europe or Asia. GM is preparing to have 4-seat cars that would have 1.0 litre gas or diesel engines, perhaps with hybrid technology as well and seating for 4 adults. At the New York Auto Show, they showed 3 different flavors of this class of car, a micro crossover called the Trax, a 4-door shrunken version of the Chevy HHR (or PT Cruiser, if you prefer) called the Groove, and then a tiny 3-door with a sporty vibe that looks like a shrunken version of Honda's Fit.So, as you can see, while our cars might get smaller with smaller engines (or no engines whatsoever) - regulations that might force lower CO2 emissions won't put consumers into quite the bind that you might expect. Some manufacturers are already set to provide what the market will need and others will follow suit. And, once consumers realize the fun and functionality that can be had in these packages - we will all be able to breath a bit easier.