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

Hypermiling - The new menace on the road?

The other day I’m following a Honda Insight hybrid driving rather quickly down a hill. But as the hill flattens and we start climbing another hill, the little Insight slows down. As we approach an intersection, I see the light has just turned green and I’m sure we’ll make it. But we’re still climbing and the Insight is continues to shed speed. Finally, the light turns yellow and then red. But instead of stopping, the Insight drives right through the red light and continues puttering down the road.

Was this driver driving slowly to be safety conscious? No. I was following one of the new breed of fuel-sipping fanatics that are menacing our roads. (And you know who you are!) The driver of the Insight was doing everything to maximize fuel mileage. Speeding down hills to maintain momentum, slowing up the hills to prevent pressing too hard on the gas pedal, coasting through red lights, and even tailgating semi-trucks to save fuel are all symptoms of this new threat to drivers everywhere.

The phenomenon is encouraged by the colorful fuel economy displays in some hybrids that have turned driving into a video game. The point of this game is to get the highest score... er… mpg figure. Why? Some probably believe they’re minimizing their strain on the earth, but more likely they’re looking for bragging rights. Maybe you’re trying to keep your Prius-o-meter above 50 mpg so you can post your results on Priuschat.com. Maybe people keep asking you what kind of mileage you get on your hybrid, and you want more impressive figures to report. Or perhaps you just want prove to your spouse that you know the right way to drive your new green machine.

Don’t get me wrong—there’s nothing wrong with driving to maximize fuel economy. I try to do the same and have to admit that I have a hard time not staring at the pretty fuel consumption screen on my wife’s Prius. But there are many ways to modify your driving to maximize fuel economy and not become a rolling road hazard. In fact, sites like Hypermiling.com and cleanmpg.com promote many safe and effective ways to maximize fuel economy. But you should always be courteous to others around you. And, yes, a Prius can make it up the hills without losing speed if you push your right foot down a bit. Most importantly, watch the road not the fuel economy gauge. You’ll make the roadways safer for all, and may even help non-hybrids save fuel with an even, predictable driving manner.

—Jake Fisher

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

How Mercedes’ BlueTec works, and the 2009 clean-diesel SUVs to come

For automakers to bring the innate fuel efficiency of a diesel engine with peppy performance and low emissions to the U.S. market, it required a national change-over to ultra-low-sulfur diesel fuel, the development of precisely controlled engines, and extensive treatment of exhaust gases. With these goals accomplished, there is a wave of diesel-powered vehicles coming to America despite the price premium on diesel fuel.

Mercedes-Benz has been leading the movement with its 50-state-legal "clean diesels" featuring "BlueTec" technology that mark the culmination of years of scientific research, powertrain engineering, and market preparation. The resulting BlueTec diesels burn cleaner than most gasoline engines and exhibit superior fuel economy at the same time.

This month, Mercedes announced that it would offer a clean-diesel option for three of its 2009-model SUVs: the midsized ML- and R-Class, and the big GL-Class. All will use the same 210-hp, 3.2-liter diesel V6. These should be some of the most fuel-efficient SUVs on the road. Mercedes has estimated that the GL320 BlueTec will record an average of 24 mpg, some 20 to 40 percent better than a comparable gasoline engine. It should also be able to travel 600 miles on a single tank of fuel.

There may have been nothing inevitable about Mercedes’ particular choices for creating a clean diesel. Conceivably a roster of alternative technologies could have accomplished the same thing. Honda, Nissan, and Toyota are all developing clean-diesel technology and they’re apt to use their own strategies to bring them to fruition. But the Mercedes BlueTec system just happens to be the first practical mass-market application available in the United States.

What is BlueTec?
It’s the proprietary name for a series of engine technologies, filters, and catalysts that result in low emissions and high fuel economy. It starts with a high-pressure common-rail turbo direct injection diesel engine. "Common rail" refers to the method for injecting precisely the right amount of fuel directly into each cylinder at exactly the right moment. The turbocharger boosts horsepower, and the system recirculates the exhaust gas that powers it in order to consume any unburned fuel.

When exhaust gas leaves the engine, a multi-phase treatment process begins. By their nature, diesels tend to produce high levels of carbon monoxide, oxides of nitrogen known collectively as NOx, and particulate matter, also known as soot. Oxidation catalysts minimize the carbon monoxide and further reduce unburned hydrocarbons. A maintenance-free particulate filter, or soot trap, then reduces soot to nearly undetectable levels.

