https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-uaQ8-ugXGK0/TfEV0cJI5QI/AAAAAAAAADI/lN3gro-xGz8/s800/WomensCar04.jpg https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-KquUIqb-uMc/TfO4xMbXmqI/AAAAAAAAADY/BrCz67Rf7fs/s800/113144_gadis-gadis-cantik-di-icc-2011.jpg

Driver Down: Tomorrow’s New Cars Won’t Need You

The depressing reality of the new car biz? Most buyers aren’t that interested in driving. For every one of us who savors the sheer joy of running a fast car through the gears, there are 10,000 others who couldn’t care less. To most people, driving is a chore. They’d much rather be guzzling a soda, snarfing a burger, texting their buddies, and watching TV — preferably all at once — instead of enjoying the interaction with a finely tuned piece of machinery while getting from A to B.

It’s because of all these non-drivers that today’s cars are heavier, less efficient, and more expensive than they need be. If more people actually thought about what they were doing behind the wheel, there’d be way fewer crashes, and so we probably wouldn’t need so much complex and costly safety hardware.

We enthusiasts like to think we set the agenda when it comes to all things automotive. We don’t. Vehicle design, road design, traffic laws, transport policy: All are calibrated to the non-driver. There are more of them than us. And in America, where everyone loves freedom and a good lawyer can absolve you from the responsibility that comes with it, the common denominator doesn’t get much lower. This is the nation that once mandated automatic seatbelts in an attempt to protect people too stupid or lazy to buckle up themselves, and whose most recent contribution to automotive design has been the invention of the cupholder.

To compensate for dumb drivers, cars are getting smarter. So smart that soon they won’t actually need anyone to drive them. Cars that drive themselves have been on the R&D radar for automakers since the 1950s. For decades, it was assumed that a smart infrastructure-roads with in-built guidance and control systems-would be a basic requirement for a viable autonomous car; this has always been the stumbling block, as infrastructure is expensive and inflexible. But stunning advances in computer power over the past half-century mean today’s autonomous cars don’t need clever roads; they can figure it out all by themselves. And they can talk to other smart cars to help avoid collisions, use less gas on the freeways, and reduce gridlock during rush hour.

Unlike most drivers, autonomous cars are always paying attention when they are on the road, which is why they are a politician’s dream. A reduction in road crashes would help reduce health care costs. Cops and firefighters could spend more time solving crimes and preventing fires instead of catching speeders and cleaning up crash scenes. The existing freeway network could be used more efficiently, as smart cars could run inches apart nose-to-tail, improving fuel economy and dramatically increasing traffic density. Traffic congestion in cities could be better managed, and best of all, the consumer would pay the cost of all the enabling technologies when they buy their smart car. The government wouldn’t have to spend a dime. All it would have to do is mandate automakers build smart cars.

Selling the idea of smart cars to that overwhelming majority of car buyers who aren’t interested in driving won’t be that hard. I can eat breakfast and do my e-mail in clean, air-conditioned comfort with my favorite tunes banging on the sound system while I’m heading to the office? I can send the car to pick up the kids from soccer practice while I make dinner? I can stretch out and sleep while my car takes me to Chicago overnight? Where do I sign?

This seductive new world of the automobile is a lot closer than we think. Seven autonomous Toyota Prius cars built by Google have already covered more than 140,000 miles in testing. And it all sounds wonderful. Unless, of course, you actually like driving…
Toyota introduced the original 2001 Prius to the U.S. in Y2K, nearly a dozen years ago. Since then, Japan’s behemoth automaker has sold a cool two million of its shovel-nose gas-electric, with half that tally being consumed in the United States. In Los Angeles, the Prius is conspicuously common and comprehensibly cool-about as ubiquitous as a Hollywood wannabe yet as special as a Hollywood star. That it took Toyota well over a decade to give its haute hybrid a sibling brings one thought to mind: What took so long?

I spent a weekend with the Prius’ new big little brother, the Prius v, and came away trying to convince my wife she needs one. Toyota says the v stands for versatile, although van seems more apropos. At 181.7 inches long, 69.9 wide, and 63.0 tall, the v is slightly smaller than the original 1995 Honda Odyssey, a vehicle that, while not a huge sales success, set Honda down the path of minivan greatness.

Both the Prius v and Gen 1 Odyssey have four conventional doors (slide this, modern haulers) and share comparable anteater profiles. The v is 17 years the Odyssey’s junior, and although its style is reminiscent of the Honda’s, its performance is a remarkable sign of progress. Consider the following: The 3500-pound Odyssey had a 2.2-liter four-cylinder and four-speed auto good for 140 horsepower, could get from 0 to 60 in 10.3 seconds, and ran the quarter mile in 18.3 at 76.9 mph. The 3400-pound Prius v, in contrast, uses a 1.8-liter four (plus electric motors) paired to a CVT to dispatch 134 horses, to go from 0 to 60 in 10.2, and run the quarter mile in 17.6 at 78.2. I know what you’re thinking: Those are such similar stats, so where’s the progress? In a single word: Efficiency.

