Arnold to automakers: Stop whining!

In the ongoing battle over CO2 emissions limits in California, a group of car company executives from the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers recently met with Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger to plead their case. They say the state should drop its proposed limits on carbon-dioxide emissions, which would effectively require cars to get better fuel economy. Since the federal government recently established higher fuel economy regulations, requiring cars to average 31.6 mpg by 2015, they say the California mandate is unnecessary and would result in a patchwork of fuel economy regulations across the nation.

However, legally, there could be no "patchwork" of regulations, since California is the only state allowed under federal law to pass its own emissions standards. (Other states can follow either California’s standards or the federal ones, but not set their own.)

American automakers have never been known for their enthusiasm for improving fuel economy. Even the outspoken Vice Chairman of Global Product Development at GM, Bob Lutz, has said, "There has been this perception that Ford, GM, and Chrysler are not forthcoming with new technology."

After meeting with the automakers, the Governator still wasn’t buying their long-held arguments. He told them, "The train has left the station," according to an Associated Press report.

Then the muscle-bound governor got tough, saying, "While you’re whining, you should be creating new technologies. That’s how you meet the date."

Ouch.

Do you think automakers are dragging their feet on improving fuel efficiency? Or are they right to resist increasingly stringent fuel economy standards? Share your thoughts in the comments section below.

—Eric Evarts

Read: Gov. Schwarzenegger's official statement

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.

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.

Your opinion wanted - GM takes questions to the public

Like any large corporation, General Motors spends a lot of time and money conducting focus groups—talking to its customers and potential customers in focus groups to find out what they want.
This year at the New York auto show, it seemed the company was doing more than usual.

First, at Wednesday morning, GM held a press conference to introduce the Pontiac Solstice Coupe and two new versions of the Australian-built Pontiac G8. As soon as you name any car G8, you signal the world that you're running out of ideas for car names. If that weren't bad enough, the company admitted as much when it announced an Internet contest to name the latest version of the G8, a two-door, car-like pickup truck, very similar in concept to the Chevrolet El Caminos from the 1970s and '80s. Personally, I'm not sure what's wrong with the storied name El Camino, beyond the potential for brand confusion. Or if that has too much (ahem) baggage, why not Caballero, the name of the GMC version of that trucklet, which no one will remember. (GM is working to merge GMC and Pontiac dealers anyway.) Rapper Fifty Cent, who introduced the car, suggested his given first name, Curtis. If you'd like to make a different suggestion, visit GM's "Tame the Name" contest Web site at: www.pontiac.com/namethiscar.

If that weren't enough feel-good feedback, the company invited a group of perhaps 60 enthusiasts of the Chevrolet Volt to a "town hall" meeting in the afternoon and a group of company executives fielded detailed questions about the car. (Read: "Plugged in: Chevrolet Volt.")

The visitors came from those who left comments at an independently operated Web site: gm-volt.com Many were tinkerers who own electric cars—sometimes several, and some that they have built themselves. Many are members of regional electric-vehicle clubs and are well versed in the challenges of building, owning, and driving electric vehicles (if not necessarily in mass production.)

These efforts follow on last years' GM press conference, in which the company asked showgoers to vote with colored balls for which of three microcar concepts they liked best.

All this is to say that GM is either trying very hard to do a better job of listening to its customers, or it has simply completely run out of original ideas of its own. We're not sure which.

To be fair, GM's vice president of global product development, Bob Lutz, has admitted the company underestimated the demand for hybrids. Put another way, before the Toyota Prius came out, GM was completely blind to the market among young, hip urban intellectuals for a car that got good gas mileage and made a social statement that its owner cared about the planet. Now it looks as though the company is aggressively trying to make up for lost time, marked by a slew of hybrid models coming to market and intriguing concept vehicles offering a glimpse at the potential road ahead.

Tell us what you think. Is GM asking the right customers now?

—Eric Evarts

See the 2008 New York auto show coverage.

Ford breaks out the stylus

Frequently, we have complained about radio and climate controls in recent vehicles we have tested being so small they need a stylus to operate. (Actually, we don't think it's a good idea to try to pick out buttons with a skinny stylus on the road, either.) Such controls are often mounted low on the dashboard, a long reach away, and so it is hard to see and pick out which button you want to hit. Clearly, we aren't fans of these tiny buttons.

