• GM and Chrysler Talk Merger: Sources say it’s only a 50-50 shot at this point, but if it happens, it would certainly be monumental. Big Two just doesn’t have the same ring that Big Three has, does it?
• Bailout Plan Gives Tax Break to Bicycle Commuters: The bailout, laden with pork as it is has become the talk of the town, recently, and some of you may be excited to know that it includes a tax break for cyclists.
• Small Cars Are Bad for the Environment?: Some industry mouthpiece wants us to believe that small cars are bad for the environment, but I show you in this article why that’s just a ridiculous claim.
• Toyota iQ Coming to the US?: For a while I’ve wanted Toyota to flipflop and bring its new, small car to the US, and recent rumors suggest it might be doing so under the Scion badge.
• Beijing Raises the Price of Gas: During the Olympics Beijing did a whole host of things in order to keep cars out of the city, and I think this price increase is a continuation of what they saw working there to cut congestion and pollution.

Thanks for tuning in! I’ll have more for you next week.

If you liked this post, sign up for out RSS Feed for automatic updates.

These days, it seems like everyone and her sister has a blog, not there’s anything wrong with that (you’re still reading ours, right?). Interestingly, Honda has jumped on the bandwagon after their recent Insight Concept unveiling in order to keep us all up to date on the Insight.

You can check out the blog here to get some information for yourself. It hasn’t been up for very long, so obviously there isn’t a whole lot going on yet, but it is interesting to see an auto company being proactive about creating their own model-specific information source beyond the standard press release.

Many people who read EcoModder will certainly know other blogs such as Toyota’s Open Road Blog and the independent GM-Volt blog. Toyota’s blog does not focus on any one thing in particular, but seems more like a casual industry mouthpiece. The GM-Volt site, on the other hand, because it is not run by GM is full of speculation and, frankly, lots of fanboy gawking over ever last detail of Volt production.

I think the Honda Insight blog is an interesting idea, because it focuses more than Toyota (and sounds less like a talking head in doing so) but is still controlled by the company so it is unlikely to be overrun by internet rumors and tomfoolery like many of the independent blogs out there.

Does anyone know if any of the other automakers have taken a similar approach or is this a first?

If you liked this post, sign up for out RSS Feed for automatic updates.

Image: richardmasoner

Bicycle commuters rejoice! Those 448 pages tacked on to the original bailout plan didn’t leave us completely in the dark. By now, you’ve probably heard about tax cuts for everthing from wooden arrows to race tracks and plug-in hybrids, but nothing for cyclists. However, thanks to Treehugger, I have learned that there will indeed be very minor tax cuts for us bicycle commuters.

These cuts are not as straightforward as writing down a number of miles on your taxes and getting money back, but they will allow your employer to offer commuting benefits to you, which could make up to $20 a month of commuting-related expenses tax free. It’s not going to cover the cost of a decent bike, but at least it’s something, and hopefully some employer programs wil be able to reach out to more potential commuters.

Here’s the full text:

“(a) In General- Paragraph (1) of section 132(f) is amended by adding at the end the following:

`(D) Any qualified bicycle commuting reimbursement.’.

(b) Limitation on Exclusion- Paragraph (2) of section 132(f) is amended by striking `and’ at the end of subparagraph (A), by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (B) and inserting `, and’, and by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:

`(C) the applicable annual limitation in the case of any qualified bicycle commuting reimbursement.’.

(c) Definitions- Paragraph (5) of section 132(f) is amended by adding at the end the following:

`(F) DEFINITIONS RELATED TO BICYCLE COMMUTING REIMBURSEMENT-

`(i) QUALIFIED BICYCLE COMMUTING REIMBURSEMENT- The term `qualified bicycle commuting reimbursement’ means, with respect to any calendar year, any employer reimbursement during the 15-month period beginning with the first day of such calendar year for reasonable expenses incurred by the employee during such calendar year for the purchase of a bicycle and bicycle improvements, repair, and storage, if such bicycle is regularly used for travel between the employee’s residence and place of employment.

`(ii) APPLICABLE ANNUAL LIMITATION- The term `applicable annual limitation’ means, with respect to any employee for any calendar year, the product of $20 multiplied by the number of qualified bicycle commuting months during such year.