In 17 years’ time, Toyota has figured out how to build a vehicle of Odyssey mass and speed that is 115 percent more fuel-efficient. Think about that: For every 10 gallons of gas the Odyssey drinks, the Prius v sips just 4.7. That equates not only to significantly less fuel usage on the front end, but also a monumental emissions reduction on the back end. Over a 15,000-mile period, the Prius v would burn through about 356 gallons of gas (at a cost of roughly $1300) and emit around 3.45 tons of CO2. The Odyssey? Make that 765 gallons (around $2800) and 7.43 tons.

Even compared with a modern mini minivan such as the 2012 Mazda5, the Prius v deserves LEED certification. At 42 mpg combined, the Toyota flips the Mazda’s combo of 24, essentially doubling efficiency and halving emissions. Ford’s upcoming C-Max van was going to come stateside with a standard gas-only engine. But with the Prius v’s arrival, Ford is switching to solely gas-electric.

And the C-Max better be fun to drive, because the v is-something I never expected to say about an oversized Prius. Thanks to Toyota’s Pitch and Bounce Control technology, which uses electric-motor torque to neutralize unwanted vehicle behavior, not to mention available W-rated tires capable of another 65 mph on top of the v’s 103-mph top speed, the plump Prius stays surprisingly flat through aggressive cornering and feels-dare I say?- sporty. The v is proof that quick and powerful aren’t prerequisites for fun to drive.

Since the original Prius, Toyota has clearly been onto something special. Over three generations, the Prius’ technology and MO have been envied and imitated, always to less success. The v’s arrival might be a bit tardy, but better late than never, although I doubt the competition feels that way.
Turns out 54.5 mpg is the magic number for the EPA’s 2025 Corporate Average Fuel Economy standard. The Obama administration Friday announced the new standard, to ramp up beginning in 2017 from the 2016 35.5-mpg CAFE. The Environmental Protection Agency and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration plan to co-write details for the new standard by the end of September. Together, they’ll tackle such issues as what kinds of sport/utilities should be counted as trucks.

Such uncertainty may have played into reports of Toyota’s hesitation in supporting the 54.5 mpg standard as late as Thursday. Toyota, Ford Motor Company, General Motors, Chrysler Group, BMW, Honda, Hyundai, Jaguar/Land Rover, Kia, Mazda, Mitsubishi, Nissan, Toyota and Volvo all joined Obama for his announcement July 29. I have to single out Hyundai, whose North American chief, John Krafcik, said at the Chicago auto show more than two years ago his company would accept any new fuel economy or emissions standard without protest. Krafcik said a stiff standard would not necessarily cause Hyundai to stop production of its rear drive Genesis, because those cars would always account for a small portion of the brand’s sales.

The administration first floated a 56.2 mpg proposal for 2017-25. Environmentalists wanted 62 mpg. The new standard, the White House says, will save consumers $1.7 trillion at the pump and $8,200 in new vehicle fuel costs compared with a 2010 model, while saving 12 billion barrels of oil.

Of course, these numbers are pure bunk.

Same with any environmental group’s estimate of fuel cost savings, or, say, the Center for Automotive Research’s (CAR) carefully calculated estimate, released well before Obama’s announcement, that the 56.2 mpg standard, would add an average of $6,714 to the price of a new car or truck.

On that last point, I plead guilty of reporting CAR’s estimate in the September issue of Motor Trend, and at this website. As analyst Jim Hall says, “all these projections are B.S. They assume today’s costs of the technology we’ll be using in 15 years.”

Technology progresses independent of government regulation, but just like the way the Motion Picture Production Code produced some of the smartest, snappiest double-entendres in American cinema from 1930 to 1967, the CAFE standards coincide with more than 30 years of some pretty interesting breakthroughs. Cars, or at least, interesting cars, were supposed to be over with when I got my driver’s license in 1974, months before the first CAFE standards.

Thirty-seven years later, we’re enjoying the greatest performance renaissance in the history of the automobile. Many four-cylinder engines make better horsepower than the average V-8 built during the Ford and Carter administrations.

“Nobody can tell me what the incremental cost of electronic engine control technology will be in 2020,” Hall says. New technologies with different goals can offset each other, or aid each other, he notes. An autonomous car doesn’t need heavy 5 mph bumpers.

Even though we’re stuck with CAFE instead of the gas tax that most fans of the car prefer, there is a market demand for better fuel economy. Whether you believe in Peak Oil and global warming or not, the demand for whatever finite resources we have is growing quickly. China, the country that saved Buick, already has driven up oil prices. India is next.

That’s largely why automakers “caved” to the 54.5 mpg standard, which sounds sky high right now. Remember that 54.5 mpg is not, literally, 54.5 mpg, that each automaker will have its own standard to achieve. The 35.5 mpg standard for 2016 uses the arcane “S” curve to ensures that fuel economy improvements for Honda Civics, for example, are roughly the same proportion as improvements for Chrysler 300s.