NOx emissions are the trickiest to deal with. NOx forms in the first place as a result of burning atmospheric air, and every lean-burning engine generates NOx as the ratio of fuel to air in the combustion cycle decreases. Current approaches to trapping or destroying NOx emissions all use catalysts that are vulnerable to degradation in the presence of sulfur. That’s why it was necessary to put the whole country on a diet of ultra-low-sulfur fuel.

Mercedes uses two strategies to deal with NOx, one for cars and one for SUVs. The E320 BlueTec sedan, which we tested last year, attacks NOx with a storage catalyst and a second catalyst called SRC (Selective Catalytic Reduction). Periodically the engine runs rich for a little while, which cleanly purges the NOx storage catalyst.

For heavier vehicles, such as SUVs, Mercedes has adopted a urea-injection system called AdBlue. That’s because the NOx trap technology used in cars would require too-frequent purging and thus reduce fuel economy.

The AdBlue system uses the SRC catalyst and a tank of liquid urea, which is misted into the exhaust stream. When the urea comes in contact with the hot exhaust gas, it releases ammonia, which in turn reacts with NOx and emerges as harmless nitrogen and water. The urea supply is said to be good for 10,000 miles, so it only needs to be refilled at the vehicle’s normal service intervals. Mercedes says that the AdBlue system reduces NOx emissions by 80 percent.

The Mercedes-Benz BlueTec SUVs are slated to go on sale this fall as 2009 models.

— Gordon Hard

Also read "A clean diesel' sedan tops a performance-tuned hybrid" (available to online subscribers).

As gas prices increase, consumption decreases

Have you noticed that there are fewer cars on the road lately? Recent trends seem to point in that direction. According to the Energy Information Administration (EIA), U.S. gasoline consumption has been declining for at least six months. In the first quarter of 2008 fuel demand was 1.4 percent below last year’s levels and it’s the third straight quarter of declines according to the American Petroleum Institute.

The EIA projects that for 2008, gasoline consumption is expected to decline by 0.3 percent. In particular, the summer (April through September) is expected to show a 0.4-percent decrease from last year. If you’re planning on hitting the road this summer, be prepared for sticker shock as regular retail gas prices are predicted to average $3.54 a gallon (up from $2.93 last summer) with some areas crossing $4.00.

With summer beyond the traditional time for road trips, it is no surprise that elevated fuel prices has lead to “staycations”—money-saving, stay-at-home vacations.

Another sign that people are changing their driving habits is the increase of public transportation use, which rose to its highest level in 50 years—10.3 billion trips in 2007, up 2.1 percent over the previous year. Americans are looking into alternative modes of transportation such as trolleys, trains, subways, and buses, which all showed a ridership increase, with the largest growth in major cities.

These fuel-consumption indicators are not surprising considering the rise in gas prices and slowing economy.

What steps have you taken, if any, to decrease your fuel consumption? Post your answers in the comments below.

To see what gas prices are in your area, see our average gas prices, which is updated weekly. Also, read our fuel saving tips and learn about alternative fuels in the Consumer Reports Guide to Driving Green.

—Liza Barth

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.   

Earth Day 2008: Driving green

When it comes to driving, it's not easy being green, even on Earth Day. After all, we need cars to commute and run essential errands. Plus, as a nation, we love the freedom cars provide. But even providing for our work and family needs, there are ways to reduce the environmental impact from our motoring.  Besides buying a more fuel-efficient vehicle, here are some suggestions that can be applied today with your current vehicle:

Car pool: There are many companies that offer ride-share programs that match you with others in your area. Another option is to check with co-workers or friends in the neighborhood to see if they are going your way. Telecommute (aka work at home) if your company permits it. This will save both fuel and, another precious commodity, your time. When possible, go shopping with family and friends, rather than alone, and "chain" together multiple destinations into one trip.

Park it: Leave your car at home and take public transportation if available, or use a bike, walk, or roller skate for more local trips. The latter options will give you some exercise, too.

Get flexible: See if your employer will allow a flexible schedule, so you are not commuting during peak rush hour times. Also, run errands at off hours to avoid driving in congested traffic.

Lose weight: Remove unnecessary cargo from the trunk, such as salt, sand, or shovel left over from winter driving. Removing a roof rack, you can lighten your load, reduce drag, and aid fuel economy. For SUVs and trucks, remove (or avoid buying) heavy push bars and side steps.

Slow down: Drag rises with speed. Slowing from 75 to 55 mph boosted gas mileage 33 percent in testing performed on a sedan and in a large SUV.

What are you doing to be a greener driver? Share your experiences and tips in the comments below.

—Liza Barth

For more 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.

From the logbook: Toyota Prius Touring

History shows that Toyota made the right decision when their designers made sure that the second-generation Prius looked like nothing else on the road. Most buyers wanted the world to know that they were proudly piloting a hybrid. Unlike the Honda Civic and Accord Hybrids—which looked nearly identical to the non-hybrid models and sell in much lower numbers, so much so that the Accord version was dropped—the latest Prius silently screams, "Here I am! And I'm burning less gasoline than you."

Actually, because the car is so quiet when moving on battery power alone (except when you put it in reverse and an annoying beep reminds you to be careful backing up), it makes its biggest statement at the gas pump.

This time around we're testing a Touring model with stability control ($23,220) to see if it improves the Prius' handling. What have we learned over the past few months driving it? Is the Prius just a rolling science project or is it a real car? Read on for our test teams' initial feedback:

"First impression isn't too hot, but this car grows on you."

"Switching from electric power to gas makes the engine shudder to life; I don't remember our last Prius doing that."

"Not impressive to drive (stiff ride, poor steering feel)."

"This car was more amazing when we tested it in '04."

"Transmission selector makes you push forward for reverse and pull back to go forward? (I remember complaining about that arrangement in another vehicle with the initials 'B.M.W.')"

"One display screen for all secondary functions is ridiculous."

"I spent too much time switching from screen to screen when I should be looking at the road."

"All this software to calculate 'instant' and 'overall' fuel economy but no 'distance to empty?'"

"Sub-par driving position - plenty of room, but the [steering] wheel is too far away and the dead pedal is badly angled and too close."

"Visibility is OK, but there are lots of pillars and that odd back window."

"Great packaging for four people and lots of luggage space for what is a small car."

"Good rear-seat room for kids."

"40+ mpg is still amazing."

As you can see, while the Prius doesn't deliver an engaging driving experience, it delivers fuel economy in spades. ("A genius of a car, but too bad it's not fun to drive" said one engineer.) There's enough substance here to help you understand why this car continues to be all the rage for environmentally-focused people. And I think this line really sums up what we feel about the Prius thus far: "An impressive, ground-breaking product, but far from perfect."

—Mike Quincy

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.

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.

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

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.

Chicago - Show me the green

The Chicago Auto Show seems to fall in a tough place on the calendar, that is, after the Los Angeles and Detroit shows where combined 60-80 vehicles may have been unveiled. Each event has a typical theme: LA is usually on the leading-edge of the Green movement and high fashion; Detroit tends to combine American muscle, technology innovation, and memorable design; Chicago is often a blend of truck news and also-rans (minor updates and decidedly unsexy models).

Disappointingly, the pattern holds true this year. The show itself isn't to blame, being a hapless victim of timing and circumstance. I place the blame on the manufacturers. Hear me out...

Reflecting back on the announcements after one last tour of the show floor, there were more than a fair share of mild updates and rebadged models. These may be all important to their respective companies, but not fodder for fueling consumer (or diehard automotive) passions.

Trucks did rule here in Chicago, with several interesting announcements although little that rocked my automotive world. The Chevrolet Traverse looks great. The Ford Works computer system is quite impressive. The GMC Sierra is welcomed to the hybrid revolution. The GMC Denali XT concept is, well, different.

What I wanted to see was inventive, thrifty trucks and SUVs. Rather than just targeting full-throttle, off-road assault monsters, I was looking forward to more vehicles that could commune in nature in a reasonably environmentally responsible way.

Turns out Detroit was the show for that, with the Ford Escape Plug-in, Hummer HX, Jeep Renegade (shown above), Land Rover LRX, Saturn Vue Plug-in, and Toyota A-BAT concepts. No question the Hummer H3T rocks in its own conquer-the-Earth way, but the HX concept from Detroit alongside it rocks harder. Fit it with a clean diesel engine and consider it the brand's savior.

The show season isn't over until New York next month. Just hope we don't have to wait until the next Detroit show to be tantalized with vehicles that combine fun and "green" in the same exciting package.

Meanwhile, I need to reread the Suzuki Equator materials to learn more about how it has an "exclusive" grille.

—Jeff Bartlett

Read our complete coverage of the 2008 Chicago Auto Show.

The challenges of a modern muscle car era

One thing I learned from the Twilight Zone television show is that dreams can come true, but there’s always a catch. As a life-long muscle car enthusiast, I’ve often dreamed of the classic 1960s cars being reborn with modern amenities and performance.