`(iii) QUALIFIED BICYCLE COMMUTING MONTH- The term `qualified bicycle commuting month’ means, with respect to any employee, any month during which such employee–
`(I) regularly uses the bicycle for a substantial portion of the travel between the employee’s residence and place of employment, and

`(II) does not receive any benefit described in subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) of paragraph (1).’.

(d) Constructive Receipt of Benefit- Paragraph (4) of section 132(f) is amended by inserting `(other than a qualified bicycle commuting reimbursement)’ after `qualified transportation fringe’.

(e) Effective Date- The amendments made by this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2008.”

If you liked this post, sign up for out RSS Feed for automatic updates.

No one is going to question that gas prices are high or that the economy is in rough shape, but evidently some people think that doesn’t mean we have to change at all. Just watch this political attack ad and see. Many Americans are already reducing their miles driven and changing the way they commute because of the current economy, but is that a bad thing?

I think not. In fact, it may very well be a good thing. I’m not a fan of the idea of global recession, but I can tell you from experience that after living in Japan where my commute consisted of walking, taking the train, and then biking, I not only saved money over driving, but was much more in shape, even though the effort was by no means strenuous.

So you tell me, do you think walking places is “wacky?” I certainly don’t.

PS: I’m not endorsing any candidates or parties here, I don’t even know where this ad is from besides PA, which I found out from this post at Treehugger, so please no “Barack Obama is my hero” or “John McCain is a maverick” comments!

If you liked this post, sign up for out RSS Feed for automatic updates.

The auto industry is beginning to look more and more like a crooked politician with lies and deceptive statistics. Everyone knows the industry is hurting recently: gas prices are up, vehicle miles are down, people are buying less, and people are buying smaller. All of this means that car companies are making a lot less money than they used to. Environmental concern is definitely a big player here, but when you consider that hybrid sales are also down a considerable amount this year, it’s obvious that the current ill state of the auto market is a result of a global economic downturn.

The industry is getting desperate

Why do I say this? My partner on the EcoModder forums sent me this link, telling me it would be worth writing about it. To be honest, I didn’t even read it for a few days, but now I’m glad that I did.

There’s no denying that people are becoming more and more concerned with the environment, but instead of selling hybrids, the industry is trying to twist that environmental concern into sales of big cars and trucks:

“Small cars don’t last,” DesRosiers says. “They fail to retain value, utility or desirability.” And while longevity may not be a sexy subject, it stands to reason that if some vehicles are useful longer than others, what consumers save in fuel efficiency will be lost in higher capital costs. In other words, small car buyers may be robbing Peter to pay Paul and manufacturers are just following suit.

Before the phrase “completely idiotic” starts to get thrown around, please keep in mind the Dennis DesRosiers is a professional industry consultant / smut peddler. It would be a stretch to call him stupid, but the things the he tries to have us believe, at best, push to limits of truth.

Firstly, take a look at my article on how fuel efficient cars are holding value better than less fuel efficient vehicles. If you don’t believe me, go to kbb.com and check anything out for yourself. Some of the larger cars may be worth more after a few years, but only after losing more value, on average, than smaller, more fuel efficient cars.

DesRosiers goes on to assert that small cars are less durable:

But according to DesRosiers and other analysts, small cars are less durable. First off, they are built lighter. Secondly, they are cheaper, so they attract younger drivers who tend to maintain them poorly. They have a lower resale value, which guarantees they won’t trade hands many times before they are scrapped, and they’re more likely to be written off by insurance companies if they are involved in serious collisions. In other words, “the useful life of the vehicle” is as short as their wheel base, according to Erich Merkle, an automotive consultant with Crowe Chizek in Grand Rapids, Mich.

To me, it makes sense that small cars are lighter. They’re smaller, therefore they consume less materials, and weigh less. And get this, they’re smaller, therefore they consume less materials, therefore they are more environmentally friendly! DesRosiers expects to argue that big cars go to the junkyards less frequently, but he “conveniently forgets” that when they do, they also send more materials to the junkyards with them. This article also seems to imply that cars end up in some sort of landfill, rather than stripped and melted down for scrap and reused in new vehicles.

