The Bush administration is adopting final rules that raise fuel economy standards for cars and light trucks by about 4 percent per year through 2015 via Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards. These are the biggest increases in fuel economy since energy regulation began more than 30 years ago. The rules will be effective with the 2011 model year, beginning Oct. 1, 2010.

This is great news for consumers who are looking to squeeze more mileage out of every fuel-up, but complicates vehicle production for car manufacturers that sell vehicles in the United States and that are now facing unprecedented economic challenges.

Other upsides are that raising fuel economy standards enhances energy security by improving fuel economy. In addition, the increased standards address climate change by reducing tailpipe emissions of CO2. These emissions represent 97 percent of the total greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles. Implementation of these tougher standards are expected to add to the billions of barrels of fuel already saved since the CAFE program began.

First enacted by Congress in 1975, the purpose of CAFE is to reduce energy consumption by increasing the fuel economy of cars and light trucks. Regulating CAFE is the responsibility of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). NHTSA sets fuel economy standards for cars and light trucks sold in the U.S.; EPA calculates the average fuel economy for each manufacturer.

The Web site http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/ contains comprehensive information about CAFE, including a program overview, related rulemaking activities, research, fleet characteristics and summaries of manufacturers’ fuel economy performance since 1978.

Source: NHTSA

An Oak Lawn Chrysler dealership launched a promotion Saturday that is either a brilliant PR stunt or an act of desperation. For a few days only, consumers who buy a new Chrysler Pacifica SUV (sticker price: $39,000+) at Mancari Chrysler-Jeep can purchase a slightly used PT Cruiser for $1.

While the unheard of deal has earned Mancari free publicity in everything from the local Southtown Star to the International Business Times, I’m afraid it may be a stark foreshadowing if the Big 3 aren’t able to dig themselves out of their financial quagmires.

We don’t take a lot of strong stances on this blog, but this threat affects us all. The Big 3 are ingrained in our pop culture—from Route 66 to the drive-in restaurant to the thriller “Christine.” They gave us America’s love affair with the automobile, and although controversial, the car enabled suburban sprawl. I can’t imagine a domestic economy without General Motors, Ford and Chrysler, and I’m guessing you can’t, either.

But more importantly, if they fail, the economy will bear the destructive blow. Their demise will mean more than a handful of unemployed executives. The ripple effect will be felt from the assembly lines to the auto parts factories to the dealers and independents, and to you, the people who own the cars. Each of these entities employs thousands of people, and I’m not sure we can truly comprehend how much each would be affected by the sudden absence of one or more of our domestic automakers.

For those reasons alone, I’m carefully following their $25 billion bailout pleas to Congress. Otherwise, I’m not very sympathetic to the carmakers’ plight. While new car sales are plummeting because of the credit crisis and faltering economy, how much of the Big 3s’ suffering is due to this vs. their own poor management practices, lower product quality and failure to adapt to a changing marketplace?

For decades, they’ve rested on their laurels, believing they were indestructible. They seemingly learned nothing from the oil crisis of the 70s, when demand came to a halt for their oversized gas-guzzling cars. This gave Honda and Toyota a chance to gain a foothold in the market with their small, fuel-efficient cars.

And what has happened since then? Honda and Toyota slowly gained market share by building better cars, and with that, a loyal customer base. The American carmakers offered smaller models for a few years, but then…Voila! Enter the minivan, the full-size SUV, the el grande SUV and then el grande pick up trucks, one model after another with few distinguishing features. Even as gas prices skyrocketed in the past several years, the Big 3 continued to roll out SUVs.

Meanwhile, Toyota introduced the Prius Hybrid, the Camry hybrid and the subcompact Yaris. Honda gave us the Civic Hybrid and the tiny Fit. BMW brought back the efficient but fun Mini Cooper, and this year, the Smart car debuted.

The Big 3s’ response? Aside from the Chevy Aveo, it was hybrid SUVs. Let’s give an 18-mpg vehicle a boost to 24 mpg. How many of these behemoths did Detroit need before realizing it would eventually be a losing proposition? Surely, the Big 3 were receiving the same economic forecasts as their competitors about a limited oil supply.

