johnnymk
10-11-2007, 07:49 PM
http://www.designnews.com/article/CA6485774.html?industryid=43655
Automakers are furious over proposed fuel economy legislation that they say will drive them out of business - environmental groups believe they're lying
Charles J. Murray, Senior Technical Editor -- Design News, October 8, 2007
Fuel economy: It's supposed to be a feel-good term, conjuring up images of greener pastures, bluer skies and fewer trips to the gas pump.
These days, though, fuel economy is creating more hot air than good feelings. The U.S. Senate has signed a bill calling for dramatic boosts in vehicle fuel economy, environmental groups are crying for more stringent measures and automakers are digging in for a painful, public battle.
No one, it seems, is happy with the idea of greater fuel economy.
"People want it, but at what cost?" says David Cole, chairman of the Center for Automotive Research and a former professor of automotive engineering at the University of Michigan.
Indeed, cost is the crux of this contentious battle. Automakers say the Senate bill's measures will break them financially; environmental groups say they're lying.
That's why the battle over fuel economy could hinge, not on complex technological issues, but on the stickier matter of industry credibility. It may all boil down to whether the American public and its legislators believe there's an engine, a battery or a carburetor wrapped in oily rags on a basement shelf somewhere in Detroit that secretly enables vehicles to attain limitless fuel efficiency.
Automakers in Detroit swear it isn't so. There are no secrets, they say. No magic bullets. The ever-so-public target of 35 mpg by 2020, passed in a bill by the Senate in June, is completely unrealistic, they argue. Even if they pull all SUVs from the market, roll back pickup truck sales to 1975 levels and convert every remaining car, crossover and minivan into a hybrid, they claim they still couldn't reach 35 mpg by 2020.
Some consumers, however, aren't buying that. "They think we're stupid if they think we're going to buy that," says Bob Shull, deputy director of auto safety and regulatory policy for Public Citizen, a consumer advocacy group.
If Senate and House activity serves as an accurate barometer, legislators don't believe it, either. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid proclaimed in June the Senate bill "starts America on a path toward reducing our reliance on oil." And California Sen. Dianne Feinstein rejoiced to NPR saying, the bill "closed the SUV loophole."
Supporters of the bill look at the American auto industry's record of innovation and its history of adamant stances against fuel efficiency and they conclude the automakers just don't want to comply. They cite self-parking cars, tire pressure monitoring systems, talking dashboards and three-dimensional GPS systems and ask how the creators of such technologies could be so stubborn about boosting fuel economy. "This whole message of 'we can't do it' is unbelievable to most people," says Phyllis Cuttino, director of the Pew Campaign for Fuel Efficiency. "If you look at history, you see that automobile manufacturers have said they couldn't do seat belts, air bags and catalytic converters. When it comes to innovation, they said time and time again that they absolutely couldn't do it. They've said it would destroy production and take cars out of their fleets. And they've always been wrong."
The bill, however, has left engineers wondering how they'll raise their corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) levels from 27.5 to 35 mpg in just 12 years. Although they're willing and able to achieve higher fuel economies, they say the Senate bill doesn't provide sufficient lead time to allow them to redesign their vehicle lines and incorporate new technologies. Moreover, they say, it lacks a basic understanding of how the automotive market works.
"Many of the people who talk the loudest know the least," says Cole, who is widely considered to be the auto industry's most knowledgeable consultant. "They don't know what it is to design a product or to provide the features and reliability. They have no clue."
Hopes for the Future
For both sides, the only point of agreement is that automakers can do it.
"Physically, it can be done, but that's not the issue," Cole says. "Can it be done so you can be profitable and sustainable as a company? That's the question. And that can't be done."
To be sure, automakers say they're willing to comply with new CAFE regulations. They just don't want the regulations to be as "Draconian" as those described by the Senate bill or by a similar bill introduced to the U.S. House of Representatives by Rep. Edward Markey of Massachusetts, which calls for them to reach 35 mpg by 2018. They're more open to the so-called "Hill-Terry" bill, which describes separate requirements for cars and trucks and calls on manufacturers to reach CAFE levels between 32 to 35 mpg by 2022. (As of this writing, no date has been set for a House vote.)
"Lead time is exceptionally important to auto manufacturers because of the cost involved in redesigning an automobile and re-tooling the plants," says Charles Territo of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, an industry group.