If you look at this reliability index, you will see that contrary to the assertions of this article, cars like the Honda Civic and Toyota Yaris are both in the top 6 of all cars in terms of reliability. The article in question specifically attacks these two small cars for being the type that would end up in junkyards due to their “lack of durability,” but that doesn’t seem to mesh with what most consumers and analysts are saying about the same cars.

Secondly, DesRosiers seems to conflate young drivers destroying their cars with the cars not being durable. Does he seem to think that young drivers who don’t maintain their cars wouldn’t be sending SUVs to the junkyard in just the same way they do small cars? He expects us to be too stupid or uncritical to think about these deceptions, but I hope that most of us here on EcoModder can see through it.

Now, onto his assertion that small cars just aren’t worth as much:

Comparing the entry-level Chevrolet Aveo (1,148 kg), for example, to the mid-size Chevrolet Malibu (1,642 kg), Merkle adds, “You will get rid of the Aveo faster. It’s much lighter, it doesn’t have the strength. After about three years, the Malibu will be worth something; the Aveo, no.”

I did a little research on KBB, and comparing 2008 models with 2005 models with 45,000 models, yes, the Malibu will be “worth something.” He’s telling the truth! The 2005 Malibu LS 4D is still worth a whopping $11,815, whereas the same model of Aveo is only worth $9,115.

But wait, there’s more. The 2008 only costs consumers $12,188 for that model while Malibu owners are paying $19,522. That means the Malibu has lost 40% of its value in just three years, but the Aveo has only lost 25% of its value. I guess the Malibu wins the race to the bottom, not the Aveo, contrary to DesRosiers’ suggestion about their comparative values.

So, in conclusion. When someone who’s paid to tell you what kind of car to buy is doing just that, use a critical eye to look for deception, because you may just find some. I hope you all take the same approach to what I write as well. I may not be right, but I’m also not in the market to sell my Civic, either!

If you liked this post, sign up for out RSS Feed for automatic updates.

The long-awaited and much-anticipated Honda Insight concept car has finally debuted in Paris, and along with that we see a lot more nice pictures from Honda. Many people in the industry and the press (myself included) are billing this new Insight as a possible Prius-killer, and if anyone were able to bring a little competition to the hybrid table, it’s Honda.

The first Insight came out in the US in 1999, a year before the Prius, and still has the highest EPA rating of any gasoline car. However, the small, two-seater didn’t appeal to many people with families and the car never registered very high sales.

This time, things are different. Honda has dramatically improved its IMA hybrid system in terms of both performance and cost. That means that the current Insight, which is based on Honda’s FCX Clarity FCV, will seat 5 passengers and get Civic Hybrid-like mileage while costing a comparatively low $18,500 to start.

And that’s really the kicker with the new Insight. Not only is it an attractive, efficient car, but it will bring hybrids (significantly) below that $20,000 price point, meaning that a lot more people will be able to afford it. I won’t be buying one anytime soon (I don’t need a new car), but I’ll probably be first in line for a test drive. What about you?

Here are some more pictures for your viewing pleasure:

If you liked this post, sign up for out RSS Feed for automatic updates.

For a few years now, hybrids have been all the rage in the consumer car market. The Prius has been elevated to the status of an icon and Honda is now trying to catch up with its revived Honda Insight. But what about motorcycles, where Honda has been the unquestioned world leader for years?

The added weight and complexity has previously kept the word “hybrid” from squeezing in front of the word “motorcycle,” but now Honda thinks they’ve found a way to build and market hybrid motorcycles. According to the Mainichi Shinbun, Honda will begin releasing the hybrid motorcycles in the 2010s, which will be followed up by electric motorcycles in 2011.

Honda will be adapting the hybrid system it uses on its current cars to work with motorcycles of engine displacement between 200 and 1000cc. It would probably be too cumbersome to use on smaller bikes, but Honda hopes to increase fuel efficiency by about 50% with the hybrid bikes.

Now, the real question for all you bikers out there is this: would you ride one?

If you liked this post, sign up for out RSS Feed for automatic updates.