Now it seems Ford has taken our snarky complaints literally. Looking at the radio, navigation, and inventory-tracking system in its Transit work van, what we found is a standard stylus slot in the upper right side of the unit. Just slide your fingernail down the side of the radio and pull it out.

The funny thing is, the Transit's simple, round climate-control knobs, as well as the "buttons" on its touch-screen system are all plenty large to hit with your finger. You still don't need a stylus. Go figure.

—Eric Evarts

See the 2008 New York auto show coverage.

Learning from the K-cars

This year, as gas prices head for $4 a gallon in New York, it seems like every Japanese carmaker is showing a tiny micro-car at the Javits center. Most look kind of like an egg sitting on a roller skate. They have room for two, or a very cozy four passengers. They are powered by gas engines of up to a motorcycle-sized 660 cc. Or, in many cases they dispense with a gas engine altogether and run on electric power.

More than a mere novelty, these tiny cars can be instructive. These automakers are building them to meet a market demand in Japan, where they are subject to only one-fifth the tax burden of other cars. Still, in Japan's compact cities, car buyers are demanding electric cars. The government doesn't mandate them, and the electric versions are subject to the same tax burden as the gas-powered models, but the drive is there.

In Japan, these tiny models are referred to as Kei-cars, or keijidosha, which literally means "light automobile."

Americans will remember a different type of K-car. As I was walking across town Tuesday night, I passed an immaculately kept Dodge Aries wagon from the 1980s—a rare site anywhere today, much less in Manhattan. It was surprising how small the Aries looked compared with the modern Toyota Camrys and Volkswagen Jettas surrounding it. Not nearly as small as the Japanese Kei-cars, however.

On the surface, the Kei cars look much more interesting and promising than the K-car. Now, more than ever, size matters. And these models show that people can get by with less vehicle.

—Eric Evarts

See the 2008 New York auto show coverage.

Plugged in: Chevrolet Volt

General Motors' development of the Chevrolet Volt has been conducted with unprecedented publicity for the company. In fact, it has had so much publicity that it has led some skeptics to believe the program is a mere publicity stunt. Given that the American industry needs more good news for multiple reasons, this theory is alluring. Either way, we keep learning more about the GM program at almost every auto show and on many occasions in between.

At a "town hall" meeting with Volt enthusiasts in New York, the company spelled out many more details about its targets for the production car. Here's what we learned:

• It will definitely be a small, four-door hatchback based on GM's global small-car architecture, as the concept car is, and it will be built on an existing assembly line.
• The car will likely be low-slung and narrow, because aerodynamics will be important to achieving the targeted fuel economy. Seats will "fit like a tailored suit, not a bulky winter coat," says the Volt's Chief Engineer Andrew Farah.
• The car's lithium-ion battery pack will have 16 kilowatt/hours of capacity - the amount necessary to travel 40 miles on an electric charge.
• The car will have an "intelligent" on-board battery charger that can automatically charge from any type of typical household electric current - either 110-volt or 220-volt AC.
• The battery pack will consist of 250 individual cells, wired in series. If any one of them fails, the whole pack will be dead. The pack will be liquid-cooled.
• Those batteries will use one of two technologies: lithium-ion nano-phosphate batteries from A123 systems in Massachusetts, or lithium-ion magnesium batteries from LG Chem. Neither technology was used in the lithium batteries that exploded spontaneously in laptop computers. Although lithium battery technology is advancing, GM has frozen this technology for the first-generation Volt to meet its November 2010 production target.
• GM is targeting an acceleration time from 0 to 60 mph of between 7 and 9 seconds, similar to the range of most family sedans today.
• The Volt will initially be sold only in certain states or cities, but will roll out nationwide "within months" after that.

A few guests at the meeting last night asked what will take the company so long to develop batteries for the Volt.

In addition to developing software to tell the engine when to start in any of thousands of different situations and how fast to run it, figuring out how to deal with stale gas and oil if users don't drive far enough to start the engine, and testing full-size battery packs, GM expects it will take time to develop public knowledge of how to operate the Volt.

For example, teaching consumers how often they should expect to recharge the car and to fill it with gas, and working with power companies to ensure that Volt buyers get discounted off-peak electric rates for charging at night. Currently, there is no EPA protocol for measuring the fuel economy of a plug-in hybrid.

Bob Lutz, General Motors vice president of global product development, says he is 94 percent positive GM will meet its target deadline of November 2010 to introduce the Volt. Then again, Bob is known for bluster. One thing is more and more certain: If the Volt turns into a mere publicity stunt, it will likely be the most elaborate and expensive one in history.

—Eric Evarts

See the 2008 New York auto show coverage.

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.

The growing - and surprisingly large - ethanol movement

The search for alternative fuels is moving fast and furiously this week at the National Ethanol Conference in Orlando. Or, in the words of Energy Department Undersecretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Alexander Karsner: "Acting with a sense of urgency to develop alternatives to traditional energy supplies is no longer optional." Risks to traditional petroleum supplies have never been higher and are still growing, he says.

That seems to be the conclusion of a surprisingly large contingent of ethanol investors, producers, corn farmers, and advocates gathered here at the conference. Estimates range from 2,000 to 2,700 of them are in attendance.

No surprise, much of the reason for all the interest is financial: Last year's Energy Act included a provision requiring the production of 30 billion gallons of ethanol to be blended with gasoline by 2020.

The ethanol industry is putting its collective efforts into marketing a blend of ethanol called E85, so-named because it is 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent gasoline. A promising supplement to gasoline, there are many sides to E85. For instance, when we tested a flex-fuel Chevrolet Tahoe running on E85 in 2006, we found its fuel economy dropped 27 percent overall, compared with running on gasoline. Likewise, there is debate over the net energy benefits of creating fuel from food crops, with some analysts questioning the energy return when factoring the petroleum used in farm machines and for transporting.

Some stations sell E85 for less than gasoline, while others charge more, hitting consumers with a double-whammy: more fuel cost per gallon and less efficiency. Availability and pricing may change as competition heats up in the ethanol market. Today, only a small fraction of gas stations carry E85, but the number has been growing.

Two recent announcements may push that trend along. The first came last October, when Underwriters Laboratories adopted a safety standard for E85 fuel pumps. Since ethanol is more corrosive than gasoline, some station owners were concerned that ordinary gas pumps could fail when pumping gasoline. The organization says it is now testing the first commercial E85 fuel pumps and expects them to be available later this year.

Then in December, Congress passed amendments to a law called the Petroleum Marketing Practices Act, forbidding oil companies from restricting the sale of E85 at their franchised gas stations. Some franchise contracts had effectively forbidden the sale, or forced E85 pumps to be located away from other pumps. With those two obstacles eliminated, more gas station owners may consider E85. However, building infrastructure to transport enough ethanol to fuel cars nationwide remains a challenge.

In addition to E85, ethanol is sold in a 10-percent blend with gasoline known as E10 at most gas pumps around the country. Karsner also revealed that the Energy Department is studying setting additional standards for intermediate blends of E15 and E20 to absorb increasing ethanol supplies and decrease gasoline demand.

The jury is out on whether ethanol saves money or not. Undersecretary Karsner says without mixtures of ethanol in gasoline today, gas prices might be even higher. But like any emerging environmental technology, the costs are likely to come down as supplies grow.

So far, according to Dow Jones and USA Today pollster Bruce Scherr, the problem most Americans have with ethanol is they don't know about it. But they support the idea of a domestically produced fuel that can substitute for oil. Today, the United States produces more ethanol than it imports oil from Iraq. (To see where we import oil from, read "The drive for energy independence.")

To learn more about ethanol and alternative fuels, visit our green cars and fuel economy hub. In the meantime, tell us how you feel about ethanol and what would make you switch to using it instead of gasoline in the comments below.

Watch for a future installment on ethanol production and its connection to rising food prices.

—Eric Evarts

Chrysler threatens to pull plastic plug on “Playskool” interiors

Last week, the bankruptcy news of an auto parts supplier in Dearborn, Michigan, may have a direct impact on consumers. And it reveals some insight into what goes into the parts of the car that owners see and touch every day.