The “S” curve is why we’ll see more large German sedans with six-cylinder engines and diesels instead of V-8s, why fewer midsize cars will come with V-6 options, why we’ll see more sub-2.0-liter fours and full-size pickups with turbocharged V-6s. The larger, RWD cars won’t have to go away.

It’s why GM is betting heavily on the Voltec platform. As engineers improve the Chevy Volt’s powertrain, the first goal is reduced cost. It’s why Ford engineers who work exclusively on EcoBoost or hybrid technology can count on good job security for the next 14+ years.

With most major automakers working on electrified powertrains, there’s an opportunity for the industry to shift the onus of oil independence and CO2 reduction to the electric power industry and government. The cars and trucks are on the way; now we need better infrastructure and alternatives to coal-fired powerplants, which are dirty whether we use them to power our cars or our laptops.

The aluminum industry sees opportunity, too. In his July 11 remarks on Alcoa’s second quarter earnings, chairman and CEO, Klaus Kleinfeld, was optimistic.

“So we’re talking about doubling off of fuel efficiency into 2025,” Kleinfeld said. “Now that’s a discussion that’s going on, but it clearly shows things are pointing in the right direction, and aluminum is the material of choice, light-weighting is the name of the game here.”

I don’t buy a press release I just received from Ceres, a “national coalition of investors and public-interest organizations,” that the new standard will create 484,000 jobs by 2030. How can Ceres account for 2030’s levels of job efficiency today?

So when someone tells you these stringent 2025 CAFE standards are designed to put an end to the automobile as we know it, don’t believe him. Don’t believe the dollar amounts, either, whether they come from environmentalists, automotive analysts or the White House. We simply don’t know.

And if such government intervention gets you mad, redirect your anger toward the people who want to foist autonomous, automatic pilot-controlled cars on us by the end of the decade. You can start with Google.
Economic growth has stalled. Congress barely lifted the debt limit in time for a stated deadline, leading to a 266-point drop in the Dow Jones Industrial Averages, as automakers expressed confidence that sales will pick up again later in the year.

Analysts for General Motors and Ford Motor say they’re sticking with predictions that Americans will buy 13 million to 13.5 million cars and light trucks in this calendar year, though GM allowed that the number would probably be closer to 13 than 13-1/2. Toyota Motors, struggling with parts shortages as a result of the March earthquake and tsunami in Japan, said it’s sticking with a 12.5-million prediction.

The three estimated that July sales ran at a 12.2-million Seasonally Adjusted Annual Rate, up slightly from June. Retail sales accounted for about 9.7- 9.8 million of that.

Wall Street Analysts slammed Ford for not meeting their sales expectations, and the company’s stock dropped 50 cents, to $11.85 per share. GM was off $1.02, to $27.05 per share.
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgtrQs9-eY_KiR_PjabtL2A6zy6f4oE857DpBjRVktUpk7JDyx4jm9Fi-LZByxe_BHYVLUc1G7E8beBRP3uHfDW_IodFayFdUV94c-YLfPlsKAat5XfRzbQFxeNTNPYDtAIiyccZclAEJQ/s1600/k9.jpg
GM and Ford say they can’t keep up with demand for such models as the Chevy Cruze and Equinox, GMC Terrain, and Ford Fiesta and Focus.

Perhaps. Two models from those companies stand out for their July sales numbers. Chevrolet sold more than 24,000 Cruzes, making it the second-bestselling sedan in the U.S. last month, and bestseller among compacts. Ford sold more than 24,000 of its soon-to-be-replaced Escapes.

GM says 19 percent of retail Chevy Cruze sales are the high fuel mileage Eco models, while 25 percent of Cruze sales are to fleets. Ford does not break out fleet sales per model, but allows that there are good deals – high incentives – helping move the aged Escape.

GM also further explained its high inventories of full-size trucks. It’s building up inventory to lost production from moving Chevy Silverado/GMC Sierra 1500 production to Flint, Michigan next summer, for the GMT900’s replacement, the K2XX. Like Ford’s EcoBoost-powered F-150, the K2XX is expected to launch as a 2013 model with much improved fuel efficiency.

GMT900 inventory, which had a 130-day supply just last month, is now down to about 115 days according to Chevy sales chief Alan Batey.

So, will we get to 13 million sales by the end of the year? Even with consumer confidence dropping and unemployment unable to move below 9 percent, automakers expect more showroom traffic as the Japanese brands get their inventories back up by the fall. Having fallen so far in 2008 and ’09, the auto industry has come back at a better rate than the rest of the economy, and there are a lot of new models coming out by the end of the year that will be advertised more heavily than existing models. In short, I think the industry is going to do better than the rest of the economy, but I’d put money on Toyota’s 12.5-million estimate, plus maybe 100k or two.

Popular Posts