Currently in the US market there are a few types of people looking for small, fuel efficient cars. Traditionally, those people have been the types to wait in long lines for Smart ForTwo tests drives and Prius ownership: the treehuggers (of which I am a part, so I say it with love). With gas prices skyrocketing and the threat of global recession looming on everyone’s mind a new buyer has sprung up: the frugal new car buyer.

As gas gets more and more expensive, fuel efficiency will become more important to the cost of total ownership. These days, it’s not hard to make the case for buying a Civic Hybrid in terms of payback and fuel costs, especially with gas prices expected to rise in the next few years. However, not everyone wants a Prius, needs a Prius, or can afford the upfront cost expecting to be paid back in several years.

This leaves a large segment of people who wish to save money on both gas and the initial cost of the vehicle. Traditionally, these people have bought things like the Civic and Corolla, but with those cars getting bigger and more expensive over the years, people have been looking for other options. Currently, there aren’t many besides the Honda Fit and Toyota Yaris. They’re definitely both good cars, but consumers are still want for more variety and selection.

That’s why I was so surprised when I read this today:

“The Mazda2 is a very good product, and we’ve received very strong requests from dealers. But it is still under study,” said Mazda president Hisakazu Imaki in a report about the possibility of the small car’s North American debut.

“One of the biggest factors (for why) the decision hasn’t been made is that the Mazda3 is still enjoying strong sales,” Imaki said.

This is the story we hear from automakers time and time again. They’re selling cheaper, more fuel efficient cars in other markets, but because of the lower profit margins aren’t selling them in the US. Especially since that would take some of that frugal, efficiency-minded market away from the small cars currently for sale.

But what’s the solution? Well, like other countries have done, we could institute tougher fuel economy regulations. The automakers sure whined about the new CAFE regulations the last time around, but if they’re not in a rush to bring more fuel efficient cars to market in the US, the regulations obviously aren’t that strict. While more regulation might seem onerous, I posit that the burden will be primarily in marketing existing vehicles in North America, and not in a complete technical revolution of any sort.

If you liked this post, sign up for out RSS Feed for automatic updates.

Recently I’ve been doing a bit of soul-searching as far as fuel economy is concerned. Being the co-founder of EcoModder and an active user on the forums, it’s obvious that the interest is there. But recently, I’ve been wondering how there it really is.

Earlier this summer I swapped a new engine into my CRX, which quickly bumped up my mileage quite a bit. Nowadays, with a little ecodriving, it’s fairly easy to get 60 MPG, and I’ve only failed in that pursuit once, due to a lot of center city Philadelphia driving. Now that I’m back at school and the only traveling I do is back and forth between here (NH) and home (NJ), I’ve gotten a little lazy.

It used to be that, in order to save some gas, you might see me cruising along on the interstate at a solid 55-60 mph (conditions permitting), but these days I’ll be flying down the road at up to 75 mph down hills that I usually would’ve been content to coast down. So what’s changed?

Now that I have an efficient car, I’ve become satisfied with 60 mpg. It’s not costing me horrible amounts of money when I need to drive and I’m really not using much gas, so I’ve stopped trying to push the envelope. Thinking about this, I wonder where everyone else’s point of satisfaction is? Let me know in the comments!

If you liked this post, sign up for out RSS Feed for automatic updates.

Another week, a lot more interesting content from the forum. Sometimes I feel bad for the people who employ our users, *wink*.

• Car & Driver disses buying old economy cars to save fuel: Ca&Driver decides to take on what many ecomodders, myself included do. I guess it’s cooler to send you 5 year old car to the wrecker’s and buy something from their sponors!
• Ben’s Citicar: Ben Nelson is already well known for his electrometro EV conversion, but he also went out and bought an old electric Citicar, just to mess with us.
• What 0-60 speeds are acceptable to you?: We’re all here for fuel economy, but at what cost? See how slow ecomodders are really willing to go.
• Master list of ecomods to improve MPG: Quite a bit of work went into this, so definitely check it out!
• Tom’s kammback’d Civic VX: TomO has put together a nice, clean kammback install on his Civic VX, good for some inspiration.

Hope you’re all having a great weekend!