Plastech Engineered Products makes interior components for Chrysler, Ford, and General Motors vehicles. About a week ago, Plastech declared bankruptcy amidst a dispute with Chrysler, as widely reported. As a result, Plastech stopped supplying Chrysler interior components, causing the automaker to run short of parts and shut down four factories temporarily, with the potential to close many more.

The standoff didn’t last for long before a temporary agreement could be reached and production resumed. According to the trade paper Automotive News, the new arrangement will “allow the automaker to resume production at four idled plants and avoid shutdown of all its assembly operations.” Plastech has secured a line of credit to keep operations running for the time being.

Chrysler’s initial announcement of the four plant closings gives us an idea what cars have critical interior parts built by Plastech:
• The Belvidere, Ill., factory builds the Dodge Caliber, Jeep Compass, and Jeep Patriot SUVs.
• Newark, Delaware builds the Chrysler Aspen and Dodge Durango SUVs.
• Sterling Heights, Michigan, builds the Chrysler Sebring and Dodge Avenger.
• The Dodge Nitro, Jeep Liberty, and Jeep Wrangler are built in Toledo, Ohio.

Consumer Reports has tested the Caliber, Compass, Patriot, Durango, Sebring (three of them), Avenger, Nitro, and Wrangler, and we are currently testing a Jeep Liberty.

When we tested the Nitro, we said its interior “looks cheap, with hard plastics, rough-finished components, large gaps, and loose pieces.” Likewise the Patriot, we said, “is full of cheap plastics, some of which are poorly finished.” We said the Sebring’s interior, “looks cheap and insubstantial.”

All these vehicles came in for similar harsh criticism. (Of course, suppliers like Plastech build components to manufacturer specs.) Some automotive writers have referred to this generation of Chrysler interiors as looking like they come from Playskool toys. One of our engineers likened driving the Compass to “sitting in an Igloo ice chest.”

Last year Chrysler announced it would create a new “advanced” interior design studio to focus on building better interiors. The first product of that effort, according to the company, is the new Dodge Ram pickup displayed at the Detroit Auto Show. It certainly had the highest initial quality interior we’ve seen on a new Chrysler design in a long time.

The particulars in this dispute remain a bit unclear. If Plastech had collapsed, many people would have been in trouble. The same Automotive News article mentioned that the company “owns more than 35 plants in North America and generated $1.4 billion in sales last year, [and] employs 7,700 people.”

In the end, we hope future Chrysler products will offer consumers more comfortable, better-finished interiors. (In theory, that could be good for everyone’s business.) The 2009 Ram has us optimistic. Just hope more jobs aren’t lost, or threatened, in the process.

—Eric Evarts

Edited 2/12/08

Detroit - Mitsubishi exhibit gives dose of history

It happened again. A long-time automaker that needs an image boost put classic models on a show floor, alongside gleaming new hardware. Mitsubishi pulled this trick in Detroit, and for me they stole the show.

In recent memory, Mitsubishi has lost the (little known) reputation it had for building cars with cutting-edge technology or performance. Even its fire-breathing Lancer Evolution sells in tiny numbers in the United States, though it is known around the world for its performance winning rallies during the 1990s. And when was the last time you saw a turbo Eclipse or 3000GT, let alone a Starion?

On Mitsubishi’s stand at the NAIAS, was the Evo’s progenitor, the 1981 Lancer EX 2000 turbo rally car. This right-hand drive car sported banged-up wings and huge driving lights on the front bumper for blasting down dirt roads through the forests at night. Mostly anonymous in the States, rallying combines extreme feats of car control and navigation with actual production cars modified for racing, making it the purest, and most thrilling form of motor sports in my book. Many of the world’s most iconic performance cars made a name in rallying, including the Audi Quattro, Mini Cooper, Porsche 911, and Subaru WRX. It was good to see this original rally sedan drawing interest on the floor.

The 1984 Mitsubishi Starion turbo inspired import enthusiasm in its day, and it was raced extensively. The one on Mitsubishi’s display was spec’d for Group A road racing, and it brought back memories of my college days.

Despite the RA concept car stuffed off in a corner, the most unusual and eye-catching car on the stand was the 1972 Galant GTO-R73X originally shown at the Tokyo auto show in 1972. Its edgy styling must have been as distinctive as the 1964 1/2 Ford Mustang was in the United States. It looked like a cross between a 1976 Toyota Celica and an Alfa Romeo GTV coupe. And its well-finished black vinyl interior brought back even more memories.

