Trucks at Work Blog

“Pickups have a lot of utility … [and] they tend to be used in support of other criminal activity. It has long been a common practice for criminals to use a stolen vehicle while conducting other criminal activity: alien smuggling, dope transportation, etc. That’s why you see pickup thefts in the border states much more than elsewhere.� –Frank Scafidi, spokesman, National Insurance Crime Bureau

Vehicle thefts may be down according to the numbers (dropping for the fifth year in a row, actually), but if you own a pickup truck – especially an older model Ford F-150 or a newer Dodge Ram – you still better keep a watchful eye on it.

That’s because pickups still remain one of the top vehicle types coveted by auto thieves, according to the annual Hot Wheels study compiled by the National Insurance Crime Bureau (NICB), based on data reported to the National Crime Information Center (NCIC).

According to the NICB’s latest vehicle theft study released this week, in 2008, the most stolen vehicles in the U.S. nation were:

1. 1994 Honda Accord

2. 1995 Honda Civic

3. 1989 Toyota Camry

4. 1997 Ford F-150 Pickup

5. 2004 Dodge Ram Pickup

6. 2000 Dodge Caravan

7. 1996 Jeep Cherokee/Grand Cherokee

8. 1994 Acura Integra

9. 1999 Ford Taurus

10. 2002 Ford Explorer

Certain models of older cars and trucks are popular with thieves because of the value of their parts, the group noted – and, frequently, parts can be stripped from a stolen car or truck at a chop shop and sold for at least twice as much as the value of the vehicle on the used car market.

That being said, though, there’s been a significant decline in vehicle thefts over the last five years – due in part to more aggressive law enforcement tactics, more diligent prosecution, and a proliferation of anti-theft technology.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) preliminary 2008 Uniform Crime Report (UCR) shows that vehicle theft is on pace to record a decrease of 13.1 percent from 2007, making 2008 the fifth consecutive year of declining vehicle thefts. Moreover, if the preliminary figures hold total thefts for 2008 would be below 1 million vehicles – the lowest annual total in over 20 years, said Joe Wehrle, NICB’s president and CEO.

“This is great news for … it takes years of sustained effort to deliver the kinds of reductions that we are enjoying today,â€� Wehrle said.

Yet the unpleasant fact remains that pickups are still one of the top models being pinched by thieves – and while thefts are down, vehicle recoveries from theft are down, too; and indication, perhaps, that chop shop activity is alive and well and remaining very busy.

“The drop in thefts is due to a confluence of several factors delivering a great result: enforcement, legislation, prosecution, technology, and public awareness,� Frank Scafidi, NCIB’s spokesman, told me by email. “But to address your observation about chop shop activities, it could be that there is actually an increase in that activity as the national percentage of recovered vehicles slipped below 60% in 2006 and 2007—first time in ages—and we may see that for a third consecutive year when the final numbers come out from the FBI in the fall.�

That’s why the NCIB is urging the adopting of not just anti-theft devices by vehicle owners of all strops but vehicle recovery technology as well – devices that allow law enforcement to track down stolen cars and trucks quickly before they get sliced and diced for parts.

“These devices are not deterrent devices but recovery devices,� Scafidi told me. “The point is that the faster you can recover a vehicle once it is stolen, the less likely that it will be chopped or severely damaged as a result of that theft. You get your car back with little to no damage and you are spared from any of the hassle of dealing with insurance issues as well as having to secure a replacement vehicle.�

Such tracking technology is part of what NICB calls a “layered approach� to auto theft prevention, using four tactics to make vehicles less attractive to thieves and to help recover them quickly if stolen:

Common Sense: Lock your car and take your keys. It’s simple enough but many thefts occur because owners make it easy for thieves to steal their cars.

Warning Device: Having and using a visible or audible warning device is another item that can ensure that your car remains where you left it.

Immobilizing Device: Generally speaking, if your car won’t start, it won’t get stolen. “Kill” switches, fuel cut-offs and smart keys are among such devices proven to be extremely effective.

