By Chris Haak

02.26.2008

The California Air Resources Board (CARB) adopted rules several years ago requiring a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions (CO2) for vehicles sold in California for model years 2009 through 2016. CARB is now preparing to expand the rules beyond 2016 to 2020. The result of California’s stricter rules is that the average new vehicle sold in California in 2020 would need to average 43.9 mpg (versus the Federal CAFE standard of 35.0 mpg by the same date).

The auto industry is challenging the original 2009 to 2016 rules in Federal courts, arguing that they are an illegal attempt to usurp federal authority over fuel economy (because unlike the case with smog-forming pollutants, C02 emissions are correlated almost directly to fuel consumption/economy). They are also likely to challenge the additional years, as they are even more strict. Because California mandated pollution controls on vehicles before the federal government did, the state is allowed to set its own pollution standards, and 15 other states have adopted the California standards as well.

In December 2007, EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson declined to allow California to enforce their greenhouse gas rules. His argument was not one of federal versus state powers, though – his argument was that the new federal 35 mpg standard would do more to cut emissions and global warming than state rules, which he said would set a standard of 33.8 mpg.

Because California and the 15 states (primarily in the Northeast) that follow its rules make up about half of the US new vehicle market. Since it would be impossible to write off half of the US new vehicle market, the result could be one of two things: either the California standards will become a de-facto national standard (forcing everyone in the US into even smaller, more efficient vehicles than we would have with a 35 mpg CAFE requirement), or severely limiting allocation of models available for sale in California and the other states that do not meet the mileage standards. Of course, economics 101 tells us that limiting the supply of something will force up its price, so if you live in California or one of those other states, you can expect to pay significantly more for a new vehicle than you otherwise would have to.

CARB has run into issues with its “innovation by legislation” mantra several times in past years. More than a decade ago, California mandated that a percentage of the new vehicle fleet sold in Califonia be 10% ZEVs (zero-emission vehicles) by 1998. The only way to reach complete zero emission status is with a 100% electric vehicle or one with a fuel cell. Obviously, there were no mass-produced fuel cell or electric vehicles on the road in 1998, so the board modified the ruling that year to allow up to 60% of the ZEV requirement to be met with vehicles having extremely low emissions and other specific attributes. This was the birth of the PZEV (i.e. Ford Focus PZEV and BMW 325i PZEV) and AT-PZEV (AT stands for Advanced Technology) (i.e. Toyota Prius).

The question then remains: if the federal government allows California’s rules to stand (which it may do eventually; legislation to do so is pending in Congress, and McCain, Clinton, and Obama have all said that they support allowing states to establish their own greenhouse gas rules), are they even realistic expectations for just 8 to 12 years in the future? Cars and the smallest light trucks will need to achieve 50.8 mpg by 2020, and other light trucks will have to achieve 35.2 mpg, based on California’s current vehicle sales mix. Imagine for a moment what the highways will look like in 2020 when the average new car gets over 50 mpg. It will either be a very different looking highway, or CARB will have to allow some sort of flexibility or waivers to automakers.

COPYRIGHT Autosavant.net – All Rights Reserved

By Chris Haak

02.26.2008

Toyota’s nickel-metal hydride battery supplier, Panasonic EV Energy Co., is planning to produce about 800,000 batteries for hybrid vehicles in 2009. The company sells 95% of its output to Toyota, which means that Toyota is expecting to build at least 760,000 hybrid vehicles next year. This would be an increase of 77% over Toyota’s 2007 global hybrid production of 429,000 units.

If Toyota keeps up its march toward greater quantities of hybrid production, it should be able to reach its goal of selling 1 million hybrids by the early part of the next decade.

The supplier is a joint venture between Toyota and Matsushita Electric Industrial company and was founded in 1996. Although it currently produced nickel-metal hydride batteries, it will soon provide Toyota with next-generation lithium ion batteries (expected to be used by a plug-in hybrid starting around 2010). The struggle with the lithium ion batteries is longevity, but the general manager of Toyota’s hybrid division wants the battery life to exceed 10 years once development is complete.