Who knew Mitsubishi had such seminal moments? Perhaps we all did, but it is nice to be reminded.

—Eric Evarts

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

Automotive X Prize entries still up for grabs

Despite all of the environmentally friendly cars shown at the Detroit auto show this year, no imminent production model could be expected to sustain an average of 100 mpg—just one requirement in the Auto X Prize competition. Even the display plug-in hybrids would fall short in the real-world once their gasoline or diesel engine starts up to supplement the drained battery pack. However, Automotive X Prize aims to spur development of that mythical 100 mpg car with a unique race backed by a $10 million purse.

So far, 51 teams from seven countries have signed up to enter this competition. Many have brand-new technologies and have never built cars before. Some are technology companies in other industries (such as electric machinery components), but they haven't made vehicles, either. Some entrants are backyard inventors with patents on interesting technologies that have not been used in cars, and some are just creative tinkerers who think they have a better idea. Other entrants are established niche vehicle companies that have built a wide variety of "alternative" cars—most of them electric, tiny, slow, three-wheelers, or not highway legal. At least one university team is competing, as well.

Below is a list of teams that, based on their technology, name recognition (and thus access to funds), and the details of their plans, sound the most promising to me:

• Tesla Motors is entering one of their all-electric Roadsters, with a range expected to be over 200 miles, 0-60 mph acceleration under 4 seconds, and a price over $100,000. It is expected to be on sale later this year.
• Loremo AG, a company based in Munich, Germany, was also working on their car before the competition was announced. It is a rear-wheel drive, four-wheeled 2+2 coupe (two front seats, and two jump seats in the rear for children) powered by a 20-hp, two-cylinder diesel engine, that the company says will get 150 mpg.
• Cornell University plans a simpler approach: taking an old Geo Metro and converting it to plug-in hybrid power. I include them because this team has been in the top tier of most competitions it has entered, including being only one of five finishers in this year's DARPA Urban Challenge for self-driving vehicles.

So far, however, no major automakers have entered. And most of the advanced university teams and automotive think-tanks have not entered.

X Prize officials noted that the deadline for entries will be set soon; the first round of competition is scheduled for next spring. The officials said they still expected to hear from a number of last-minute entrants. In the meantime, given the cost to develop a competitive entry and meet the competition's consumer acceptability requirements, complete with a business plan for producing and selling 10,000 cars, there may not be a competitor who walks away with the prize in 2010.

But previous X Prize competitions have worked like the DARPA Grand Challenge: If no one claims the prize the first year, it gets offered again until someone does.

So take heart, tinkerers, there may be a next time.

—Eric Evarts

Check out our previous coverage of the Automotive X Prize:
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.

A green tour of the Detroit auto show

Surprisingly, Detroit this January is greener than it has been in decades. Almost every new vehicle introduction at the North American International Auto Show (NAIAS) featured a high-mileage, hybrid, or clean-diesel car. Those vehicles that weren't introduced with a greener-than-thou proclamation included gasoline-saving technologies, such as the Ford "EcoBoost" powertrain that combines direct-injection and turbocharging.

All this comes less than a month after Congress required automakers to increase fuel economy by 40 percent by 2020, amid industry protests that such gains weren't feasible.

At the show, automakers embraced diesel engines because they can save as much as 30 percent in fuel economy and greenhouse gas emissions compared with gasoline engines. And the latest diesels are powerful, quiet, and nearly as clean as gas engines. Pollution control technologies have flourished since cleaner, low-sulfur diesel fuel was mandated in the end of 2006. This year most German manufacturers were touting new urea injection systems that will further reduce pollution.
For example:

• Audi rolled out a V12-diesel-powered version of its exotic R8 supercar with 500 horsepower that the company says gets 28 mpg.
• BMW had two diesels, a 3 Series sedan and an X5 SUV. Both have twin-turbocharged engines that make 265 horsepower and use urea injection.
• A small Mercedes-Benz SUV concept, called the Vision GLK Freeside, uses a 170-hp four-cylinder diesel.
• Cadillac showed a coupe version of its CTS sports sedan that design director Ed Welburn said "could" have diesel power.
• Like Cadillac, the Land Rover LRX concept was conceived as having a diesel engine should it move to production, with officials stating that a diesel was being developed for other models.
• Dodge, Ford, and Toyota each announced that they would put new diesel engines into their light-duty pickup trucks, though not until 2010.