Tracking Device: A tracking device emits a signal to the police or to a monitoring station when the vehicle is stolen; thus are very effective in helping authorities recover stolen vehicles. Some systems employ telematics, combining GPS and wireless technologies to allow remote monitoring of a vehicle. If the vehicle is moved, the system alerts the owner so the vehicle can be tracked via computer.

Suffice to say, though, we’re on a good trend line where vehicle thefts are concerned – but that doesn’t mean vehicle owners, especially of pickups, can rest easy quite yet.

“So much of this is outside their control. You can restructure, restructure, restructure, but if auto sales don’t rebound, then unless you have zero debt, they’re not going to survive.â€� –Shelly Lombard, auto industry analyst for debt research firm Gimme Credit

Being witness to the agonies of General Motors and Chrysler is heart wrenching right now. These are icons of America’s not-so-distant past, you know – manufacturers that used to produce vehicles envied the world over.

They still build better light trucks (in my estimation at least) than their European and Asian rivals – GM’s Sierra and Silverado pickups, along with Dodge’s Ram line and Ford Motor Co.’s venerable F-150 are still the models to beat in this segment. But as we all know, those are precisely the wrong models for a nation trying to get its energy policy house in order – as far as vehicles the average motorist should drive for commuting to work, etc., to get the best fuel economy.

Even if GM and Chrysler do survive their respective fiscal deadlines (GM is trying to restructure $44 billion in debt by June 1, while Chrysler has $7 billion to rework by this Friday) the largest challenge they – and the entire automotive industry for that matter – must hurdle is, at least for the moment, almost insurmountable: customers must buy cars and light trucks; a LOT of them. Yet people aren’t. So no matter what they do in the short term in terms of debt, shutting down factories and killing off extraneous brands, without sales, GM and Chrysler have no rungs on the ladder to climb out of the hole they’re in.

3M Car Care’s second annual Elbow Grease Economics report, released this week, starkly illustrates this basic conundrum. The study of 1,835 U.S. car owners by Harris Interactive found that the majority (55%) are planning on keeping their cars longer and have no plans to trade in or sell their current car at this time, with 84% saying they are committed to doing the maintenance needed to keep them running.

Nearly one-fifth (19%) of car owners used to think they could just go buy a new car if necessary, but now they say they know they can’t afford it. And this is even higher – 25% – among Baby Boomers ages 45 to 54, reflecting their concerns over pending retirement and tight household budgets.

At the same time, there is pent-up demand for new cars, as more than two-fifths (42%) of those surveyed in #M Car Care’s report are considering trading or selling their current car for another model but haven’t done so yet. The reasons are varied: the largest group (at 21%) trust their current car; 19% aren’t confident in the economy or do not want to take out another loan; 10% aren’t sure what will happen with the “Big Three” U.S. automakers; 5% cannot get an auto loan; and 4% say their loan payout is larger than their car’s value – but for men and women ages 35 to 44, this increases to 8 % and 14% respectively.

Vehicle maintenance is more of a priority than ever before for car owners, particularly as the average age of American vehicles reaches nine years old, 3M Car Care reported. Yet here again, U.S. car owners are trying to cut the costs of vehicle ownership – by driving less and by shifting to do-it-yourself (DIY) maintenance more frequently.

One-quarter (25%) said they pay more attention to the maintenance needs of their car now, compared to two years ago, the study noted, with 27% performing car maintenance themselves or having friends or family members do it. Some 6% of these respondents have just started doing their car maintenance themselves after having it done professionally in the past – a statistic that increases to 9% for car owners ages 18 to 25.

3M Car Care’s research also found 29% of car owners are doing small maintenance tasks themselves, such as oil changes and light bulb replacements. That rate is even higher for owners ages 18 to 34 with 43% of men and 37% of women tackling minor DIY tasks, with 43% of households making less than $35,000 annually jumping on the DIY bandwagon.

Even driving habits have changed significantly – and these may be more permanent shifts in behavior than we think. More than half (56%) of car owners survey in the 3M Car Care’s study are driving differently today than they did two years ago, with 40% driving less to save on gas costs and vehicle wear-and-tear. For those making less than $35,000 annually, it increases to 52%. A further 20% are driving less aggressively to protect the engine, with 5% of all respondents carpooling whenever they can – a rate that triples to 15% among those ages 18 to 25.

These reasons are why the annual global sales rate for cars and light trucks plummeted from some 16 million units down to 9.2 million in the space of one year – and may remain there for some time.

It’s why GM is eliminating 21,000 more jobs, closing down 13 factories, and phasing out the venerable Pontiac brand (a top seller, right behind Cadillac and Chevrolet) in 2010 – less than a year away.

It’s why GM eventually expects to have only 38,000 union workers and 34 factories in the U.S., compared with 395,000 workers in more than 150 plants back in 1970.

It’s why the U.S. government is going to be – at least temporarily – the majority shareholder in both GM and Chrysler as the two automakers try to stave off bankruptcy.

It’s why, at the end of the day, this all may be for naught as people simply won’t buy new cars, unable to risk their precious savings – battered by a housing meltdown, fiscal shenanigans by Wall Street, and rising unemployment.

“Larger vehicles need hybridization to save fuel and cut emissions. But larger vehicles are also the strength of U.S. automakers. We’re playing to that strength here.� –David West, vice president of marketing for Raser Technologies, on the new plug-in hybrid H3 Hummer truck

It’s seems impossible – ludicrous, even – to suggest that something as big and ungainly as the H3 Hummer could be designed to get 100 miles to the gallon.

Yet that’s exactly what Raser Technologies, in association with the Plug-in Hybrid Development Consortium, claims to have achieved: a Hummer H3 plug-in hybrid E-REV – the acronym for “Extended-Range Electric Vehicle� – that gets 100 miles per gallon in urban operation, when total daily travel doesn’t exceed 65 miles.

Get out on the highway and rack up say 200 miles in a given day, though, and the fuel economy will drop – to 33 miles per gallon, which is nearly DOUBLE what the current gasoline-only H3 model attains, according to Raser’s field test data.

Then add this bon mot in: since this hybrid H3 is propelled by a 200 kilowatt Symetron Enhanced AC induction motor and drive system, it can also be viewed as a big, fat generator, since within this system is a 100 kilowatt generator designed to recharge the lithium-ion batteries – the kind of generator a lot of businesses shell out $20,000 to $30,000 to get, then hook up to the back of pickups and drag around from job site to job site, noted David West, Raser’s vice president of marketing.

“Basically, you’re getting a ‘free generator’ when you purchase a truck like this – and that’s getting the attention of a lot of utility fleets, the very fleets we want to partner with to field test these trucks,� he told me.

In fact, West said this plug-in truck hybrid idea got strong encouragement from commercial fleets as opposed to consumers – with utility fleets such as Pacific Gas & Electric lining up to be early adopters of these vehicles. “They readily saw how a vehicle like this could fit into a variety of applications – saving them fuel, reducing emissions, and providing a work tool for their crews all in one package,� he explained to me. By next year, West said Raser hopes to have 2,000 of these H3 hybrids on the road, mainly with utility fleets.

The key to the plug-in series hybrid drive system designed by Raser and its development partner FEV, enables larger vehicles such as SUVs and light trucks to drive up to 40 miles in all-electric mode with near zero emissions.

That 40 mile range doesn’t sound like much, said West, but it actually represents 75% of the daily driving patterns for most commercial fleets (as well as consumers) using these types of vehicle. That translates into over 100 mpg in typical local daily driving – at a cost of about 5 cents per mile versus the 20 cents per mile of the typical gasoline-powered light truck version.

Also, since it’s a hybrid system, it’s equipped with a much smaller one to 2 liter combustion engine, which is connected only to the electric generator, not connected to the drive system.

The engine is used only generate electricity and recharge the batteries when the vehicle drives beyond its 40 mile battery range –giving the vehicle a total range of 360 miles.

[More information on the details of the drive system is available by clicking here.]

The reason Raser chose to demonstrate this system on a Hummer is to knock down the preconceptions of what electric vehicles can be – especially for commercial users.

“Our goal was to demonstrate that electric vehicle technology is a viable solution for a variety of vehicle platforms,� said Gary Rogers, president and CEO of FEV. “This full-sized SUV extended-range electric vehicle shows that fuel economy in larger vehicles does not mean sacrificing power and utility.�

“The technology in this electric-powered Hummer is a leap ahead for U.S. automakers,� added Brent Cook, Raser’s CEO. “It could make the nation’s popular light trucks and SUVs greener than a Prius.�

There’s still much work to do, of course. Raser’s West said this plug-in hybrid Hummer took 15 months to bring to reality, with a fully production ready hybrid potentially by 2011. Still, it’s an exciting development – and if it takes off, it could be just the shot in the arm U.S. automakers need right now.

“Hybrids have to be sustainable – they need to be desired by buyers and automakers must make a profit building them,� Raser’s West told me. “Trucks are perfect because the chassis does not need to be redesigned to hold the batteries and powertrain components – there’s enough space available on the frame. We shaved two years off the development process by going with a truck chassis for this hybrid. And they are already the predominant chassis built by U.S. automakers and most profitable ones as well. It’s a win-win for everyone.�

“If you adjust for population growth, this is probably the worst industry sales month [October 2008] in the post-WWII era.� –Mark LaNeve, vice president, GM North America

It’s hard times for anyone selling cars and light trucks in North America right now – for domestic and foreign automakers alike.

Just take a look at the October 2008 sales numbers in the U.S. General Motor’s saw sales plummet 45.4% last month overall compared to October 2007, with Ford Motor Co. posting a 29.2% drop and Chrysler’s sales nose diving 34.9%. Even Toyota – the 900 pound gorilla in the North American market right now – suffered a 23% decline in car and light truck sales.

Industry-wide, automakers sold 838,156 minivans, cars and light trucks in October this year, off 32% from the same month in 2007 – the worst year-over-year decline in over a decade and a half. “These are very challenging times,� noted George Pipas, Ford’s chief sales analyst, with characteristic understatement.

What these numbers mean is pretty stark: it translates into a domestic annual build-rate of 10.56 million automobiles and trucks per year, way down from the 16 million annual build-rate of recent times. That means a lot of expensive plant capacity – and even more expensive labor (the average unionized auto worker makes almost $55,000 a year with full benefits) – is being idled, leading to all kinds of red ink.

“It also reflects an unprecedented credit crunch that is dramatically impacting the entire U.S. economy – from the housing market to big and small companies to banks to family run businesses,� said Mark LaNeve, vice president, GM North America. “The credit freeze has also had a very negative impact on consumers’ confidence and their purchase behavior across America. We believe there is considerable pent-up demand from the last three years, but until the credit markets open up and consumer confidence improves, the entire U.S. economy – and any industry like autos that relies on financing – will suffer.�

Obviously, it’s easy to wallow in bad news and point fingers. For over a decade, U.S. automakers put almost all of their eggs into the light truck basket – churning out sport utility vehicles (SUVs) and pickups that were long on power and profitability, but way WAY short on fuel economy. That decision really came back to haunt them this years as oil prices spiraled up to over $147 per barrel, leading to $4 a gallon gasoline and $5 a gallon diesel.

Despite a precipitous drop in oil prices since then (to just under $66 per barrel today), U.S. consumers are not returning to their old buying habits. Americans drove 78 billion FEWER miles over the first 10 months of 2008 compared to the same period last year and with $4 gasoline still fresh in their minds, along with harder-to-get loans, people just aren’t buying what U.S. automakers have to sell.

But it’s not all gloom and doom – in fact, those very same struggling U.S. automakers are shifting gears quickly to bring the right kinds of vehicles to the North American market that will sell. And if they get the $25 billion lifeline proposed by the federal government, they could get back on the path to viability. That’s important, because automakers generate a lot of freight demand in this country.

“The truth is that times like these present an opportunity if you can execute your plan, and we’ve got lots of new products in the coming months to launch and will deliver really outstanding fuel economy and quality on par with the best in the country,� said Ford’s Pipas in his monthly sales call with investors and analysts.

