LA Auto Show Highlights
by Jeremy Elton Jacquot, Los Angeles on 11.16.07
The message on the lips of every major auto executive at the LA Auto Show this year essentially seemed to boil down to: "Trust us, we're green." And, truth be told, most companies did make some effort to stress their green credentials by featuring an interesting array of upcoming/concept clean vehicles. Too bad their efforts - for the most part - fell flat on their faces.
As many commentators have noted, there seems to be somewhat of a disconnect when companies that are out trumpeting their green message to consumers are also furiously lobbying the government against imposing higher fuel efficiency standards. That's not to say none of the models on display didn't catch our eyes (peep VW's space up! blue above, for instance).
The big attention grabber was Honda's FCX Clarity, the Japanese firm's first production hydrogen fuel cell vehicle. Based on the FCX Concept, some of its more notable features include a range of 270 miles, an average fuel economy of 68 mpgge (mpg gasoline equivalent) and a 25% boost in power-to-weight ratio.
Image courtesy of Siel
GM's beefy Chevrolet Equinox Fuel Cell vehicle also raised some eyebrows - mostly for portraying itself as an eco-friendly vehicle despite its tremendous girth (consumers still want big SUVs, company officials insist). The Equinox will get a modest 180 miles per tank of hydrogen; GM plans on letting selected individuals in New York City, Los Angeles and Washington, D.C. test-drive 100 vehicles over the next few years.
Image courtesy of AutoblogGreen
As our bud Hank Green from EcoGeek so finely put it, our brains almost exploded upon seeing Chevy's Tahoe win the "Green Car of the Year" award. While it's true that Chevrolet has made progress in some areas - particularly in improving the Tahoe's paltry fuel economy (still not-so-hot at 21 mpg) - we still don't quite know how to feel about a SUV winning the award. Given the state of the competition, however, we can't really say that any other car on display swept us off our feet.
Sure, there were a bunch of cool, pie-in-the-sky concept cars but, as Siel notes, none of them are exactly forthcoming. Those that will soon be "available" will only be deployed in small, test markets and limited to "select" customers.
The LA Auto Show: a mixed result, at best.
Via ::EcoGeek: From LA: More About the FCX Clarity (blog), ::Green Car Congress: Honda Unveils Production Fuel Cell Vehicle: FCX Clarity (blog)
See also: ::Honda FCX-concept Series Name to be Announced, ::Video: GM's Hy-wire Hydrogen Fuel Cell Concept Car
Fat americans steel feel the need to drive big vehicles. That is why the car companies build the beasts. they wouldn't do it if it wasn't profitable.
The Hybrid Tahoe apparently gets the same mileage as a standard Accord (from what I have heard). So I think that is an improvement.
Nah. What's good about having a hybrid, if you're still getting crappy gas mileage?! Sure, there's been improvement, but you would think that the automakers would strive for at least 30 MPG or higher on some of those big SUVs would they?! How about a diesel-electric Escalade that could do 60 MPG?! Or a minivan that could do 40 MPG?! As that Toyota commercial says, Why Not?! Because they are only interested in making cars that make them money beyond the initial sale. The Prius for all of it's good and rightousness doesn't make much money for Toyota, because the technology behind it and because you won't see that car at the gas station much.
So the big car companies are getting 20% increases in mileage, but Johnathan Goodwin, a guy who dosen't have a high school diploma, is making Neil Young's 1960 Lincoln Continental get 100mpg. Really sad. http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/120/motorhead-messiah.html
The Hybrid Tahoe apparently gets the same mileage as a standard Accord (from what I have heard).
Ah, the power of GM's deceptive marketing. This is precisely why that company plays word games - they know that people will walk away with thoughts that are counter to actual facts.
GM keeps emphasizing their claimed 50% improvement in CITY fuel economy and compare that to the EPA city rating of a 4 cylinder Accord with an automatic transmission.
So, what people are being led to believe is that a giant 8 cylinder, four wheel drive American SUV is as fuel efficient as a 4 cylinder Japanese sedan (which is made in America, but that's another matter).
While it is true that the Accord 4 cylinder with automatic is rated at 21 mpg in the city, and that GM estimates this Tahoe will get the same, in reality combined fuel economy is what matters - unless of course GM is admitting that these massive SUVs really aren't used in the rugged outdoors, and are instead primarily an urban conceit for people who lack self-esteem.
Regardless, the highway fuel economy on the Tahoe will not change, so the increase in combined fuel economy is 26 to 27%, bringing it up to 20 mpg in 4wd trim and 21 mpg in 2wd trim. This in and of itself is admirable, but it's a far cry from the 25 mpg combined fuel economy of the Accord (the same for automatic and manual). So in reality, the Accord has 25% higher fuel economy, yet GM is trying to portray the Tahoe as having the same fuel economy.
When one looks at real world numbers, the difference expands considerably. A 4wd Tahoe gets 14.7 mpg, so its hybrid counterpart should be expected to average 18.6 mpg. By contrast, the real world fuel economy of a 4 cylinder Accord with manual transmission is 30.2 mpg -- fully 63% higher than the Tahoe Hybrid.