In addition to diesels, the auto show was full of futuristic plug-in hybrid-electric vehicles. Plug-in cars get their main power from a regular electrical outlet, but they also have an auxiliary gas or diesel engine to charge the battery for longer trips. The biggest benefit is that if the batteries can provide 40 miles of driving, 78 percent of Americans could handle their normal everyday drives on just electricity. While conversion companies have been modifying the current Prius to plug in for some time, it will be at least until 2010 before factory plug-in hybrids advance from just demonstration vehicles to mainstream production.

Among those models at the show that we're told are headed for production are:

• The Fisker Karma—an exotic luxury sports sedan designed by Henrik Fisker, who previously penned Aston Martins and the BMW Z8. It will use the largest hybrid battery pack in any current car, giving it a range of 50 miles on just electricity, according to Fisker. For longer trips, the car will have a 2.0-liter gasoline engine driving an on-board generator to charge the batteries. Fisker claims the $80,000 car will go on sale at the end of 2009, which would likely make it both the world's first production plug-in, and the world's first production series hybrid (one with no mechanical connection between the gas engine and the wheels).
• The Saturn Vue plug-in hybrid, which GM says will have a 10-mile electric-only range, will go on sale in 2010.
• The Toyota Prius plug-in, which is just a current Prius converted by Toyota. It has a second nickel-metal-hydride battery pack that is reported to give it an electric range of about six miles. Toyota calls it a "blended hybrid," meaning the gas engine starts whenever it is beneficial. (It always runs above 35 mph.) The car is meant just to draw attention to the fact that Toyota says the next-generation Prius will be a plug-in.

Other plug-in hybrids in Detroit this year included:

• A Ford Escape demonstration vehicle with a 30-mile electric range that is being used by an electric utility company in Southern California.
• The Volvo ReCharge concept, a plug-in version of a Volvo C30 coupe with electric motors in the wheels previously shown in Los Angeles. The ReCharge is an all-wheel-drive series hybrid that is powered by four electric motors, one in each wheel. A 1.6-liter gasoline engine powers a generator to charge the batteries for extra range. Volvo claims a battery-only range of 62 miles.
• The Saturn Flextreme, a midsized car-based SUV concept that uses GM's E-Flex hybrid architecture. General Motors says the diesel-electric-powered Flextreme could go 34 miles on an electric charge.

Getting affordable batteries strong enough for plug-ins depends on developing lithium-ion technology, which saves weight and packs more power into a smaller package. So far, no lithium-ion batteries suitable for cars are commercially available, according to automakers. But Toyota jumped ahead in the race to develop plug-in hybrids by announcing that it would begin building its own batteries (with partner Panasonic) by 2010.

James Holland, Ford's chief engineer for the plug-in Escape, says the company is looking for a new business model to support plug-in hybrids. Possible scenarios could include leasing batteries to consumers, or selling the batteries separately from cars, and reselling them to electric utilities when it's time to trade the car in.

Diesels and plug-in hybrids weren't the only fuel savers at the show. General Motors and Chrysler each showed new fuel-cell concept vehicles, and Dodge rolled out the all-electric Zeo sports car concept.

Mazda showed the hydrogen-rotary-powered Mazda5 Hydrogen RE Hybrid. Its rotary engine can run on either hydrogen or gasoline, and a hybrid system boosts fuel economy on either fuel. The third-row seat is removed to make room for the large hydrogen tank.

Ford announced a new line of smaller, more powerful gasoline engines called EcoBoost that will replace larger, thirstier ones in some popular vehicles. EcoBoost engines will use turbocharging and direct fuel-injection technology to deliver increased power from smaller, more efficient engines.

General Motors rolled out two ethanol-powered concepts, the Hummer HX and Saab 9-4X. GM President Richard Wagoner says biofuels such as ethanol are needed in the short term to bridge the gap until technologies such as plug-in electric cars and fuel cells are ready for production.

While Toyota is investing in batteries for plug-in hybrids, GM announced it is joining a co-operative venture to develop ethanol made from non-corn feed stocks. GM and partner Coskata say their new process can make ethanol from everything from wood chips to used tires, and do so relatively inexpensively.

The sheer number of these gas-saving cars in Detroit dwarfed the rollout of two redesigned full-sized pickups and one ground-pounding 620-horsepower Chevrolet Corvette ZR1. Even many of "regular" cars at this show represent reasonable-sized and more efficient alternatives to large SUVs.

General Motors Vice President of North American Operations Troy Clark summed up the show well when he said: "We've always said new fuel economy regulations would have to be met with technology, not with smaller vehicles. That's what we're seeing here."

—Eric Evarts

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

Detroit auto show - Personal picks

The Cars team reflects on the 2008 Detroit auto show, selecting their personal picks for the most memorable, significant, or simply favorite cars at the event.

Audi R8 V12 TDI:
Last week, I gushed over the brilliant Audi R8 V12 TDI concept (see blog). The intoxication of it has stuck with me like a bad cold...I can't seem to shake it. The look is mean. The headlights squint at you like Clint Eastwood. The engine looks like it should be in a museum of modern art. And while Audi also had a "standard" R8 on display, it was one of only a few cars people were waiting in line to sit in. This car could reside in my garage forever.—Mike Quincy

Chevrolet Corvette ZR1/Hummer HX:
These pure vehicles push American icons to new reaches. The ZR1 is history in the making. It is an amazing performance machine that will fuel my automotive fantasies for quite some time, and is certain to be chronicled for generations to come. The Hummer HX represents the long-rumored H4, a Jeep Wrangler alternative intended to provide an attainable entry to the off-roading brand, and, now it may also represent a potential production savior for a brand that has become the pariah of the Green movement. Make it affordable, with a traditional square back and a thrifty diesel, and watch the Hummer "jamborees" flourish. Granted, the Corvette and Hummer are quite  different vehicles, but each represents extreme fun, and who doesn't want more of that?—Jeff Bartlett

Fisker Karma:
Designed by custom car designer Henrik Fisker (who also penned the BMW Z8, one of my favorite cars ever), the Fisker shows that hybrids -- even futuristic advanced plug-in hybrids that will run all day on electricity -- aren't just for environmentalist ninnies. It looks great and reportedly goes fast. (A top speed of 125 mph and 0-60 mph in less than 6 seconds are as fast as any mere mortal should need to go on land.) In short, it should give even the most jaded car enthusiasts an environmentally friendly hybrid they can lust after.

In terms of affordability, however, I've got to name the Honda CR-Z as my runner up. It marries hybrid efficiency to sports-car fun just like the Fisker. It isn't as advanced, and it is limited by being a two-seater. But it has the fun-to-drive element sorely lacking in Honda's last mileage champ, the Insight. And best of all, most car shoppers should be able to afford it.—Eric Evarts

Jeep Renegade/Cadillac CTS coupe:
This was my 15th time attending the Detroit auto show and, overall, it was a relatively boring event. There were no outrageous introductions such as a Chrysler minivan landing on stage, no retro chic surprises like the Volkswagen New Beetle, or first-time viewings of highly anticipated significant vehicles.

That said, I'd have to go with styling features that caught my eye. The Jeep Renegade concept, for example, was eye candy that I hope someday becomes a modern beach buggy. Forget the electric drive. Cash-strapped Chrysler is busy enough trying to survive. Not to mention the paradox of"go anywhere" marketing and getting stuck with an empty battery. A much more realistic and closer to production styling statement was the Cadillac CTS coupe. Even though I'm not much of a coupe fan, it looked spectacular.—Gabe Shenhar

Honda CR-Z:
I really liked the Honda CR-Z. With styling that is a dead-ringer for the old (and beloved CRX), the CR-Z's possible hybrid powertrain looks to vault this little runabout to the top of the fuel economy mountain... just like the original CRX. Honda is also disciplined at keeping weight low and suspension tuning interesting, so I imagine driving one will be a ball. Let's hope it's affordable.—David Champion

Toyota Venza:
Over the course of the show I was consistently drawn back to one car: the Toyota Venza. But not because I'm wowed by its styling, price, powerplant, or features. It's because I have no idea where it will fit in the Toyota lineup. Between the RAV4, Highlander, Avalon, and even the base Sienna, how many 5-passenger people movers are needed from one manufacturer? This odd vehicle certainly drew my attention each day... and the resulting quizzical stares as I tried to determine its niche.—Jon Linkov

Also read Cliff Weathers' pick for best in show.