A reliable battery supply for hybrid production has proven to be one of the elements of the supply chain that can put a crimp on production. To that end, other Japanese automakers have also developed arrangements with battery manfuacturers. Nissan is working with NEC, Honda is working with Sanyo, and Mitsubishi is working with GS Yuasa Corporation in a joint venture that will make lithium ion batteries. Rapidly increasing battery demand has caused other hybrid manufacturers (such as Ford and GM) and electric vehicle aspirants (such as GM with the hyped Chevy Volt) to seek their own reliable supplies as well.

Should Toyota’s hybrid plans pan out, they may continue the company’s growth trajectory of recent years. While many European manufacturers have staked their claim in the diesel world to conserve fuel, Toyota’s actions are clearly indicative of its continued focus on hybrid drivetrains instead.

COPYRIGHT Autosavant.net – All Rights Reserved

By Brendan Moore

02.25.2008

Nissan says the launch of three new passenger cars and the ongoing introduction of its Infiniti luxury brand models in China this year will push sales to the half-million mark. Nissan sold approximately 450,000 cars and light vehicles in 2007 in China, so a jump to 500,000 units would signify an 11% rise in total sales. Nissan estimates that they have around 5% of the vehicle market in China.

Nissan projects that the overall market in China will hit 10 million units this year, up from around 8.8 million in 2007.

Nissan launched the Infiniti line in China in July 2007, and kicked off the launch with the sale of the G35 sedan/coupe and FX35 and FX45 SUV. Sales of the M35 were added to the mix just last month.

One of the three models added to the Nissan sales mix is the Qashqui SUV, which will be sold as the Xiaoke in China. Sales expectations for China are high for the Qashqui SUV as the vehicle has already been a hit in Europe and Japan, two very different markets. Qashqui sales will start in March.

There has been speculation that another additional new model may be the Frontier pickup truck that was just launched in Thailand and other Asian countries, but Nissan officials say that only two other models besides the Qashqui will be introduced in China this year, and both of those are small passenger cars.

Nissan also plans to add over 100 new dealerships to its current dealer network in China, which will bring the total dealer count in China to around 470 for Nissan.

COPYRIGHT Autosavant.net – All Rights Reserved

By Chris Haak

02.25.2008

The American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, a Washington-based nonprofit group financed by foundations, electric utilities, and some federal agencies has released its list of the 12 greenest vehicles sold in the US in 2008 as well as the 12 “meanest” (meaning least environmentally friendly) vehicles.

The organization’s methodology (available here) claims to consider fuel economy, pollution emissions, CO2 (which is really a proxy for fuel consumption, since consuming fuel releases CO2, no matter how sophisticated emission controls are), vehicle weight, and even its cradle-to-grave environmental impact. On that last point, I found it the #2 green choice on the list below to be surprising, since the widely-criticized CNW Marketing Research report accused the Prius of having a larger overall environmental footprint than some Hummer models.

The list of the top 12 greenest vehicles sold in the US are:

1. Honda Civic GX (pictured above)
2. Toyota Prius
3. Honda Civic Hybrid
4. Smart ForTwo Convertible/Coupe
5. Toyota Yaris
6. Nissan Altima Hybrid
7. Toyota Corolla
8. Mini Cooper/Clubman
9. Ford Focus
10. Toyota Camry Hybrid
11. Honda Civic
12. Honda Fit

The Honda Civic GX is powered by CNG (compressed natural gas), so the Prius is rated as the greenest gasoline-powered vehicle. Every vehicle on the greenest list is built by an Asian manufacturer except for #4 (Smart ForTwo), #8 (Mini Cooper/Clubman), and #9 (Ford Focus).

You’d probably guess that their “hall of shame” of the most pollutting/environmentally impacting vehicles would include a lot of domestic brands, then. However, the worst are actually mostly European diesels and expensive, high performance vehicles. Although diesel-powered vehicles have 20-30% lower fuel consumption than comparable gasoline-powered vehicles, they also emit much more NOX and other pollutants than their gasoline-powered counterparts. Clean diesel technology such as BlueTec and Honda’s solution are coming in the next year or two, so perhaps many of these diesels will fall off the list, but right now, ACEEE does not consider diesel engines to be clean enough for consideration among the greenest vehicles.