What that translates into is, for an average household, an additional 455 gallons of gasoline annually, which costs $1,410 and puts out an additional 8,900 pounds of CO2 compared to the Accord. On top of that, the conventional Tahoe 4wd starts at around $15,000 more than the base Accord, and with the hybrid option, will likely come in at at least $25,000 more than the base Accord - enough to buy two of them and have $5,000 left over.
Considering that the vast majority of these Tahoe's are used in a people-moving capacity and rarely exceed 5 passengers, it seems an incredible waste of capital and other resources to purchase this so-called "green" vehicle.
But GM's marketing sure would lead one to think otherwise, wouldn't it.
It's not the Tahoe Hybrid that's really getting the award. It's the technology that was co-developed with M-B, Chrysler and BMW. The hybrid system will appear on all those brands within the next few years and will account for SIGNIFICANT fuel savings and reduced CO2 emissions. It's an issue of scale. If you consider that if this hybird system is used in even 1/.3 of the mililon-plus GM fullsize trucks alone (Tahoe, Yukon, Silverado, Sierra etc.) the positive impact on the environment of reducing the fuel consumption of those thirstiest vehicles is far greater than the impact of the 100,000 or so Prius's Toyota sells because cars the size of the Prius are already very efficient. And if you count the Dodge trucks and Mercedes-Benz and BMW cars and SUVs too, your looking at a much more meaningful fuel savings.
You cannot force people into purchasing smaller, lighter and more fuel efficient vehicles. They will buy what they like, what they need (or perceive they need) and what they can afford.
As hard as it is for people living in urban centers to understand, Americans use pickup trucks and large SUVs for a variety of tasks both for work and recreation. And they buy lots of them. Same goes for luxury cars.
Instead of preaching to people about what they should drive and ragging on manufacturers for producing what people want to drive we should be embracing fuel-saving technology where it can do the most good, on our largest and thirstiest vehicles.
One last point, fuel saving technology like plug-ins and hydrogen fuel cells ARE NOT ready for the consumer. Extensive testing and development is still necessary to make those technologies ready. So stop blaming the automakers for dragging their feet. They are spending lots of money developing future powertrains and they are serious about it. It seems like everyone wants automakers to flip a switch (pun intended) and start selling these cars today. Cars take years to develop. The exterior designs alone for the cars unveiled at the LA Auto Show this year were frozen up to FOUR YEARS AGO.
Wow, what a terrific post, that one. Facts and figures to convey what the stats mean in real-world effects ($ and lbs CO2 per year) so we can see through the marketing gobbledy-gook. Thank you for that.
Sad sleight of hand. Hybrid = efficient = green in most people's minds because hybrid has meant small - so far - to develop and prove the technology. So then this pig-in-lipstick comes along and some suckers swoon. Give it an award even.
The essential fact is that a massive SUV is a woefully inefficient tool for what it's mostly used for, and that's getting one person's arse back and forth to work. Even the occasional load of family or friends would probably fit in a Honda Fit or Nissan Versa. Like a 6000 square foot house for a family of four, it may be pretty but it's still a pig.
And don't even get me started with 4WD, has anybody tried four snow tires w/ FWD and traction control? That's like the Jacuzzi tub that's used once every two years in the master bath. People get sold the idea and it's wishful thinking. But it's a waste, an anchor, it's how your STUFF comes to own YOU.
As hard as it is for people living in urban centers to understand, Americans use pickup trucks and large SUVs for a variety of tasks both for work and recreation. And they buy lots of them. Same goes for luxury cars.
This myth simply isn't supported by data. At most, light trucks get used roughly 5% of the time for what they are capable of doing. These SUVs in particular have no functional usefulness for work or recreation compared to a pickup truck. People who do real work by trucks, not SUVs like this bloated toy, and if they need cover they buy a topper for it.
You're also dreaming if you think hybrids will comprise 1/3 of sales for the vehicles this goes in to. GM sells so few "hybrids" as it is that they don't even break their sales out in monthly data like other manufacturers do.
The fact that they don't mention price is another red flag.
My last post came in out of order, meant to praise the anonymous one, not the one by Davey M.
The excuse that people use SUVs and pickups for recreation and hauling, that ignores the reality that they're most often -- by far-- used simply as passenger vehicles. Next time you drive notice how many empty pickups and single-occupant SUVs you see. Poll friends to see how many SUVs ever go off road. That shows you how often they're being used that way. Or not, because 5% looks right to me.
And defending the US automakers for "producing what people want to drive" ignores the effect of marketing. What they can sell is different from what we want. Somewhere shy of free-market fundamentalism is where the truth lies, that many people buy cars that are too big and too expensive. Automakers spend so much on TV ads because they work.
Honda introduced the Accord in 1978 and Toyota followed with the Camry in 1983. These are the cars that Americans want to buy, just check a list of top-selling vehicles. I refuse to accept the notion that the Big Three are incapable of making a peer to those vehicles, but I can't fathom why they haven't been able to in 30 years. But I imagine it has something to do with high profit margins enabled by the exemptions from emissions/safety/mileage standards and tax credits given to these massive luxury cars that masquerade as working-stiff trucks.
A quick analysis of the financial and environmental impacts, like the one offered by anonymous, is just the ticket when considering 4WD or extra hauling/passenger capacity. Most folks would be shocked to realize what it costs them every day to carry those seldom-used frills around. Then they'd buy a utility trailer and four snow tires.