Under any requirements, automakers say new technology will be critical. They can't meet any of the proposed CAFE regulations simply by shuffling their vehicle lineups, they claim. Therefore, they need new technologies — ranging from diesel-burning engines and plug-in hybrids to body weight reduction, elimination of parasitic loads and employment of continuously variable transmissions. Automakers say there is no single technology that can lead them to the promised land of 35 mpg.
"It's not limited to powertrain," says Nick Cappa of Chrysler. "You have to go to all areas of the vehicle to gain as much fuel economy as you can, even if it's something tiny, like reducing the weight of a component by half a pound."
Chrysler, for example, recently launched a common axle program with Mercedes-Benz, which calls on engineers to employ different materials as a means of lowering friction and decreasing weight. Similarly, the company is studying the use of so-called "biomimetic" software that mimics nature during the structural steel design known as "body-in-white." By using the software to apply impact loads and standard roof-crush loads, the system finds more efficient load paths, enabling the body to shed weight through the use of high-strength steels in some areas and by eliminating material in others. Chrysler engineers expect the biomimetic software to cut vehicle weight by about 13 percent, which translates to approximately 130 lb on a typical body-in-white.
"When you take away weight from the body-in-white, you can take away weight from other components, as well," Cappa says. "This has the potential to help our vehicles shed a lot of weight."
Perhaps the greatest potential for improved fuel efficiency, however, lies in the development of lithium-ion batteries. With lithium-ion, automotive engineers expect to be able to launch a new breed of so-called plug-in hybrids, which offer the possibility of fuel efficiencies of more than 100 mpg, depending on how they're used. General Motors is working on Chevy Volt and Saturn Vue plug-in hybrids, while Chrysler has placed a small test fleet of Dodge Sprinter plug-ins on the street, where they are currently being used by The New York Times to deliver newspapers.
Automakers warn, however, the development cycles for such technologies are long. New model development takes five years; a new powertrain consumes seven. The bottom line: Automakers can't simply re-engineer their fleets in time for the giant fuel efficiency increase legislators are planning, they say.
"We have good technology," says Greg Martin, a GM spokesman. "So does Ford, Toyota and all the other automakers. But the fact is, we have to build cars that will sell to the market. And we have to meet safety regulations and test for reliability."
Credibility Gap
Much of the public, however, isn't buying the automakers position. "They can do this and they could do much more if they wanted to," says Shull of Public Citizen. "If there were really stringent fuel economy standards that they had to comply with, it would suddenly create the pressure for them to innovate."
Adds Cuttino, "I don't think that you can convince the American public that automakers can build a car that parks itself and yet they can't do better in fuel efficiency."
Automakers hope members of the U.S. House of Representatives don't buy the theory that the technology is ready and waiting to be incorporated into production vehicles. Most — including automakers from Asia and Europe — are lobbying Congressional representatives in an effort to get them to support the Hill-Terry bill and therefore give automakers more time and leeway in meeting new fuel-efficiency requirements.
Making legislators and the public believe, however, may be another matter. Automotive insiders admit the industry's credibility on such matters has been damaged over the years, largely because it has fought legislation too many times. "There's baggage," said one industry engineer who asked not to be named. "Seat belts and air bags and the battles with Ralph Nader — the bills from the past have come due and we're seeing that in the debate right now."
Cole of the Center for Automotive Research believes nothing good will be accomplished if the U.S. government focuses on regulations instead of technology development. "From my view, what the government should be doing is getting away from CAFE and making sure that they streamline the process of investing in other technologies," Cole says.
Clearly, automakers would prefer that scenario to one involving stricter CAFE regulations. Still, they say they'll attempt to meet the impending requirements under any circumstances.
"We've never paid a CAFE fine in our history," says GM Spokesman Martin. "We'll meet the CAFE standard, even if it kills us."
An Attack on Trucks?
For truck makers, the biggest issue with the Senate's fuel economy bill is the way it lumps trucks and cars together. The bill calls for manufacturers to reach 35 mpg by 2020, no matter the manufacturer's mix of trucks and cars.
That's a particular hardship for Chrysler, whose lineup is 70 percent trucks and 30 percent cars, as well as for GM and Ford. Those manufacturers say they are now facing a bill that fails to encourage the development of new fuel-efficient technology. Rather, it forces them to change the composition of their fleets.
"As long as CAFE has existed, the government has never lumped trucks and cars together," says Colin McBean, a Chrysler spokesman. "When you lump them together, you're not necessarily taking trucks off the road, you're just shifting the mix from one manufacturer to another."
CAFE Legislation in the House
The U.S. House of Representatives is considering two CAFE legislation bills that would force automakers to boost fuel economy. They are:
Markey Bill (HR1506)
CAFE increases to start for cars in 2009.
In 2012, fuel efficiency increases at 4 percent per year.
In 2018, cars/trucks combined must reach 35 mpg.
After 2018, 4 percent increases per year.
Hill-Terry Bill (HR2927)
— By 2022, cars and trucks must reach 35 mpg.
— Provision keeps cars and trucks separated.
— Sets requirements at "maximum feasible" level.
At Opposite Poles
The automotive industry says legislators, environmentalists and much of the public don't understand engineering. Public advocates believe the auto industry could hit 35 mpg today with the off-the-shelf technology. A sampling of both viewpoints:
"It's really clear that they have been able to make vehicles that are more fuel efficient. But instead of giving that back to the consumer in the form of fuel economy, they've been plowing that fuel efficiency into heavier weight and luxury add-ons like lighted cup holders." Bob Shull, Public Citizen.
"It's like: 'I don't like the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Let's get together in Congress and pass a new Second Law of Thermodynamics.' Many of them believe that they can. That's how limited their knowledge is of the real world." David Cole, Center for Automotive Research.
Technologies for Boosting Fuel Economy
Automakers say they can't reach 35 mpg simply by shuffling their lineups and eliminating SUVs. They need new technologies. Here's a short list of promising concepts.
Plug-In Hybrids. Plug-ins are "series" hybrids that use an electric motor to drive the wheels. An on-board internal combustion engine spins a generator that re-charges the vehicle's batteries, which are usually lithium-ion. Concept cars, such as the Chevy Volt, can go 40 miles on a re-charge using household current or can go more than 600 miles by burning gasoline to run the generator.
Two-Mode Hybrids. GM, DaimlerChrysler and BMW combined to develop this technology, which has one mode for low speeds and light loads and another for highway speeds. The system, expected to roll out at the end of 2007, uses an electrically variable transmission that optimizes power and torque for various driving conditions. In some cases, it could deliver fuel efficiency gains of up to 25 percent.
Bio-mimetic Software. Chrysler worked with the American Iron and Steel Institute to develop this computer-aided engineering tool that can cut body-in-white weight by up to 13 percent. Ultimately, it could reduce body weight by more than 130 lb, resulting in greater fuel efficiency on all vehicles.
Automakers are furious over proposed fuel economy legislation that they say will drive them out of business - environmental groups believe they're lying
Charles J. Murray, Senior Technical Editor -- Design News, October 8, 2007
Fuel economy: It's supposed to be a feel-good term, conjuring up images of greener pastures, bluer skies and fewer trips to the gas pump.
These days, though, fuel economy is creating more hot air than good feelings. The U.S. Senate has signed a bill calling for dramatic boosts in vehicle fuel economy, environmental groups are crying for more stringent measures and automakers are digging in for a painful, public battle.
No one, it seems, is happy with the idea of greater fuel economy.
"People want it, but at what cost?" says David Cole, chairman of the Center for Automotive Research and a former professor of automotive engineering at the University of Michigan.
Indeed, cost is the crux of this contentious battle. Automakers say the Senate bill's measures will break them financially; environmental groups say they're lying.
That's why the battle over fuel economy could hinge, not on complex technological issues, but on the stickier matter of industry credibility. It may all boil down to whether the American public and its legislators believe there's an engine, a battery or a carburetor wrapped in oily rags on a basement shelf somewhere in Detroit that secretly enables vehicles to attain limitless fuel efficiency.
Automakers in Detroit swear it isn't so. There are no secrets, they say. No magic bullets. The ever-so-public target of 35 mpg by 2020, passed in a bill by the Senate in June, is completely unrealistic, they argue. Even if they pull all SUVs from the market, roll back pickup truck sales to 1975 levels and convert every remaining car, crossover and minivan into a hybrid, they claim they still couldn't reach 35 mpg by 2020.
Some consumers, however, aren't buying that. "They think we're stupid if they think we're going to buy that," says Bob Shull, deputy director of auto safety and regulatory policy for Public Citizen, a consumer advocacy group.
If Senate and House activity serves as an accurate barometer, legislators don't believe it, either. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid proclaimed in June the Senate bill "starts America on a path toward reducing our reliance on oil." And California Sen. Dianne Feinstein rejoiced to NPR saying, the bill "closed the SUV loophole."