General Motors has garnered oodles of press about the Chevy Volt, an electric car set to debut in 2010. Has anyone stopped to ask why it will take so long to release? General Motors had an electric car in 1996, the EV1. If you haven’t seen, “Who Killed the Electric Car?”, then you might not know GM later pulled all of the EV1s off the road and sent them to the crusher. Whether or not you believe all of the allegations against GM (and many other parties) in the fanatical flick, it’s hard to believe there isn’t some thread of truth in there. You also have to wonder why it will have taken GM 14 years to produce another electric car. (To be fair, Honda and Toyota also had electric cars that met similar fates as the EV1.)

Detroit has had 40 years to analyze the competition and learn how to compete on their level in today’s marketplace. Clearly, they haven’t done that. Is it because of arrogance? Or a belief that Americans would rather drop $20,000 on a mediocre car than $25,000 on a high-quality one? Or do they simply not believe the quality differences are there? Maybe they were so focused on churning out SUVs that nothing else mattered.

And if we bail them out, what next? Are we prolonging the inevitable or giving an integral part of our past a deserving chance? What do you think? Share your thoughts!

Dissatisfaction with our petroleum-fueled way of life is boosting many vehicle engineers’ desires to find new ways to transport people while minimizing the environmental impact.

One such company is Norwegian electric vehicle producer TH!NK, which reports that it is “moving from an entrepreneurial stage toward full industrialization” of its electric vehicle, called the TH!NK city. Made of recycled materials, the car is also 95% recyclable, releases no local emissions and meets the safety requirements of a large car in the U.S. and Europe. Ford had a major stake in the company for four years but divested it in 2003.

Th!nk city, which will be in stores in Norway this month, can travel 111 miles (180 km) on a single battery charge. If fully run down, it takes about 10 hours to recharge. One unique feature of the car is its battery pack, which the vehicle owner leases from the car company via the “Mobility Pack.” For a monthly fee, the company maintains the battery and will deliver a new one at no charge should it malfunction. (The fee also includes a maintenance service agreement, carbon offset payments, insurance and, in some countries, all electricity used.) The company says it is structured this way because the batteries are expensive, and it wants to create a zero-risk investment for the consumer.

The car will also have 18-month service intervals because fewer parts require maintenance. For example, there is no exhaust pipe, engine oil or other mechanical components. The company says this will add up to a lower service bill.

As part of its holistic approach to engineering, Th!nk’s production facilities are carbon neutral, with very low emissions from production processes and minimal material wastes. The Th!nk city features a recyclable exterior and interior materials, and plastic panels are unpainted, reducing both pollutants and energy consumption.

As always, we want to consider the pollution released into the environment when generating the electricity needed to power electric cars. Coal- and nuclear-generated electricity have different environmental risks than petroleum, but the caveats currently remain. Whether vehicles like these catch on is up to consumers worldwide, and the choices in the next couple of years are bound to be numerous.

Source: TH!NK

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has issued a consumer alert to the owners of nearly 5 million Fords, Lincolns and Mercurys who have yet to respond to a recall notice that could prevent a vehicle fire.

The vehicles contain a defective cruise control switch that could lead to a fire at any time, even while the vehicle is turned off, parked and unattended. Repair parts are immediately available.

While a total of 12 million vehicles were recalled, only 7 million owners have responded to the notices Ford issued.Vehicles included in the recall are:

Ford
E150-E350 gasoline or natural gas vehicles (1992-93, 1997-2003)
E450 (1996-2003)
E550 (2002)
F150 (1993-2004)
F250 with gasoline engine (1993-99)
F250-F550 Super Duty (2003)
F53 Motor Home Chassis (1995-2002)
Bronco (1993-96)
Crown Victoria (1992-98)
Econoline (1994-96)
Expedition (1997-2002)
Explorer (1998-2001)
Explorer Sport and Sport Trac (2001-02)
Excursion (2003)
Ranger (1998-2002)
Taurus SHO with automatic transmission (1993-95)

Lincoln
Blackwood (2002-03)
Navigator (1998-2002)
Mark VIII (1993-98)
Town Car (1992-98)

Mercury
Grand Marquis (1992-98)
Capri (1994)
Mountaineer (1998-2001)

For more information, call 888.222.2751 or view Ford’s online notice.

Source: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration