Pressing matters - Toyota wasn’t alone in receiving government assistance

The automotive press was abuzz earlier this month as corporations flung around statements related to the development of hybrid vehicles, suggesting Toyota may have received an unfair advantage by receiving government funding for research and development. However, Toyota isn’t the only automaker to receive government assistance. More than a decade ago, American tax dollars supported an auto industry initiative to develop a marked advance focused on developing a marketable, 80-mpg family car.

This conflict flared up recently after Business Week magazine published a quote from Jim Press, former president of Toyota’s U.S. division: “The Japanese government paid for 100 percent of the development of the battery and hybrid system that went into the Toyota Prius.” In September 2007, Press left Toyota to become Chrysler’s vice chairman and president.

While Press’s statement may not sound earth shaking, the news rocked Detroit. The impression left is that Toyota received an unfair advantage (i.e., government support), when some captains of the American car industry have long justified their delay, both on and off the record, in developing hybrids by claiming that such complex vehicles can’t make money due to huge development costs. They may be right. Even if the Japanese government did help pay for the development of the Prius, that doesn’t necessarily make it profitable. (Jim Press is shown here at  the 2001 New York International Auto Show with first-generation Prius prepped for the transit authority.)

There is some dispute about the veracity or the details of Press’s claim. Toyota has refuted it. Chrysler has clarified the statements in a media-focused blog with “He said the Japanese government strongly supported R & D (research and development) investment in battery development, and the Prius and other Japanese models benefited from that investment in industry.” Yet, in testimony in 2007, Press told Congress that the Japanese government did not pay for any Prius research and development.

Whatever the truth may be, all the attention this story has generated may have left a false impression in readers’ minds. It implies that if only the U.S. government supported Detroit the way the Japanese government does Toyota, Detroit might not have lost the race to develop efficient, advanced hybrid cars.

A quick history lesson debunks this myth:

From 1993 to 2000, the United States did spend about $1.2 billion helping the American auto industry develop hybrids just like the Prius. The program was called the Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles (PNGV). It was a joint effort between the Department of Energy, national laboratories, universities, and the Big 3 U.S. automakers (through a research consortium called USCAR). The goal was for each of the automakers to build a prototype family sedan that could achieve 80 mpg and cost no more than a similar conventional car.

Chrysler, Ford, and GM each produced prototypes that got at least 70 mpg: the Chrysler ESX3, Ford Prodigy, and General Motors Precept. All three were diesel-electric hybrids. But none of the companies have built such cars, as the original program mandate had envisioned, after PNGV was replaced by the fuel-cell focused FreedomCAR initiative in 2003.

According to a 2002 article in Issues magazine by Daniel Sperling, founding director of the Institute of Transportation Studies at the University of California at Davis and a member of the California’s Air Resources Board (commonly known as CARB), the PNGV had one other lasting effect: The prospect of the world’s richest country teaming with some of the world’s (then) largest automakers spurred Japan and Europe to develop similar task forces: the European Car of Tomorrow Task Force and the Japan Clean Air Program.

And unlike the U.S. companies, the fruits of Toyota’s participation in those efforts are visible on our roads every day.

—Eric Evarts

Discuss Hybrids and alternative fuel vehicles in the CR forums.

Government proposes 31.6 mpg by 2015

In celebration of Earth Day yesterday, the Department of Transportation released an updated proposal on fuel economy standards that would require cars to get better gas mileage much sooner than previously scheduled.

The new standards would require vehicles to get 25 percent better fuel economy than the current standards by 2015. Cars alone would improve to 35.7 mpg in 2015, and light trucks to 28.6 mpg. Under a new Energy Bill that Congress passed last December, fuel economy requirements must improve by about 40 percent by 2020.

This proposal puts the bulk of that improvement at the beginning of the bill’s timeframe, from 2010 to 2015. This more aggressive timeline will likely drive the implementation of advanced technologies, such as direct fuel injection, sophisticated transmissions, and hybrid drive systems. By 2015, on average, new vehicles would be required to achieve about 31.6 mpg. The new rule would set different fuel-economy mandates for each automaker, based on the sizes and types of cars they build.

The proposalis expected to encourage manufacturers to install these fuel-saving technologies in all types of vehicles, from SUVs to small cars, rather than to simply build more small cars.

For the first time, the program will also allow automakers that exceed the new standards to sell credits earned under the program to other automakers that miss the targets. Otherwise automakers that don’t meet the targets would have to pay fines. In an interesting admission, the government has also assumed a monetary cost for CO2 emissions associated with global warming, as well as an energy security cost for petroleum consumption in setting the standards.

It goes without saying that demanding greater fuel economy improvements sooner will save significantly more fuel in the long run.

The government estimates that the proposal could save 55 billion gallons of fuel and save consumers more than $100 billion at the pump.

Now that’s something we can all celebrate.

—Eric Evarts

Also read:
"Charge! Fuel economy law promotes plug-in hybrids"
"New fuel economy standards won't bring real 35 mpg cars"

Discuss Hybrids and alternative fuel vehicles in the CR forums.

Electric cars take charge in Israel, Denmark

When I attended the Electrical Vehicle Symposium 23rd (EVS23) last year, I wondered: After 23 symposiums, why are there still no electric vehicles to speak of? Does that mean a collection of scientists, academics, and government officials have just been talking about the subject since 1969, when the first EVS conference was held? It may seem that way on the surface. However, we've recently driven electric vehicles, some of which seemed almost ready for prime time. (Read our EVS23 report "Who revived the electric car?") Beyond those commendable vehicles, a few other developments are lurking behind the scenes.

For Earth Day, we thought it would be appropriate to highlight some of the ongoing projects that may advance the international electric car cause.

At the 2008 New York auto show, Mitsubishi showed the iMiEV an electric car based on the "i"—a rear-wheel-drive micro car that's sold in Japan. Subaru has a fleet of electric micro cars, called the R1e, that are used by the Tokyo Electric Power Company. Nissan is also testing an electric-powered version of its Cube - its home-market competitor to the original Scion xB. All three use lithium-ion batteries.

If any automaker is poised for real-world mass-market electric vehicle, it might be Nissan. Here's why: The alliance between Nissan and French automaker Renault will soon be selling electric cars in Israel. Renault has recently partnered with a Silicon Valley based Israeli start-up Project Better Place (PBP) to supply electric-powered Renault Megane sedans to be sold in Israel starting in 2011. PBP, in turn, will create a network of 500,000 battery charging and replacement stations throughout Israel, as well as charging points in public parking garages and along streets.