Supporters of the bill look at the American auto industry's record of innovation and its history of adamant stances against fuel efficiency and they conclude the automakers just don't want to comply. They cite self-parking cars, tire pressure monitoring systems, talking dashboards and three-dimensional GPS systems and ask how the creators of such technologies could be so stubborn about boosting fuel economy. "This whole message of 'we can't do it' is unbelievable to most people," says Phyllis Cuttino, director of the Pew Campaign for Fuel Efficiency. "If you look at history, you see that automobile manufacturers have said they couldn't do seat belts, air bags and catalytic converters. When it comes to innovation, they said time and time again that they absolutely couldn't do it. They've said it would destroy production and take cars out of their fleets. And they've always been wrong."
The bill, however, has left engineers wondering how they'll raise their corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) levels from 27.5 to 35 mpg in just 12 years. Although they're willing and able to achieve higher fuel economies, they say the Senate bill doesn't provide sufficient lead time to allow them to redesign their vehicle lines and incorporate new technologies. Moreover, they say, it lacks a basic understanding of how the automotive market works.
"Many of the people who talk the loudest know the least," says Cole, who is widely considered to be the auto industry's most knowledgeable consultant. "They don't know what it is to design a product or to provide the features and reliability. They have no clue."
Hopes for the Future
For both sides, the only point of agreement is that automakers can do it.
"Physically, it can be done, but that's not the issue," Cole says. "Can it be done so you can be profitable and sustainable as a company? That's the question. And that can't be done."
To be sure, automakers say they're willing to comply with new CAFE regulations. They just don't want the regulations to be as "Draconian" as those described by the Senate bill or by a similar bill introduced to the U.S. House of Representatives by Rep. Edward Markey of Massachusetts, which calls for them to reach 35 mpg by 2018. They're more open to the so-called "Hill-Terry" bill, which describes separate requirements for cars and trucks and calls on manufacturers to reach CAFE levels between 32 to 35 mpg by 2022. (As of this writing, no date has been set for a House vote.)
"Lead time is exceptionally important to auto manufacturers because of the cost involved in redesigning an automobile and re-tooling the plants," says Charles Territo of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, an industry group.
Under any requirements, automakers say new technology will be critical. They can't meet any of the proposed CAFE regulations simply by shuffling their vehicle lineups, they claim. Therefore, they need new technologies — ranging from diesel-burning engines and plug-in hybrids to body weight reduction, elimination of parasitic loads and employment of continuously variable transmissions. Automakers say there is no single technology that can lead them to the promised land of 35 mpg.
"It's not limited to powertrain," says Nick Cappa of Chrysler. "You have to go to all areas of the vehicle to gain as much fuel economy as you can, even if it's something tiny, like reducing the weight of a component by half a pound."
Chrysler, for example, recently launched a common axle program with Mercedes-Benz, which calls on engineers to employ different materials as a means of lowering friction and decreasing weight. Similarly, the company is studying the use of so-called "biomimetic" software that mimics nature during the structural steel design known as "body-in-white." By using the software to apply impact loads and standard roof-crush loads, the system finds more efficient load paths, enabling the body to shed weight through the use of high-strength steels in some areas and by eliminating material in others. Chrysler engineers expect the biomimetic software to cut vehicle weight by about 13 percent, which translates to approximately 130 lb on a typical body-in-white.
"When you take away weight from the body-in-white, you can take away weight from other components, as well," Cappa says. "This has the potential to help our vehicles shed a lot of weight."
Perhaps the greatest potential for improved fuel efficiency, however, lies in the development of lithium-ion batteries. With lithium-ion, automotive engineers expect to be able to launch a new breed of so-called plug-in hybrids, which offer the possibility of fuel efficiencies of more than 100 mpg, depending on how they're used. General Motors is working on Chevy Volt and Saturn Vue plug-in hybrids, while Chrysler has placed a small test fleet of Dodge Sprinter plug-ins on the street, where they are currently being used by The New York Times to deliver newspapers.
Automakers warn, however, the development cycles for such technologies are long. New model development takes five years; a new powertrain consumes seven. The bottom line: Automakers can't simply re-engineer their fleets in time for the giant fuel efficiency increase legislators are planning, they say.
"We have good technology," says Greg Martin, a GM spokesman. "So does Ford, Toyota and all the other automakers. But the fact is, we have to build cars that will sell to the market. And we have to meet safety regulations and test for reliability."
Credibility Gap
Much of the public, however, isn't buying the automakers position. "They can do this and they could do much more if they wanted to," says Shull of Public Citizen. "If there were really stringent fuel economy standards that they had to comply with, it would suddenly create the pressure for them to innovate."