Though Ford’s market share over the past few months fell into the 11% to 12% range, by October it surged into the plus-13% range – which is why Pipas is encouraged, in spite of these extremely difficult times. “We’ll be introducing nine new products plus two new hybrids in the next nine months which will account for 45% of their volume in 2009,� he noted.

GM is seeing success outside of the U.S. in the Latin America, Africa and Middle East and Asia Pacific regions during the third quarter this year – helping GM sell more than 2.1 million vehicles globally. Though GM’s total sales were down 11.4% in the third quarter this year versus the same period in 2007 – with total global sales off 5.8% for the first nine months of 2008 compared to 2007, again reflecting the economic pressures of the U.S. and Western European markets – GM sold 1.286 million vehicles outside the U.S., which accounted for nearly 61% of its total global sales volume compared with just over 56% a year ago.

“The recent challenges in the global financial markets, including credit tightening and the drop in commodity prices, have negatively impacted market demand,� said Jonathan Browning, vice president, global sales, service and marketing for GM. “However, our sales performance shows that we are continuing to take advantage of new emerging market opportunities and are meeting customer needs with fuel-efficient products that offer compelling design and great value.�

“These are extraordinary times for the U.S. economy, for consumers and for an auto industry that is running at deep recessionary levels relative to 1999-2006,� added GM’s LaNeve. “We are offering the highest quality and best value vehicles to customers in our history – along with great incentives. But we can’t do it alone as GM or the auto industry. It will take a coordinated national effort to turn this economy around.�

It’ll be tough, but if U.S. automakers get a little federal help (far less in dollars than what the financial sector got I might add) I think they’ll pull through OK.

“New technologies such as radar, cameras, lasers and GPS may enable us to offer more safety and convenience features in the future. [The] key is identifying the kinds of warnings that drivers will find both more effective and easier to understand.” -Jeff Rupp, manager-active safety research and advanced engineering at Ford Motor Co.‘s Research and Innovation Center

Finally!!! All the dynamic safety systems I‘ve seen for heavy trucks in recent months - radar-based blind spot detection, forward collision warning, and the crème de la crème, active braking technology - is now trickling down to smaller vehicles. Ford Motor Co. is the first manufacturer to step into the ring, with plans to start offering collision warning with brake support (CWBS) on certain Ford and Lincoln vehicles next year, but I am sure the other automakers - domestic and otherwise - will soon follow.

This is a really big deal in my estimation, for these are the kinds of technologies that can really make a dent not only in truck-car crash numbers but also in terms of reducing overall highway fatalities.

[Here‘s a video from Ford outlining how its new bevy of safety technologies work. As the old phrase says, “seeing is believing,” and that‘s never been more true with these new safety systems.]

Ford‘s CWBS system works much like ArvinMeritor‘s OnGuard package for commercial trucks (as well as a similar system being developed by Bendix for commercial vehicles, due for release next year.) Ford‘s system uses radar to detect moving vehicles directly ahead and when the danger of a collision is detected, the system warns the driver with an audible “beep” and a red warning light projected on the windshield above the instrument panel.

More importantly, the system also automatically pre-charges brakes and engages a brake-assist feature that helps drivers quickly reach maximum braking once the brakes are engaged, stresses Paul Mascarenas, Ford‘s vice president of engineering for global product development.

“The new CWBS technology puts us on the leading edge of active safety to help customers detect and avoid possible dangers,” he says. “Ford will be the first to offer this technology on mainstream models that many families can afford.”

CWBS is one of three new radar-based active safety and driver-aid technologies Mascarenas says Ford is launching across a range of vehicles in 2008 and 2009. The others are adaptive cruise control (or ACC, launched just this year) along with blind spot information systems (BLIS) with cross traffic alert, which debuts in 2009. All three features use radar to detect the relative position of other vehicles and warn the driver with a combination of visual and audio alerts.

He notes that CWBS builds on the basic function of adaptive cruise control (the same technological building block used in heavy trucks), which uses radar to detect moving vehicles immediately ahead and modify cruising speed if necessary.