Israel seems an unlikely candidate to be the first county to adapt an electric car, where environmental causes are not generally considered a top priority. However, it is a country where driving distances are relatively short, which alleviates the main concern associated with electric vehicles' inherently limited range. In fact, 90 percent of car owners drive less than 44 miles a day and the country's three largest cities are within 100 miles of each other.

The electric Renault Megane, a sedan the size of a Volkswagen Jetta, is said to be able to accelerate from 0-60 mph in eight seconds and have a range of 125 miles. Purchase price is expected to be similar to that of an equivalent-sized car with a 1.6-liter engine, according to Carlos Ghosn, President and CEO of Nissan Motor Co. and Renault S.A., and Shai Agassi, CEO of Project Better Place. A generous tax subsidy by the Israeli government will help make the price of the car competitive.

Megane EV owners will subscribe to a battery replacement or recharging plan that's based on their mileage. An onboard computer will indicate mileage left and the location of the nearest battery replacement or recharging spot. Removing and replacing the battery is planned to be performed by a robot. Operating costs are expected to be significantly cheaper than filling up with gasoline. This is no surprise, as a gallon of regular unleaded costs about $6.90 in Israel.

A similar experiment is planned for Denmark, another country known for relatively short driving distances. In the Danish scenario, cars would be plugged in for recharging and that energy will be generated from renewable wind power. In Israel, most electric power comes from coal power stations; coal is neither a renewable source nor clean. Consequently, a mile covered by the electric Megane emits no CO2 compared to the 293 gram per mile for the conventional model, there would be added CO2 emissions at the power plant.   

The battery for the Renault is an advanced lithium-ion type, developed by Nissan and NEC of Japan. This type of battery is commonly considered the next step from nickel-metal hydride batteries used in today's production hybrids. Li-ion batteries are still considered by many experts to be in their developmental infancy for automotive use and concerns about its longevity, charging time, and potential to overheat are still being addressed.

When it comes to electric vehicles, it's hard to determine if the number of enthusiasts outnumber the skeptics. Nevertheless, such mass-market experience gathered in terms infrastructure, and especially in battery charging/replacement, may give Nissan a competitive edge. More importantly, it may significantly push the EV cause forward. If the Israeli and Danish tests prove successful, it would be only a matter of time until other markets take a serious look at the potential.

Hopefully, by the time EVS24 convenes in 2009, 40 years after the first EV symposium, even more promising electric vehicles will emerge.

—Gabe Shenhar

For suggestions on how to live more green, visit Consumer Union's Web site Greenerchoices.org and our Earth Day special section. For more tips on saving fuel and alternative fuels, see our fuel economy guide.

Discuss alternative-fuel vehicles in the forums.   

Automotive X Prize finds sponsor - get your applications ready

The Automotive X Prize is off to the races. This high-minded contest is designed to spur teams to develop a 100-mpg car by offering a $10 million prize.

Starting in the next 60 days, X Prize organizers will begin accepting final applications. Entries will be vetted by a prize committee to ensure the teams have a viable business plan to build and sell 10,000 copies of their designs and that the designs will appeal to a mass-market consumer.

Teams who clear that hurdle will compete in a series of races in various cities around the country starting late in 2009. In the first round of competition, contestants will be required to get at least 80 mpg, and the fastest car will win. In 2010, finalists from those races will compete for the grand prize in another series of races in which they must get 100 mpg. Again, the fastest car (the fastest to finish while achieving 100 mpg) will win.

So far, 64 teams from 22 states and several foreign countries have signed up to compete. Four teams had cars on display at the New York auto show announcement: Fuel Vapor Technologies (shown left), Venture Vehicles, Zero Pollution Motors' Air Car (which runs on a compressed air charge), and the West Philadelphia Hybrid X team.

In addition, the X Prize foundation announced a sponsor of the $10 million prize money. Progressive Casualty Insurance Company is putting up the prize purse, while the U.S. Department of Energy is sponsoring up to $3.5 million in money for outreach and education on the fuel saving technologies.

—Eric Evarts

Check out our previous coverage of the Automotive X Prize:
Automotive X Prize entries still up for grabs
Auto X Prize announces the teams competing to build 100-mpg car
Auto X Prize to reward 100-mpg car

Discuss the Auto X Prize in the Consumer Reports forum.

California fights EPA for cleaner, gas-saving cars

Congress recently required cars to get about 40-percent better fuel economy by 2020, or about 35 mpg on average. But California and 17 other states think that isn't enough. In an effort they say is aimed at reducing global warming, these states want to require cars sold there to get more than 39 mpg in the same timeframe.

The federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is blocking that effort. In a letter released February 29th, the agency offered an explanation, saying that global warming isn't unique to California, so the state cannot take unique steps to solve the problem. (Likewise, the White House blocked a national move by the EPA, according to this Detroit News report.)

Now the two groups look set to slug it out in court until next fall, according to a group of California advocates responding to the EPA decision. At issue is whether a 2005 California law limiting the amount of carbon dioxide cars could produce is designed to limit emissions or fuel economy.

Reducing the potential global-warming impacting  emissions from cars has a direct impact on fuel economy. While other vehicle emissions can be chemically treated in the engine and exhaust, the only way to reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions is simply to burn less fuel.

The California Air Resources Board (CARB), which normally regulates smog-forming pollution such as oxides of nitrogen (NOx),  hydrocarbons (HCs), and carbon monoxide (CO) developed the law in 2004, and the state legislature passed it in September 2005.

California has a long history of setting its own emissions standards for cars. Under the Clean Air Act in 1970, California was allowed to set its own emissions standards, because it had the worst air pollution in the nation and because it already had its own emissions regulations before the federal law was passed. Other states may choose to follow either federal or California laws. But to avoid a patchwork of different laws in all 50 states, they are not allowed to write their own. Before California can adopt its own laws, however, it has to get a waiver from the EPA. The denial of that waiver gave rise to the current dispute. The state had never been denied a waiver before.

The current lawsuit follows two years of wrangling, in which automakers sued the state over the CO2 restriction and lost in a Vermont court. At the same time, California, along with environmental groups, sued the EPA saying it should regulate carbon dioxide. In April 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court declared that CO2 is a pollutant and the EPA should regulate it. Several other suits regarding the standard are being litigated simultaneously.