The 12 “meanest” vehicles for 2008 are:

1. Volkswagen Touareg V10 TDI (pictured above)
2. Bugatti Veyron V16
3. Mercedes-Benz GL320 CDI
4. Jeep Grand Cherokee Diesel
5. Mercedes-Benz R320 CDI
6. Lamborghini Murcielago/Murcielago Roadster V12
7. Mercedes-Benz ML320 CDI
8. Mercedes-Benz G55 AMG
9. Hummer H2
10. GMC Yukon 2500 6.0L
11. Bentley Azure V8
12. Bentley Arnage V8

The Mercedes-Benz diesels (which power #s 3, 4, 5, and 7 on the list) really took a beating. The only two domestic vehicles on the list were the Hummer H2 (a favorite target of environmentalists) and the large three quarter ton GMC Yukon 2500.

Cleaning diesel emissions to the levels of gasoline engines will be expensive and the additional cost may mitigate some of the fuel saving advantages inherent in diesel powertrains. For example, would consumers be willing to spend $5,000 extra to save some fuel (and drive a vehicle with its fuel available at fewer service stations)? Also the small cars that make up most of the greenest list probably do not work for everyone’s needs (and certainly not their preferences). But for consumers concerned about their environmental footprint, these lists might be a factor in their decision. I know that I’ll be crossing the Veyron off my shopping list after seeing it here.

COPYRIGHT Autosavant.net – All Rights Reserved

By Chris Haak

02.25.2008

Last week, Toyota provided me with a 2007 Toyota CrewMax 4×4 Limited for evaluation. I’ve driven plenty of different pickup trucks over the years – two wheel drive and four wheel drive, basic trim and luxury trim, compact, midsize and full size, regular cab, extended cab and crew cab, gas and diesel, Ford, Chevy and Dodge. However, I’d never spent time in a Toyota truck and was very curious to see if the Tundra – of course, all new and upsized for 2007 (and mostly unchanged for 2008) – could live up to its hype. On paper, it’s certainly an impressive machine. The Tundra is finally as big as or bigger than its domestic competition, and has the towing and payload capacities to match, plus a top powertrain that’s at or near the head of its class.

Exterior
From a styling standpoint, the CrewMax is my favorite version of the Tundra. The CrewMax, for those not “in the know,” is one of two four-door versions of the Tundra (the other is called the DoubleCab, which is basically an extended cab, but with shorter forward-hinged doors and hidden handles). The CrewMax is comparable in concept to the Dodge MegaCab pickups, as it has an extremely roomy cab, while sacrificing some cargo box length. It also makes no attempt to disguise the back doors, since they’re longer than the front ones and have same gigantic chrome pull handles. To my eyes, the regular cab Tundras have cartoonishly-large front doors, and the cargo boxes of the non-CrewMax Tundras have too much length between the axle and the front of the box. I believe that the most attractive cargo box proportions occur when the rear axle is centered front to back.

Other than overall proportions, the Tundra isn’t a bad looking truck. It applies Toyota’s current truck/SUV styling theme to a large pickup. The theme includes sweeping curves, an oversized grille (somewhat reminiscent of the St. Louis Gateway Arch), and headlights that sweep backward and taillights that sweep forward. There’s a thick character line across the bottom of the doors that really works well. Overall, the truck’s styling is somewhat conservative, but I find it attractive. The 2009 Ram’s look might be marginally more attractive, but the Tundra managed to be conservatively attractive without overdosing on conservatism. (Yes, I’m talking about GM and Ford pickups, which sell in such great numbers that their stewards are afraid to take styling risks. To me, the resulting trucks are too square in an attempt to be “tough.”)

My test truck was shod with 18 inch wheels and Bridgestone tires, which looked a little small next to the 20 inch wheels that are becoming prevalent in truck-dom, but Toyota does offer the dubs for a reasonable $736. Ground clearance appeared to be appropriate – not too much wheel well was showing (as it did in the mid-1990s Dodge Rams), nor did it sit too low to put the truck’s underside in jeopardy.

Interior
Although full size truck buyers are a brand loyal bunch, and they take great pride in the external toughness of their vehicles, it goes without saying that owners spend far more time inside their trucks than admiring them from a distance. In the past four years (since the introduction of the 2004 Ford F-150), the bar has really been raised in terms of interior material quality, features, and design.

Against some tough competition, Toyota incorporated some premium features inside the Tundra CrewMax Limited. My test vehicle was nearly loaded, equipped with leather seats, JBL premium audio, factory navigation, four-disc CD changer, Bluetooth cell phone connection, dual glove boxes, dual zone automatic climate control, and multiple storage nooks. My favorite storage compartment is the hanging file holder in the center console – impressive! However, I was disappointed by a few aspects of the interior. The door panels, while they featured a two-tone look (with brown and tan plastic) were entirely covered in plastic with no soft-touch spots. The dashboard itself was surprisingly also entirely hard plastic. It didn’t have a cheap sound when I knocked on it, but I was surprised that the flagship Tundra model would not have a soft dashboard as our Sienna Limited minivan does. I hope that Toyota made that decision based on durability concerns and not cost. The large silver sweep around the instrument panel that goes to the floor console was also rough silver, which again was durable, but reminded me of some rough plastic painted with a can of Krylon Dull Aluminum paint. Against the top-level GM interior, I would give the nod to GM, (having spent 1,200 miles in a Suburban LTZ on a trip to Detroit in January, I’m also familiar with GM’s higher trim levels), though the GMs also have some ill-advised hard plastic touch points. Seats were made with a tougher (less supple) grade of leather than found in most cars, equivalent to the leather GM uses, and were comfortable for two hour-long drives last week.

Ergonomically, controls were easy to understand without much of a thought. Even pairing my Motorola RAZR and BlackBerry 8830 with Bluetooth was a cinch (although I’d already done a similar feat in our Sienna). I also appreciated that the navigation screen was positioned high on the dash, so the driver’s eyes aren’t removed far from the road ahead. However, the ergonomic problem with the interior is that its girth makes it almost impossible to reach the controls – particularly the radio tuning knob – without leaning forward and stretching. I’m 6’4″, so it must be nearly impossible for someone a foot shorter than me to tune the radio manually, at least while the vehicle is moving and the driver is belted to the seat. It seems as if the dashboard designers saw that they had such a large canvas to work with when placing controls, but didn’t consider that the canvas might be too large.

The back seat of the CrewMax was just awesome. Although I didn’t spend any travel time back there, the flexibility afforded by the extra length allowed me to easily “sit behind myself” (adjusting the driver’s seat to a comfortable position then sitting in the seat behind it). The back seats also are on tracks to slide forward manually as most cars’ front seats allow, and the backrests recline (although I didn’t see any easy-to-use lever to recline them; that is a task best done when the truck is parked). Child seats (both a convertible and a rear facing carrier) installed easily and allowed plenty of clearance to the front seats. My wife commented this morning that the truck was almost too high to comfortably lift our sons into the truck, but that’s not a design flaw, only a consequence of its size and height. The seatbacks also fold forward with just the flip of a lever to make a flat load floor.

Driving Experience
Knowing that a Tundra was coming to my driveway immediately after the Prius, I knew that both the driving experience and the fuel economy would be drastically different. Talk about an understatement.

The Prius starts with a beep and the engine probably won’t even be running. The Tundra starts with a whir and then the thunderous 5.7 liter V8 kicks in and settles into a baritone idle. The driving experience is very conventional in the Tundra, which I appreciated. Once underway, the best feature of the Tundra quickly became obvious: its powertrain. Not only did the 5.7 liter V8 make great power (381 horsepower and 401 lb-ft of torque), but the six-speed automatic that it was paired with gave me the perfect ratio every time, plus the benefit of quick downshifts when added power was quickly needed (or wanted). Two months ago, I went for a spin in a Jeep Grand Cherokee SRT8 with a 420 horsepower 6.1 liter V8 and five speed automatic; of course, the Tundra is down almost 40 horsepower and up several hundred (if not thousand) pounds on the SRT8, but the Tundra’s V8 and six speed reminded me of the Grand Cherokee. It’s that darn good. It even sounds great. Unfortunately, absolute power corrupts absolutely, and it was just a little too easy to stomp on the gas pedal at whim to enjoy the sounds and the thrust. Merging onto the highway? No problem, give it more gas! Hole opening up in traffic? No problem, give it more gas! Those “give it more gas” situations add up, and over a week and almost 200 miles, I got 12.3 miles per gallon in the Tundra, or 1.7 miles per gallon below its EPA city rating. However, remember that my tester was a 2007, so the 2008 Tundra 5.7 liter 4×4 is rated at 13/17 instead of the 14/18 on my window sticker. Therefore, maybe I didn’t take too many liberties with the big V8, only 0.7 mpg below its 2008 equivalent city rating. The only drivetrain criticism that I have is that when the transmission is in manual mode, upshifts seem to take three times longer than the transmission does on its own. I know I’m going to miss that engine when I go back to my Accord and minivan on Tuesday!

Although I said earlier that the interior wasn’t quite as luxurious or soft as I would have liked in a Limited model, I commend the lack of squeaks, rattles, or wind noise inside while driving. The most prominent sound inside is that V8, but only during acceleration, and it’s fine with me, as the six speed keeps it loping along quietly at less than 2,000 RPMs at 70 miles per hour with no drone.

The truck I tested was equipped with extendable tow mirrors, which are actually an option that has a negative cost, meaning that if you choose it, not only do you get bigger mirrors, but Toyota also gives you a few hundred dollars back, because they’re black plastic and not chromed, and therefore cheaper for Toyota. I probably would have appreciated them more if I had a chance to test the Tundra’s towing, but I did not. I found them difficult to adjust so that blind spots were eliminated (they are at least six inches from the door at the closest point, and the far edges are almost 18 inches from the door, making narrow streets and parking lots hazardous), although a smaller convex mirror underneath the main power adjustable mirror filled in most of the unknowns behind me. Still, I’m glad that I always double check with a head turn before changing lanes, or otherwise I would have mauled a few cars on the road, not to mention the lovely dark green paint of my test vehicle.

My third day with the truck, there was a snowstorm in my area. I brushed off the truck, turned the knob to four wheel drive mode, and headed to work. Toward the beginning of my trip, traffic reports referred to multiple accidents and a vehicle fire on the expressway I usually take, so I took the first exit I got to and made it to work via snowy backroads the rest of the way. The Tundra was a champ in the snow; I felt safe and confident driving it in the white stuff. I wouldn’t call it a “mountain goat,” but I was glad to have a large, heavy, four wheel drive vehicle on my way to work that day.

Bottom Line
The Tundra seemed like a capable, comfortable truck. It has plenty of power and an intelligent, fast-reacting transmission. Although I didn’t tow anything with it or even haul anything in the bed other than some snow that fell into it, most likely many of its buyers won’t either. After all, its 5 1/2 foot bed isn’t very long, and serious truck users probably wouldn’t buy a leather-lined, JBL/navigation-equipped truck with a longer cab than cargo bed. I used it to commute to work and run errands for a week, and at first, I felt self-conscious doing so, thinking I’d have a Ford or GM driver give me the finger for driving a Tundra. That didn’t happen, but then I started thinking about how obnoxious it was for a single driver to commute to work (it’s about 20 miles each way) in a four door, V8-powered pickup truck. Again, no reaction. I had more people giving me odd looks for driving a Prius to work than I did driving the leviathan Tundra to work, and that’s a little sad. If only our planet had unlimited oil, if only gas were $1 per gallon, if only parking spaces were bigger, the Tundra would be the perfect family vehicle. In a way, I’m going to miss driving it, because it’s a lot of fun to have a V8 underfoot, but I doubt there is anyone who needs a vehicle like the CrewMax. There are more spacious family vehicles with more interior volume and much better fuel economy, and there are pickups with cargo boxes much bigger than the CrewMax’s short one, but it really IS a comfortable, capable truck. It’s just not something I’d feel right about driving regularly to my office job.

COPYRIGHT Autosavant.net – All Rights Reserved

Since you read this site, you probably know that Ford has chosen to withhold the new Focus from North American shores for years while Ford customers in Europe enjoy the wonderful new Focus. The new Focus shares a common platform with the Mazda3 and the Volvo S40, both very nice small cars. The Focus we get in North America is on the same aged platform that it had in 2000, and we won’t get a actual new Focus until 2011.