My youthful desires were further kindled by my second car, a Pontiac Firebird. Since then, I’ve driven numerous, memorable muscle machines, each thrilling and disappointing in their own ways. A few years ago, I bought an older Chevrolet Corvette treated to a ground-up restoration and modernization, with a late-model powertrain. Stock appearance with somewhat modern dynamics. Very cool indeed, but not the true fantasy realized.

The current Ford Mustang GT and Shelby GT500 hit my hot button. And the new Chevrolet Camaro has my enthusiasm firing on all cylinders, recalling great memories of flogging a big-block Yenko Camaro. And now, along comes the 2009 Dodge Challenger SRT8 here in Chicago. Wow.

Aside from gaining a little girth with age, as many of us tend to do, it too has that perfect recipe of being the car we all wish the originals were. (Ever go back and drive a ‘60s muscle car? Not quite what you may remember…)

Hard to believe it has been 35 years since the classic Challenger had been retired. The new one casts a familiar shadow, and it is instantly recognizable. Throw in a 6.1-liter V8 producing a magical 425 horsepower, as every Hemi should, and a track-inspired chassis… My right-foot has muscle-memory twitches just anticipating tire-liquefying power and lung-clogging smoke.

Sure, the official presentation and subsequent press materials are filled with references to Keyless Go and MyGig entertainment. Whatever. The real entertainment comes from under the twin hood scoops. The factoids that stuck with me from the unveiling were 0-60 mph in 4.9 seconds, 13.3 seconds for the quarter mile, and estimated EPA fuel economy 13 city, 18 highway.

Rod Serling, cue music.

I paid $3.35 a gallon to fill up this week. That’s for regular ol’ 87 octane, mind you. The Challenger drinks premium – and has a 19-gallon fuel tank. Another Dodge product is rated at 13/18, the Durango 4x4 with the 5.7-liter Hemi V8. Understanding this is not a direct comparison, it is worth noting that in Consumer Reports testing, we got just 12 miles per gallon. Sure, a person who buys a $40,000 muscle car may not stress over a few dollars for the driving excitement, but hear me out.

If were I to drive a Challenger SRT8 on my 90-mile round trip commute at $3.65 a gallon, it would cost $27.37 a day, $136.88 a week, and about $7,000 a year for fuel. Not to mention, the Challenger SRT8 carries a $2,100 gas-guzzler tax when purchased. Like it or not, fuel economy is a factor, and one that may prove a spoiler for these reborn muscle cars (at least for those with V8s) after the first year or two of sales.

These calculations sent my mind recoiling during the press conference to the never-ending “What would I buy?” question. The Scion xB and Toyota Matrix would be nice commuters, but is it really worth the operational cost for that BIG 2.4-liter four-cylinder?

To reset my agitated brain, I turned to a senior manager from General Motors and asked, “425 horsepower. Will the Camaro be able to beat that?” He smiled and replied, “I think so, and with better fuel economy.”

There may be hope just yet…I mean, our 505-hp Corvette Z06 got 13 mpg city and 28 on the highway. Understandably, the Z06 is about 945 pounds less than the full-boot Challenger but who would have thought that during the peak of the muscle car wars that a 500+-hp anything would get 28 mpg?

What do you think of the latest muscle cars? And do you think fuel economy will be a factor in their sales? Post your Comments below.

—Jeff Bartlett

Read our complete coverage of the 2008 Chicago Auto Show.

'60 Minutes' of premium gasoline

In a December report on "60 Minutes," Andy Rooney said, "There are a lot of things I'd do if I was rich... I'd fill up with high-test gas instead of the 89-octane I usually buy now."

I don't know what kind of car he drives, but if it's one that doesn't require premium, he'd be wasting his money.

And "89 octane?" If he drives, say, a Lexus or BMW (which require premium - at least 91 octane), he's likely to void his engine's warranty if something goes wrong. And if he drives something that only requires regular, well, he's pouring money down the drain.

We've always said that if your car specifies regular fuel (87 octane), don't buy premium under the mistaken belief that your engine will run better. Most cars are designed to run just fine on regular gasoline. Furthermore, many cars that recommend premium fuel also run well on regular.

What should you do - even if you are "rich?" Check your car's owner's manual to find out if your engine is designed to handle either grade. Think twice about using the more expensive gas even if your owner's manual suggests "for optimum performance use premium." We have found that the differences aren't perceivable during normal driving. However, if your car "pings" or knocks with lower grade fuel, buy premium.

Again, for all models where premium fuel is not required, buying the high-grade gas is simply a waste of money... even if you have it to burn.

What octane do you use? Post your comments below.

—Mike Quincy

Read more about fuel economy.

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 - Small lux SUVs, the next big thing?

The question of "What's the next bi