So far 12 other states have signed on to follow California standards: Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington. Together they represent 36 percent of the U.S. population.

In reading the EPA's explanation of its waiver denial and talking to the federal agencies involved, higher fuel economy requirements resulting from the CO2 standard in the 13 states that follow California's rules could have the unintended consequence of lowering gas mileage requirements in the rest of the country. For example, if vehicles nationwide had to average 35 mpg, and vehicles in the 13 "California states" had to average 39 mpg, cars in other 37 states could theoretically average less than 35 mpg. The cars sold in the California states would still raise the national average to 35 mpg.

According to spokespeople at the federal agencies that would be involved, this concern has not been addressed, because officially California does not have a waiver to pass its CO2 limits for cars. Still, should the state prevail, it seems like a serious concern, one that officials confide they would need to resolve.

Roland Hwang, vehicles policy director at the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), and an advocate of California's program, responds that the program will force automakers to develop more fuel-saving technology than the national program. And he says once they put that technology on some cars, there is a "tipping point," where manufacturers won't be willing to make different vehicles for different markets.

The NRDC claims that five more states are in the process of adopting California's emissions standards and they would push the total over that tipping point, representing more than 45 percent of new U.S. car sales.

In the end, the prospect of $4-a-gallon gas may have more impact on getting consumers to buy more efficient vehicles than either the federal or California regulations. In Europe, where consumers drive more smaller cars, those consumers pay higher taxes every year on cars that get lower fuel economy. Dramatically higher fuel prices also play a big role.

Overall, getting better fuel economy seems like a good thing on multiple fronts. But if California's law were approved, would that actually result in higher fuel economy? Should the EPA grant California a waiver to require higher fuel economy than the rest of the nation? And is raising fuel economy standards in the name of reducing global warming justifiable? Let us know what you think. We're looking forward to reading your answers.

—Eric Evarts

Learn more about fuel efficiency and hybrid cars in our Fuel Economy special section.

Go yellow? Soon ethanol may not just be from corn

In the United States, ethanol has long been associated with corn. But as ethanol production has expanded rapidly, that perception will have to change.

While food prices rose 4.9 percent in 2007, corn ethanol production rose from 5 billion gallons to 7 billion. This has been a cause for alarm, triggering worries about inflation in the United States and concerns about the ethics of using food crops for fuel. Also, new ethanol mandates under the 2007 Energy Act require more ethanol than can be produced from corn in the United States. So while ethanol in the United States will come almost entirely from corn in the near-term, long-term ethanol will have to be made from a variety of fibrous feedstocks.

Cellulose, essentially any kind of plant fiber, is available all over the country. By comparison, corn cultivation and current ethanol production is primarily in agricultural regions in the Midwest. Consequently, ethanol plants could be located all across America and near coastal cities, alleviating the problem of transporting ethanol from the Midwest. (Ethanol is corrosive and absorbs water, making it difficult to transport in pipelines. And barge and rail capacity to transport ethanol is expensive and constrained. Ethanol is already the number one hazardous material shipped by rail in the United States.)

Cellulose can be harvested from a variety of sources. The main ones being developed are:

• Corn stover, the cobs, stalks, and husks left over from harvesting corn
• Wood pulp, either from existing pulp mills or through harvesting eastern hardwood forests
• Prairie switchgrass
• Leftover construction materials
• Municipal waste.

While some studies have shown that making ethanol from corn consumes more petroleum than it saves (though a majority of studies now show a positive energy balance), cellulosic ethanol is much more efficient. Taking cellulose from plants that grow natively, such as switchgrass and poplar trees, doesn't require fertilizer--sparing the use of petroleum to transport and spread. Using waste materials such as corn stover, wood pulp, or trash can be even more efficient, and have the positive effect of putting waste materials to work.

Depending on the raw materials, cellulosic ethanol could be more expensive than corn ethanol, though it could eventually become cheaper.

Researchers are developing two main processes for refining ethanol from fiber. Both use specially bred enzymes to break down the fibrous material into sugar for refining into ethanol. These enzymes, however, add about $1 a gallon to the cost of refining ethanol from fiber, relative to corn.

The traditional conversion process is to pre-treat the raw fibrous material to soften it, then break it down with enzymes into sugar. Biotech companies such as Rochester, New York-based Genencor and Danish company Novozymes are developing such processes for various woody feedstocks. Novozymes says it will have a commercial plant producing cellulosic ethanol in three years. One company, SunEthanol, of Hadley, Massachusetts, says it can shortcut such processes by using enzymes that make ethanol directly, rather than sugar.

Another process is being developed by a Warrenville, Illinois, company, Coskata, which claims it can use feedstocks such as municipal and construction waste. In its process the waste is heated to turn it into gas (specifically syngas, which is a mixture of hydrogen, carbon dioxide, and carbon monoxide), then special enzymes convert the gas into ethanol. (Read: GM invests in cellulosic ethanol )

Now these companies are beginning to look beyond ethanol as a motor fuel to using it as a supply to make fabric and plastics, and other industrial uses.

So far, much of this cellulosic technology is either unproven or too expensive. But like many biotechnology processes, prices are coming down. New machinery would have to be developed to harvest trees and other feedstocks for this purpose. But the supply of fuel could be almost endless, as it is renewable within our national borders.

In the 19th century and into the beginning of the 20th, almost all energy came from renewable, biological sources. And Henry Ford built the Model T to run on ethanol. Now it looks certain that more cars will return to renewable fuel sources in the future.

—Eric Evarts

Also read:
Ethanol - the challenges with too much of a good thing
The growing - and surprisingly large - ethanol movement

Learn more about alternative fuels in our fuel economy special section.

Ethanol - the challenges with too much of a good thing

The ethanol industry faces a challenge: under the federal Energy Act, passed last December, the industry is required to produce 30 billion gallons of ethanol a year by 2020. Today it produces about 7 billion gallons. And once that much fuel is produced, there is the challenge in ensuring consumers can use it all.

But if ethanol were blended into every gallon of gasoline sold, in the standard 10 percent ratio, it would consume only about half of the 30-billion-gallon requirement.

So far, the Department of Energy (DOE) has proposed two potential solutions:

• Sell more E85 ethanol, though it is a niche market today.
• Raise the standard blend from 10 to 15 or 20 percent.

Unlike the standard blend, called E10, which all cars can use, only specially equipped cars can run on E85 ethanol. About five million of those cars are on the road today. According to DOE estimates, it would take 100 million E85 cars to provide a big enough market to absorb the additional 15 million gallons of ethanol in E85. Currently, automakers (mostly those based in Detroit) are building about 1 million new E85-capable cars every year. And they have promised to raise that to about 3.5 million a year by 2012. Still, getting to 100 million E85 cars by 2020 is a tall order. It would also take between 30,000 and 60,000 million gas pumps capable of dispensing E85. Today, there are only about 1,500.

So the DOE, along with some automakers, is testing the potential to raise the standard ethanol blend to 15 or 20 percent, and making that blend universal for all gasoline sold in the United States. In Brazil, all gasoline sold in the country contains at least 25 percent ethanol.

But there are some problems with increasing ethanol blends. Ethanol contains less energy than gasoline, so increasing the amount of ethanol in gasoline will likely result in lower fuel economy. Increasing standard fuel blends from zero to 10 percent ethanol, as is happening today, has little or no impact on fuel economy. In tests, the differences occur within the margin of error, about 0.5 percent. Further increasing ethanol levels to 20 percent reduces fuel economy between 1 and 3 percent, according to testing by the DOE and General Motors. Evaluations are underway to determine if E20 will burn effectively in today's engines without impacting reliability and longevity, and also assessing potential impact on fuel economy.

In our own tests at Consumer Reports, we found that E85 reduced fuel economy by about 27 percent overall in a Chevrolet Tahoe. Interestingly, this is a lower reduction than the fuel's lower energy density would theoretically suggest. General Motors research fellow Kevin Cullen suggests that E85's higher octane rating is allowing the engine's computer control system to advance ignition timing to compensate for the lower energy density in the fuel and making up a little bit of the energy loss.

Andy Karsner, undersecretary for energy efficiency and renewable energy at the federal Department of Energy, says the department is testing to learn whether there is an ideal ethanol blend for fuel economy. Some cars actually returned higher fuel economy on certain midrange ethanol blends ranging from E20 to E40, according to a fuel economy study conducted in November by the ethanol industry and the DOE.

The second problem with raising ethanol blends is evaporative emissions—not the kind comes from the tailpipe, but the kind you smell when filling up your car at a gas station. In engines, ethanol burns cleaner than gasoline does. But low-blend ethanol mixes such as E20 have higher evaporative emissions than either gasoline or E85. So far researchers don't know at what ethanol blend evaporative emissions begin to diminish. And systems to control these emissions have not been developed.

If ethanol is going to play a significant role in reducing U.S. oil dependence, it looks likely that E15 or E20 will become more common. This would mean consumers won't have to buy special cars and look for special pumps for ethanol, meaning every gasoline-engine passenger vehicle would be able to join the effort to reduce dependency on imported oil.

—Eric Evarts

Learn more about alternative fuels in our fuel economy special section.

Not always keen going green: Honda Civic GX

We recently took delivery of a Honda Civic GX, which runs on compressed-natural-gas (CNG). At $25,185, it's the most expensive Civic we've ever tested. But that isn't even half the story.

A few days ago, I took it home on my daily commute. The same day, a truck carrying cylinders filled with hydrogen crashed on Route 84, closing it for most of the day. There isn't a direct connection, but it reminded us that the experiences we're having with the Civic show the challenges that a consumer will face during the development of new fueling infrastructure, be it hydrogen, CNG, or even E85. Had we been caught up in the traffic jam caused by this mishap, we could have become quite nervous about replenishing our natural gas.

For most people, it isn't really a big deal if you start running low of fuel in your gasoline-powered car. Unless you're in a few remote places, a gas station is likely only a few short miles away. That's not the case with our Civic GX. Starting here at the track, the nearest CNG fueling stations are either at a public utility in Norwich (about 25 miles away) or in the industrial outskirts of Hartford (30 miles).

Driving the car, which otherwise behaves just like a normal Civic, is complicated by the car's relatively short range. We can get approximately 180-200 miles out of a tank. For one of the commuters in the office, that means he can get to work and back - and then needs to refuel. Figuring out who will take the Civic when and how it will be refueled has required a level of logistics far beyond what we're used to, as well as simply taking up our time to drive to a distant station. (Honda does have a home refueling station available for the Civic; it allows you to refuel your car using the natural gas service in your home.) 

CNG has a fairly limited infrastructure in the United States. It's mostly used by fleets, particularly government vehicles. (There was a Connecticut-owned Civic GX refueling at the pump today when I was there.) And while E85 is relatively available in the Midwest, it's almost nonexistent here in the Northeast. But the infrastructure for CNG or E85 almost seems like normalcy compared to what exists for hydrogen. The limited availability of that fuel (as well as the cost of fuel cells) is going to be a notable hurdle for moving away from fossil-fueled cars.

Stay tuned for more of our experiences with this most unusual Civic.

—Tom Mutchler

Learn more about alternative fuels in our fuel economy special section.

GM invests in cellulosic ethanol

If ethanol is to be a viable fuel substitute for any significant gasoline demand, it needs to come from sources other than corn said General Motors at a Detroit auto show press conference.

"Grain-based ethanol has its critics, to be sure. Concerns have been raised ranging from water usage and food prices, to net energy balance... virtually everyone can agree that we must find a better way to make ethanol," said GM Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Rick Wagoner in Detroit.

In his 2006 State of the Union address, President Bush came to a similar conclusion when he announced an initiative to get ethanol from switchgrass, which is a tall grass that is indigenous to North America, can be harvested, and is self-seeding.

However, GM plans to leapfrog switchgrass and invest in making ethanol from waste materials such as pulp and even used tires.

The process, developed by startup company Coskata and backed by venture capital, uses a patented bacteria-based process to break down cellulose from a wide variety of sources. Coskata claims the process can produce ethanol for less than $1 a gallon and uses significantly less water than distilling ethanol from corn, an environmental concern. The company plans to have a demonstration plant working by the end of this year.

This can't happen soon enough. Corn ethanol could make up barely half of the latest federal mandate for ethanol production by 2030. And fuel economy incentives that encourage automakers to build more vehicles capable of running on 85 percent ethanol (E85) have just been extended through 2020. For those mandates to reduce U.S. oil dependence, clearly those vehicles need a supply of ethanol on which to run.

If we're going to break away from dependence on foreign oil, technologies such as fuel cells and batteries won't be here soon enough, Wagoner concluded. So we're going to need ethanol to bridge the gap. As GM strives to supply affordable ethanol for its growing E85-compatible fleet and beyond, it may also pump new-found profits into the corporate gas tanks.

—Eric Evarts

See our complete coverage of the 2008 Detroit auto show. And discuss the event in our auto show forum.

Cadillac Provoq hydrogen fuel-cell concept

General Motors Chairman and CEO Rick Wagoner introduced the company's latest hydrogen fuel-cell-powered vehicle, the Cadillac Provoq, at the Consumer Electronics Show (CES) during his keynote speech Tuesday. The luxury SUV is the first new vehicle ever introduced at CES' 41-year history, and Wagoner is the first auto executive ever to give a keynote speech at the Las Vegas event.

The Provoq follows GM's recent announcement they intend to go ahead with production of the Chevrolet Volt, a concept vehicle first shown at Detroit's North American International Auto Show almost exactly one year ago. The Volt delivered Wagoner to the stage at CES.

The Provoq has GM's fifth-generation fuel-cell system, boasting half the size of its predecessor. Wagoner said the Provoq has a 300-mile range and promised a 100-mph top speed and 0-60 mph acceleration in 8.5 seconds.

To help conserve energy, the Provoq is equipped with a roof-mounted solar panel to power interior lighting and audio systems, an active front grille that shuts its opening for better aerodynamics, and both braking- and shifting-by-wire to save weight.

No production plans were announced. We expect to see the Provoq again next week as we cover the 2008 North American International Auto Show.

—Jim Travers

Learn more about fuel efficiency and alternative vehicles in our Fuel Economy special section.

Want to lease a fuel-cell car?

Honda’s big introduction at the Los Angeles auto show was its second-generation FCX fuel-cell car, which is now called the FCX Clarity. The company claims that this sedan will be EPA rated at a heady 68 mpg (combined city and highway) and have a 270-mile driving range, or about 30 percent more than the first-generation FCX.

Most intriguing, at least for a select few, will be that Honda intends to put this car into the hands of more everyday consumers. The previous FCX has been leased to three customers in the Southern California area. For the new one, Honda will offer a three-year lease for $600 a month to people in the areas of Irvine, Santa Monica, and Torrance, California, who are close to hydrogen refueling stations. Honda will also support the leased cars with dealership service training and a special FCX service center in the LA area.

The consumer lease program will be kicked off next year, but so far Honda won’t say how many cars will be in it. If interested, keep an eye on Honda’s Web site and on this blog, where we’ll pass along info as we get it.

GM also recently announced its Project Driveway program (see our recent blog entry) in which it will be putting its Chevrolet Equinox fuel-cell vehicles into consumers’ hands for a few months at a time. That program will be based in California, and in the areas of New York City and Washington D.C. For information or to throw your name into the hat, go to www.chevrolet.com/fuelcell.

—Rik Paul

Paint it green

Last year, the Los Angeles auto show was moved from its familiar slot in early January (where it was continually overshadowed by the larger North American International Auto Show in Detroit) to November, where it can make its own mark. Yet, another move that helps give the show its own identity is its overriding green-car theme.

 

On the first press day, more than a dozen vehicles were highlighted that provide cleaner and/or more fuel-efficient alternatives to conventional gasoline engines. This ranged from the familiar, such as diesels and flex-fuel vehicles (which can run on E85 ethanol) to more exotic designs, such as the second-generation Honda FCX Clarity fuel-cell vehicle and the plug-in, fuel-cell Volkswagen Space Up! Blue concept.

 

Chevrolet crowded eight vehicles onto its stage to provide the right setting for announcing that the brand will be GM’s big tent for fuel-efficient vehicles, and that its goal is to be “the industry leader for fuel-economy leadership.” The eight ranged from small, fuel-efficient conventional cars, such as the Aveo and new Beat, to hybrid versions of the Malibu sedan, Silverado pickup and Tahoe SUV, to the more advanced plug-in electric Volt and Equinox fuel-cell vehicle.

 

Among the intriguing, yet do-able, cars on display was the diesel/electric-powered Mercedes-Benz S400 BlueTec Hybrid. We were very impressed with the E320 BlueTec diesel we recently tested, rating it slightly higher than the similar E350 gasoline model. Like the E320, the S400 will be available in all 50 states. But in contrast to the E320’s 29 mpg overall that we got, the company says that the S400 will achieve 40 mpg while providing even quicker acceleration. That’s impressive for a relatively heavy luxury car. And even if Mercedes’ mpg number proves to be a little high compared with real-world results, the combination of clean diesel and hybrid electric power is promising and a design that we’ll likely see more of in coming years.

—Rik Paul

Auto X Prize announces the teams competing to build 100-mpg car

The X Prize foundation has announced that over 30 teams have filed a letter of intent to compete for a prize to build a clean, production-ready vehicle that can exceed 100 miles per gallon.

The competition, which was announced at the 2007 New York Auto Show, is an effort to inspire a new generation of fuel-efficient vehicles and help thwart the effects of global warming. (For more background information on this competition, read "Auto X Prize to reward 100-mpg car.")

The teams announced are from around the globe, including Canada, Germany, Switzerland, United Kingdom, and United States. Some companies and organizations on the list include Cornell University, Tesla Motors, ZAP Motors, and Phoenix Motorcars. More than 300 additional teams have inquired about the competition and are considering entering applications.

The teams who qualify will race their vehicle in various stages combining speed, distance, urban driving and total performance. The winners will be vehicles that exceed 100 mpg, have strict emissions, and have the fastest finish, as well as being judged on practicality and consumer acceptance.

The complete list of organizations that have filled a letter of intent for the competition can be found here.

Visit our X Prize forum to discuss the contest and your thoughts on how the 100-mpg goal could be achieved.

--Liza Barth

Chrysler's New Warranty: Maybe not in your lifetime

As noted in Jeff Bartlett's previous warranty blog, Chrysler is offering lifetime powertrain coverage on most of their models. Like almost everything in life (including taxes but excluding death), there are exceptions. In this case, they are SRT high-performance models and fleet vehicles. One particular exception seems glaring--diesels (and the Dodge Sprinter van) are excluded. Although gasoline engines can last a very long time, diesels still have a reputation for further longevity. So why doesn't Chrysler include them in this plan?

It's a guess, but a recent road trip to upstate New York gives me a hint. On that trip into farm country, I was surprised to see the number of well-patinaed Dodge Ram trucks on the highway. (Several of them were the pre-baby-Kenworth-styled version, making them at least 16 years old.) The common thread: they had the Cummins turbodiesel engine.

Buyers who made the initial investment in a diesel Ram or Sprinter, especially business owners, might be just those folks who would drive their trucks until the wheels fell off. They're the ones who would really benefit from lifetime powertrain coverage--even beyond the 7 years/100k coverage you get on a Ram diesel. John Ibbotson, our chief mechanic and expert in John's Tool Box (available to ConsumerReports.org subscribers only), tells me the replacement cost of those Cummins diesels, or the Mercedes diesels in the Sprinter and Jeep Grand Cherokee, are pretty high. Parts like injector pumps are expensive, too.

So, keep this in mind if you're considering a Jeep Grand Cherokee diesel or another Chrysler product with a diesel. Even though you might just use the vehicle to haul around your family, rather than racking up lots of miles running between various job sites or customer locations, you'll miss out on the extended warranty coverage trumpeted in Chrysler's ads.

--Tom Mutchler

From the logbook: Mercedes-Benz E320

With the price of diesel fuel undercutting gasoline, diesel-powered cars might be ready for a comeback in the United States. This is due to more stringent emission regulations and the recent availability of ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel (ULSD) that's compatible with the latest diesel engine technology. This results in cleaner emissions that allow these vehicles to be sold in all 50 states.

The Mercedes-Benz E320 (available to online subscribers) luxury sedan is part of the new wave of diesel cars to hit the market. We recently purchased an E320, and thus far, we have been quite impressed overall. Our E320's 3.0-liter V6 is remarkable. The engine is surprisingly quiet and pulls like crazy at almost any speed. While 208 hp might not seem like much, it's more than enough to move the E down the road with confidence. But at $55,415, it certainly isn't cheap. Do we think it's worth it? Here's a look at some comments our testers have written in the E320's logbook:

"Nice combo of sport and luxury."

"Excellent steering and agile handling."

"Mercedes just gets the ride control right."

"Effortless midrange thrust like that of a V8."

"Most people would never guess this is a diesel - excellent engine noise suppression."

"Could squeeze about 650-700 miles out of this tank of fuel."

"I love having the trip computer's 'range' function on and watch the numbers go UP...how cool is that?!"

"Very good visibility."

"Why can't I both display trip computer and use radio wheel controls - have to pick one or the other?"

"Controls are still the same old mistakes: too easy to hit cruise stalk [instead of turn signal]; climate display very small and faint; seat heaters that lower automatically and then shut down..."

"Cannot adjust the seat until the car is on or door is open - stupid."

"Limited rear seat room."

"$55K is a ton of money, but if I were doing lots of highway driving, this car would be my first choice."

"Comfortable and a joy to drive...one of the most amazing powertrains ever."

We're clearly impressed with this car's excellent combination of economy, comfort, and drivability. It is truly a rare breed. Stay tuned to see how it stacks up against the completion from BMW, Lexus, and Volvo.

--Mike Quincy

Traveling first-class at 31 mpg

Where I come from, a Mercedes-Benz diesel is synonymous with a taxi. Like in many European cities, in Israel, diesel-powered E-Class taxis roam city streets much like the hulking Ford Crown Victoria does in Manhattan. So, for me, an E-Class diesel should be the last thing from sexy transport. In addition, it’s no secret among the staff here that I’m no fan of diesels. And in the recent debate about whether diesel is the better approach than hybrid, I’m clearly in the hybrid camp. And then I drove our new E320 Bluetec. “Bluetec” is a name for Mercedes’ latest clean-diesel modular technology. Next year, it will add urea injection to further remove nitrogen oxides.

Strikingly, to anyone who’s ever been exposed to a diesel, this E320 doesn’t smoke, smell, clatter noisily or vibrate, and it’s certainly not slow. You wouldn’t know it’s a diesel unless you stood close to the engine at idle. Cold morning starts are completely free of smoke and smell. It should be said, that due to legislated changes for 2007, new diesel engines are now required to be cleaner and use only ultra-low-sulfur-diesel fuel.

On the road, the Bluetec E320 provides a mid-range punch that makes it feel like a V8. No wonder, since it supplies 388 lb-ft of torque from as low as 1,600 rpm--no small feat from a relatively small 3.0-liter displacement. The 208 horsepower appear quickly at 3,800 rpm. As in any E-Class, the chassis is terrific as it provides a magic carpet-like ride yet agile handling, with quick, precise steering. The seats and driving position are first class. And here is the kicker: on my 75-mile daily commute, it gets 31 mpg. That’s more like the fuel economy of the much smaller and lighter Honda Fit.

Clearly, this begs the question: How does the E320 compare to the regular gas-powered E350 (which we’re also testing)? At $54,715 vs. $53,715, the E320 Bluetec costs an extra $1,000 when equipped with the popular Premium I Package. The E350’s 3.5-liter V6 puts out a healthy 268 hp, but not before 6,000 rpm are piled on, and the 258 lb-ft of torque comes on tap at 2,400 rpm. In other words, is the E350 is quick but requires more revs. And on the same commute, I get 24 mpg with the gasoline V6.

In calculating the costs, let’s assume I do my commute five times a week, 50 weeks a year, and using the current $3.15 for a gallon of diesel versus the $3.45 for a gallon of Premium (right now, diesel is even cheaper than regular here in Connecticut, but that’s not always the case). With the E320, I’d spend $3,810 for fuel annually; with the E350, I’d shell out $5,390. That’s $1,580 ahead for the diesel, meaning a payback time of about seven and a half months for the extra $1,000 purchase price. And that’s before counting the 562 gallons of petroleum saved.

So for the first time ever, I find myself in a virtual dilemma whether to choose the diesel or the gas. Ah, the suffering one must endure (“Which E-Class should I drive today?”) in the name of science!

--Gabe Shenhar

The speed bump on the road to a fuel-cell future

One thing both Honda and General Motors have in common is a belief that fuel-cell cars make sense, even using today’s non-renewable hydrogen supply. Both cite the number of cars that could be run on hydrogen today: Honda says there is enough hydrogen production capacity in the United States to fuel over 1 million cars with no additional investment. Total worldwide hydrogen production is enough to fuel 200 million cars, according to GM (assuming it wasn’t needed for anything else).

Most hydrogen today is produced from methane, a type of natural gas, using steam-methane reformation, a process that producers claim is 80 percent efficient. (The methane also powers most of the hydrogen production plants.)

And fuel-cell cars are about twice as efficient as gasoline-fueled cars. Honda would not give an estimate of fuel economy. But if the FCX can go 270 miles on 4 kilos of hydrogen, that amounts to about 68 miles per kilogram. A kilogram of hydrogen has roughly the same energy as a gallon of gas, so that is the equivalent of about 68 mpg.

Honda claims fuel cells can reduce greenhouse gas emissions overall by 50 percent compared with gasoline, even using today’s hydrogen supplies.

What’s attractive about hydrogen is that, unlike oil, it can be made from just about any organic substance or even from water. Making it from water, however, using electrolysis (which is roughly the reverse of how fuel cells operate), requires so much energy that electricity production would have to increase several fold. It would effectively have to come from renewable solar, geothermal, or wind power sources, which are scarce today. Until now, this has been the vision of many fuel cell advocates.

Finding a way to make enough hydrogen to eventually supply every corner gas station economically is a huge challenge. But fuel cells are so efficient that it looks like we’ll soon see at least a few cars using hydrogen from natural gas as one of several alternatives to increasing oil consumption.

If that’s not “green” enough for you, Honda is studying using hydrogen taken from waste methane at land fills. And GM filled the Sequel we drove with hydrogen generated as a byproduct of chlorine production at a Rochester, New York, plant powered by renewable electricity from Niagara Falls.

Using such renewable sources of hydrogen in large quantities would bring the efficiencies of fuel-cell driving much closer to fruition than they have seemed before. And as our drives of the Honda and GM fuel cell vehicles showed, driving clean, quiet, and powerful fuel cell cars doesn’t sound unpleasant at all.

Learn more about fuel cells and alternative fuels in our fuel economy special section.

--Eric Evarts

The GM fuel-cell revolution

General Motors is working on revolutionizing the way cars are built and sold over the long term, and it demonstrated this in its futuristic fuel-cell-powered Chevrolet Sequel concept car that we drove near New York City recently. The car combines two futuristic technologies, and it would give buyers as well as GM a lot more choices about what kind of car they want.

The Sequel is based on GM’s “skateboard” architecture, with all-electric mechanical systems sandwiched into a rolling chassis, which can accept a wide variety of vehicle body styles. Since it’s all electric, the powertrain would simply act as a generator to supply electricity to the motor that turns the wheels. This could be anything from a traditional gasoline- or ethanol-burning engine to a fuel cell or simply extra batteries for a pure electric car.

GM calls this technology “e-Flex,” and it would also allow plug-in hybrids to charge off household current and run as an electric car for some part of driving duty. Plug-in hybrids are battery electric cars with a gas, diesel, or ethanol-powered generator (or a fuel cell) that can extend the car’s range to 300 miles or more, while improving fuel economy.

The “skateboard” chassis has no mechanical link between the driver controls for steering, braking, and acceleration. On our brief drive, some of these controls failed while being monitored via laptop by a mechanic riding along with us.

GM has made a tremendous commitment to fuel cells, with reportedly more than 650 engineers focused on this future energy source. However, GM’s approach depends on a high-pressure, 10,000-psi hydrogen refilling infrastructure. Today, the small number of hydrogen refueling stations operate at 5,000-psi, and most new facilities being constructed use the lower pressure.

Clearly, all manufacturers navigating the hydrogen highway face challenges before fuel-cell vehicles roam Main Street, although as demonstrated on our recent drives, this innovative technology shows tremendous promise and now depends more on infrastructure development than radical powertrain breakthroughs.

The final blog in the series will further explore the reality of using hydrogen to power cars today.

--Eric Evarts

How the fuel-cell cars compare

When we drove the Honda FCX and the GM Sequel fuel-cell prototype vehicles, we found that the Honda is much better finished and much more like a traditional car. (Read our complete first drive of the Honda FCX sedan.) It feels like a very nice Honda Accord, with an electric whine taking the place of the buzzing hum of a gasoline engine.

The Sequel is more futuristic and less fully developed. It is a concept car designed to demonstrate both fuel cell technology and General Motors’s futuristic “skateboard” chassis architecture. The “skateboard” architecture uses a separate body and mechanical running chassis (almost like frame-based cars from the 1930s), with only an electrical linkage between the actual mechanical systems, like steering and braking, and controls, like the steering wheel and brake pedal. GM is investing a great deal in this system because it can revolutionize car design and make it much cheaper to build a wide variety of body styles and power systems such as gas engines, fuel cells, and batteries, plus ethanol or diesel-fueld powerplants.

Driving differences

With the FCX, CR Senior Engineer Gabe Shenhar and I got in, turned the key, and drove around the quick mile-long parking-lot loop at high speeds by ourselves.

The Sequel, on the other hand, came with its own riding-mechanic: a GM employee in the back seat armed with a laptop computer to monitor everything from the fuel cell to the steering and brakes. After creeping a few feet, one of the brakes signaled an error and I had to turn the car off to reboot it – a process that took a minute or two. It is relevant to note that Honda plans to put the FCX into production next year, while the Sequel will remain a prototype. (The next generation fuel-cell car from GM will be based on the Chevrolet Equinox, and will be available to fleets starting in 2010.) While the Sequel had just traveled 300 miles at Interstate speeds that GM estimated averaged 65 mph, we were only allowed to drive on a low-speed loop, because the cars had little fuel left after the long trip.

Both cars had powerful low-speed acceleration and the Honda had adequate acceleration at highway speeds.

In the fuel cell itself, the Honda also seemed better developed. One of the engineering challenges of fuel cells is the ability to run them in very cold temperatures. Honda said its fuel cell could operate at any temperature above -4 degrees Fahrenheit. GM said its fuel cell could operate only at temperatures above 41 degrees Fahrenheit.

Honda claims a range of 271 miles for its FCX, but privately one Honda spokesman admitted that was a target range and that the company is stretching to achieve that. Here, GM has a potential advantage with the Sequel’s estimated 300-mile range.

The reason for this difference exemplifies the companies’ different approaches to fuel-cell cars: The FCX uses a very large hydrogen storage tank that takes up a lot of trunk space. It stores about 4 kilograms of hydrogen at 5,000 psi pressure, or the equivalent of about four gallons of gas. Honda uses this pressure because it is the pressure at which commercial hydrogen facilities today store and dispense the gas, even though it requires a large tank for a relatively limited range.

The Sequel stores compressed hydrogen at 10,000 psi in three tanks within the skateboard chassis, which takes up no cargo or passenger space and provides its longer range. But the “clean” hydrogen it bought from a Niagara Falls plant for the demonstration trip had to be compressed to twice its normal pressure to achieve that high psi level. And that took extra energy, provided by an electric compressor running on power from a local coal-fired powerplant. So, the well-intentioned trip was not entirely pollution-free, and thereby revealing the challenges in creating a truly clean alternative powertrain.

The next blog in the series will further explore the Honda fuel-cell technology.

--Eric Evarts

Behind the Wheel - Honda FCX Concept

Consumer Reports drove the FCX Concept fuel-cell vehicle in Washington, D.C., at a Honda event last month attended by about 25 other journalists. Although only two cars existed at the time, each worth well into seven figures, we were able to truly drive the FCX. From behind the wheel, we gained insights into this imminent, limited-production sedan and also glimpsed the zero-emissions future.

Looking down the road, beyond hybrid powertrains, many auto industry experts consider fuel-cell vehicles (FCV) to be the ultimate long-term personal transportation solution. These FCVs are essentially electric vehicles that produce the power on board by a chemical reaction fueled by hydrogen, with water vapor as the only tailpipe emission. (Hydrogen is extracted mostly from natural gas, a resource abundant in North America, with reserves estimated at 690 trillion cubic feet.)

We had the opportunity to drive Honda's first FCX for a few days in 2005. The tall, boxy two-door hatchback is used primarily in local and state government agencies. Two retail customers in California have also leased them for $500 a month. In September 2008, the low-slung, cab-forward FCX sedan will replace it. The FCX Concept looks like a stylish family sedan, somewhat resembling the 1998 Dodge Intrepid. It's 187 inches long, similar in size to the current VW Passat.

At the heart of the FCX Concept is a fuel stack that's more compact than that in the original FCX hatchback. In fact, it looks like a piece of 22-inch piece of carry-on luggage. It is slim enough to fit vertically under the armrest between the driver and passenger, while avoiding the high floor of the original car. The vertical placement uses gravity to speed the flow of water through the fuel cell to improve power. Under the rear seat is a lithium-ion battery. Regenerative brakes recharge the battery pack, which can provide short bursts of power. Behind it, resides a 45-gallon hydrogen tank holding the fuel in a compressed gas state at 5,000 psi. The power is sent to a front-mounted 95-kw (127-hp) electric motor that drives the front wheels. Torque is rated at 189 ft-lb.

With this experience under our belt, we can now come closer to answering the most frequently asked questions:

What will its fuel consumption be like?
The tank contains a little more than 4 kg of compressed hydrogen at 5000 psi, which enables a claimed 270-mile driving distance. Honda admits that this cruising range might be a stretch. Still, it's better than the 190-mile range of the smaller FCX hatchback. These numbers translate to the equivalent of roughly 68 miles per gallon of gas equivalent (GGE). One filling station in California offers a kilogram of compressed hydrogen for $4.99, for a cost per mile of 7 cents, compared with 12 cents a mile for gasoline at $3 a gallon (using the comparable four-cylinder Honda Accord's 24 mpg overall performance in our test). The FCX hatchback that this car will replace is EPA-rated at a combined equivalent of 57 mpg.

How safe is it?
The FCX concept is not EPA or NHTSA certified, yet. The discontinued FCX hatchback is certified, and it complies with federal safety standards, which include passing a frontal crash test. No independent consumer-information organization has crash tested it. Honda says that the FCX will be certified, as well. Many people tend to be leery about hydrogen, but when managed well, it should be benign. In case of hydrogen leakage, it dissipates into the atmosphere quickly.

What's it like to drive?
This midsized sedan feels remarkably normal--in a good way. The car gathers acceleration very promptly and quietly. The electric motor's immediate torque is felt right off the line. The electric motor whines on its way to highway speeds, but sounds quieter than most piston-engine cars. It sounds like a muted, distant hair dryer, with no traditional gas engine and or exhaust sounds. Honda says top speed is 100 mph and 0-60 mph acceleration is comparable to a four-cylinder Accord--roughly 9 seconds.

My colleague, Associate Editor Eric Evarts, and I had no problem hitting 76 mph on the prescribed 1.1-mile course in the parking lot of the Washington Nationals Stadium. Handling is fairly nimble--much more so than the current FCX. The ride was better than the natural-gas powered Honda Civic GX made available for evaluation. There was nothing weird about the steering or brake feel, despite the electrically assisted steering and regenerative brakes. Impressively, fit and finish was up to Honda's excellent production vehicle standards with barely any evidence that this was still a running prototype. The rear seat is roomy, but the trunk seems rather small behind the large cylinder-shaped hydrogen tank.

Honda doesn't volunteer how much the FCX Concept weighs. The automaker has said only that the sedan is a little lighter than the two-door FCX, which weighed about 3,800 pounds when we measured it at our test facility. Honda claims the new powertrain is 400 pounds lighter. Factoring the extra doors and larger body, we estimate the FCX Concept weighs between 3,500 and 3,700 pounds.

Refueling time is comparable to a gasoline fill up, according to Honda, although it can be topped off at very few stations at this point. Honda claims to be working with BP, Chevron, and Shell on developing the infrastructure for hydrogen storage and distribution. Honda's long-term vision, however, is a home refueling station where customers would be hooked to a natural gas source and use a device to reform it into hydrogen. This system would supply domestic electricity and heat, as well.

This may all sound farfetched today, but given social climate, political realities, and environmental changes, the FCX Concept may be a preview of the car of tomorrow. 

--Gabe Shenhar

Driving the fuel-cell cars of tomorrow

Automakers are taking differing approaches to reducing petroleum use, from building cars that run on E85 ethanol, to plug-in hybrid vehicles (short-range electric vehicles with a gas engine for longer trips), to fuel-cell electric vehicles that run on hydrogen produced from natural gas.

We recently had a chance to sample two such fuel-cell vehicles, and talk to their automakers about their approaches to alternative fuel technology. The differences were enlightening.