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

                                                                                                           

                   

Toyota jumps ahead in battery development

No sooner did Congress mandate dramatically higher fuel economy standards by 2020, than Toyota quickly threw down a second challenge to Detroit. Toyota President Katsuaki Watanabe announced that Toyota will raise its fleet average fuel economy to 35 mpg before the 2020 deadline. The company is attempting to keep the lead in the public perception of fuel efficiency. (Read the results of Consumer Reports' Brand Perceptions Survey.)

In addition, the company announced that it will begin producing its own lithium-ion batteries for plug-in hybrid vehicles through its joint venture with Panasonic. This is a key breakthrough, and it may put Toyota ahead in the race to produce plug-in hybrid vehicles. Plug-in hybrids can drive for short distances on electricity only, without starting their gasoline or diesel engines. If the batteries are large enough, they could allow people to drive all week without using gasoline, since 78 percent of Americans drive less than 27 miles a day. Conversion companies and universities have been modifying the current Prius to a plug-in for some time.

Today, automakers say there are no commercially available batteries with enough capacity to power plug-in hybrids. Most automakers agree that getting enough battery capacity on-board a car, without making the car too heavy or taking up too much space, will require lithium-ion batteries, rather than the nickel-metal-hydride batteries currently used in hybrids. Other automakers are working with suppliers to develop them and buying custom-made individual batteries for their demonstration vehicles.

While U.S. automakers and technology companies are still looking for breakthroughs in lithium-ion batteries, Toyota looks set to have batteries available for plug-in hybrids commercially available by 2010. Like General Motors (see "GM invests in cellulosic ethanol"), Toyota may position itself to be both an automaker client and a supplier for the next-generation energy technology, expanding its profit potential and competitive advantage.

Every major manufacturer is working on advanced automotive technologies, and it appears that for the foreseeable future, a reduction in gasoline consumption on the national level will come from a variety of energy and powertrain strategies.

—Eric Evarts

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

Detroit sushi - Chinese Fish come to Motor City

Few media attendees seemed to venture downstairs at the Detroit auto show. No surprise, as all the major automakers' press conferences were on the second floor and the escalator down is rather hidden. Those that didn't follow Alice down the rabbit hole, however, may have missed all the fun.

Smack in the middle of the basement floor were three tiny Chinese electric cars that looked like they walked right off the screen of a Pixar animated film, or were maybe inspired by a classic Flintstones cartoon. The three little yellow bubbles, each perched on four miniature-looking aluminum wheels were made by the Beijing Li Shi Guang Ming Automobile Design Company, Ltd., a firm whose name would make a for a rather long trunk badge. (BLSGMADC Ltd.  seeks business partners, rather than immediate consumer sales.)

My favorite was the Detroit Fish, an amphibious four-seater that looked like a cross between the Oscar Mayer Wienermobile and a Disney World parking lot tram. The electric-powered  Detroit Fish has a claimed top speed of 27 mph on land and "not so fast in the water," according to a spokeswoman on the stand. The company claims a range of 93 miles (on land) using the car's lead-acid batteries. In China it costs $5,800 U.S., or you can get lithium-ion batteries for an extra $3,400.

Despite their airy names, the other models are not amphibious. The "A Piece of Cloud," looks almost like a two-seat version of the Detroit Fish for $3,800.

The "Book of Songs" costs $5,200, and it includes side doors that almost close. Plus a hood. Despite the cartoony appearance, we're told the name "Book of Songs" is a revered designation in Chinese culture.

I looked for a hole in the floor of the car to put my feet through to run the car up to speed, Flintstones style. But all I found was a big lump in the rubber floor mat. What the cars lack in quality and performance, they'd make up for in creativity and attention getting pizzazz. If only they hadn't been hidden downstairs.

—Eric Evarts

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

GM invests in cellulosic ethanol

If ethanol is to be a viable fuel substitute for any significant gasoline demand, it needs t