Adds Cuttino, "I don't think that you can convince the American public that automakers can build a car that parks itself and yet they can't do better in fuel efficiency."
Automakers hope members of the U.S. House of Representatives don't buy the theory that the technology is ready and waiting to be incorporated into production vehicles. Most — including automakers from Asia and Europe — are lobbying Congressional representatives in an effort to get them to support the Hill-Terry bill and therefore give automakers more time and leeway in meeting new fuel-efficiency requirements.
Making legislators and the public believe, however, may be another matter. Automotive insiders admit the industry's credibility on such matters has been damaged over the years, largely because it has fought legislation too many times. "There's baggage," said one industry engineer who asked not to be named. "Seat belts and air bags and the battles with Ralph Nader — the bills from the past have come due and we're seeing that in the debate right now."
Cole of the Center for Automotive Research believes nothing good will be accomplished if the U.S. government focuses on regulations instead of technology development. "From my view, what the government should be doing is getting away from CAFE and making sure that they streamline the process of investing in other technologies," Cole says.
Clearly, automakers would prefer that scenario to one involving stricter CAFE regulations. Still, they say they'll attempt to meet the impending requirements under any circumstances.
"We've never paid a CAFE fine in our history," says GM Spokesman Martin. "We'll meet the CAFE standard, even if it kills us."
An Attack on Trucks?
For truck makers, the biggest issue with the Senate's fuel economy bill is the way it lumps trucks and cars together. The bill calls for manufacturers to reach 35 mpg by 2020, no matter the manufacturer's mix of trucks and cars.
That's a particular hardship for Chrysler, whose lineup is 70 percent trucks and 30 percent cars, as well as for GM and Ford. Those manufacturers say they are now facing a bill that fails to encourage the development of new fuel-efficient technology. Rather, it forces them to change the composition of their fleets.
"As long as CAFE has existed, the government has never lumped trucks and cars together," says Colin McBean, a Chrysler spokesman. "When you lump them together, you're not necessarily taking trucks off the road, you're just shifting the mix from one manufacturer to another."
CAFE Legislation in the House
The U.S. House of Representatives is considering two CAFE legislation bills that would force automakers to boost fuel economy. They are:
Markey Bill (HR1506)
CAFE increases to start for cars in 2009.
In 2012, fuel efficiency increases at 4 percent per year.
In 2018, cars/trucks combined must reach 35 mpg.
After 2018, 4 percent increases per year.
Hill-Terry Bill (HR2927)
— By 2022, cars and trucks must reach 35 mpg.
— Provision keeps cars and trucks separated.
— Sets requirements at "maximum feasible" level.
At Opposite Poles
The automotive industry says legislators, environmentalists and much of the public don't understand engineering. Public advocates believe the auto industry could hit 35 mpg today with the off-the-shelf technology. A sampling of both viewpoints:
"It's really clear that they have been able to make vehicles that are more fuel efficient. But instead of giving that back to the consumer in the form of fuel economy, they've been plowing that fuel efficiency into heavier weight and luxury add-ons like lighted cup holders." Bob Shull, Public Citizen.
"It's like: 'I don't like the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Let's get together in Congress and pass a new Second Law of Thermodynamics.' Many of them believe that they can. That's how limited their knowledge is of the real world." David Cole, Center for Automotive Research.
Technologies for Boosting Fuel Economy
Automakers say they can't reach 35 mpg simply by shuffling their lineups and eliminating SUVs. They need new technologies. Here's a short list of promising concepts.
Plug-In Hybrids. Plug-ins are "series" hybrids that use an electric motor to drive the wheels. An on-board internal combustion engine spins a generator that re-charges the vehicle's batteries, which are usually lithium-ion. Concept cars, such as the Chevy Volt, can go 40 miles on a re-charge using household current or can go more than 600 miles by burning gasoline to run the generator.
Two-Mode Hybrids. GM, DaimlerChrysler and BMW combined to develop this technology, which has one mode for low speeds and light loads and another for highway speeds. The system, expected to roll out at the end of 2007, uses an electrically variable transmission that optimizes power and torque for various driving conditions. In some cases, it could deliver fuel efficiency gains of up to 25 percent.
Bio-mimetic Software. Chrysler worked with the American Iron and Steel Institute to develop this computer-aided engineering tool that can cut body-in-white weight by up to 13 percent. Ultimately, it could reduce body weight by more than 130 lb, resulting in greater fuel efficiency on all vehicles.