When the Ford Focus first showed up here, it was so much better than any other domestic small car that it was really an empty gesture to do comparisons against those cars – cars like the Dodge Neon and the Chevrolet Cavalier. The Focus played in the other league, the one that had the Honda Civic and the Toyota Corolla in it.

But events conspired to keep the Focus down in those early years. One, since the United States was consumed by SUV-mania and gasoline was ridiculously cheap, there weren’t a lot of people showing up at the local Ford dealer looking for a small, fuel-sipping hatchback. Second, the Focus had some minor teething problems and the subsequent recalls got the model off to a rocky start with the public. It didn’t take long for Ford to decide that the Focus line here in North America would not get the subsequent (and decidedly more expensive) models that Europe would embrace with open arms.

So now its 2008, oil is $100 a barrel, the market for small cars in the U.S. has improved dramatically, and there is no doubt that Ford wishes they had a better car to sell in this segment than the 2008 Focus, but they don’t, and so here we are.

Let’s talk about what we have, not what we want.

I drove a top-drawer 2008 Focus SES (over $20,000) around for a week and here’s what I have to report.

First, the 2008 Focus has been redesigned to better match the other Ford sedans and the hatchback model has gone away, leaving the sedan and coupe to soldier on. Its not a handsome car, inside or out, but it isn’t ugly, either. Its just sort of non-descript.

Along with the cosmetic changes, the Focus has been improved considerably in terms of ride. The suspension platform is stronger, the handling firmer and NVH (noise, vibration and harshness) has been improved. The Focus has nothing to be embarrassed about in terms of ride and handling; it is competitive with other cars in its segment, despite the age of its platform.

The interior is nicer than it was, but it still looks kind of cheap compared to the competition. As an example, a $20,000 VW Rabbit has an interior that looks much more expensive and better put together. Lots of options inside a $20,000 Focus, like heated seats, nice stereo, etc., but still, it just doesn’t look upscale.

One area where the Focus far outshines its competition is the Sync multimedia system available with the car. There is nothing in any competitor that comes close to matching it. It is a wonderful system that every car should have because it works so wonderfully. Yes, you bet I like it a whole lot. It uses Bluetooth to make your cellphone, USB storage devices, MP3 player, etc. work wirelessly through the in-dash Sync system. It did that with the devices I have, and it did it quickly and effortlessly. What a great system!

The Focus has a 140 HP, 2-liter four-cylinder engine that is merely adequate, but at least it won’t shame you as you’re driving around. The Focus is rated at 33 MPG on the highway with the automatic (4-speed) but I did a lot better than that on a long trip I took in the Focus, getting somewhere around 38 MPG, and believe me, I was going over 65 MPH the whole way. I had the opposite result regarding the city rating of 24 MPG; I didn’t do any better than 20 MPG, but then again, I was not feathering the gas pedal in my urban travels.

The 2008 Ford Focus is not a car that anyone is going to lust after, but then neither is it something hateful to be avoided. Its one of those cars that just doesn’t give you a good reason to buy it after the test drive. The VW Rabbit is better-looking inside, better-looking outside, and a better performer, the Toyota Corolla has better fit and finish and a smoother powertrain, both the Honda Civic and the Honda Fit are better all-around cars, and the Mazda3, the distant corporate cousin to the Focus, is a lot more fun to drive. The other competitors in the segment are similarly advantaged. As one more example, look at the four-cylinder Chevrolet Malibu. It’s a great-looking car with a great interior design, handles pretty well, and will soon be available with a six-speed automatic for around $20,000. Enough said.

The summing up is that the 2008 Ford Focus is worth an honest look by a prospective buyer in this segment, but my opinion is that most people will buy one of its competitors.

This car is a placeholder for Ford and will simply have to fight the good fight for Ford in this segment until the really good Focus shows up. Of course, once the very-attractive new Fiesta hits North America, will the Focus get parked in the back corners of Ford lots across the United States?

COPYRIGHT Autosavant.net – All Rights Reserved