“Adaptive cruise control really marked the beginning of pre-emptive driver-assistance systems,” says Jerry Engelman, Ford‘s ACC-supervisor for chassis electronics. “We were able to use the radar technology and experience to develop collision warning with brake support system.”

Why is all the safety system stuff Ford is introducing here so important to trucks? Consider this: according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), the majority of accidents involve driver inattention. In fact, the agency found that one extra second of warning could prevent up to 90% of rear-end collisions and wouldn‘t you know it, CWBS can offer three programmable alert settings giving light vehicle drivers approximately 1.5 seconds to 2.5 seconds worth of warning time.

“It depends on the user‘s preference, because one person‘s false alarm may be another person’s near miss, and it’s important that drivers are comfortable with the system,” says Tom Pilutti, technical expert, with Ford‘s Research and Advanced Engineering group. Some people have a slower reaction time, and the longer time setting may meet their needs better than the shorter setting. Our research shows that most drivers will prefer and feel more comfortable with the longer default setting.”

Then there‘s this set of statistics: according to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, forward collision warning systems like CWBS could help prevent the kind of rear-end crashes that occurred 2.3 million times per year from 2002-2006 - or almost 40% of the total crashes reported to police each year in the U.S.

Of course, we‘re just at the starting line here. Most of these technologies don‘t start reaching production models until next year - and with the economic crisis we‘re in now, will consumers be ready to buy them, much less even consider purchasing new cars? One wishes these safety advances came to the market sooner, but as they are all based on complex technology that‘s got to work consistently day in and day out over the life of the vehicle, it can‘t happen overnight. Also, these technologies are aimed initially at Ford’s car models — so when they reach their light trucks is anybody’s guess (let’s hope sooner rather than later.)

Let‘s also hope Ford stays financially healthy long enough to bring these technologies to market, for they just may provide the distinct competitive advantage the long-suffering automaker has looked for these last ever-tougher years.

“We are giving back to a soldier and his wife for the sacrifices they have made for our country. Ultimately what we are doing for Staff Sergeant Karl is very little compared to what he has done for us.” -Joel Ross, marketing communication manager, Avery Dennison Graphics & Reflective Products Division.

How do you properly thank our military veterans for the tours of duty in places like Iraq, Afghanistan, the Horn of Africa, and other nasty hotspots around the world? How can we even come close to offering a proper gesture for men and women who‘ve lived through some of the worst trauma human beings can go through, day after day, month after endless month?

So it was a welcome piece of news the other day when I heard about Avery Graphics, GatorWraps, and a couple of other companies that joined forces to give Staff Sergeant Jacob Karl of the U.S. Marine Corps a one-of-a-kind homecoming present - a free-of-charge custom vinyl mural, upgrade suspension package, and high-toned chrome and polish treatment for his beloved 1997 F-250 pickup.

(Pictured left to right: Rod Voegele, GatorWraps‘ president; Tammy Karl, Koby Karl, age 8; Sadie Karl, age 10; SSgt. Jacob Karl; and Bear Scharbarth, TAG Motorsports General Manager).

This is a 13-year veteran Marine, ladies and Gs, that‘s served THREE tours in Iraq - each lasting more than a year, leaving his wife Tammy to hold down the home fort solo for some long, lonely stretches. So how cool is it that several companies stepped up to the plate to make his homecoming to Camp Pendleton even more special?

For those interested in the nitty gritty, Avery donated its popular MPI 1005 EZ RS film and DOL 1100 matte overlaminate for this truck wrap project - a wrap custom-designed with the new Mossy Oak Break-Up pattern, printed and then installed by GatorWraps at its Ontario, Calif., location. Note that this vinyl wrap can be adjusted or removed without damaging the truck‘s original paint, notes Avery.

Tammy Karl, SSgt. Karl‘s wife, knew her husband has a weak spot for the Mossy Oak Break-Up pattern so she contacted GatorWraps a few months before he rotated home on Aug. 7 to see if it was possible to create a special design for his truck. Avery, GatorWraps and Mossy Oak didn‘t hesitate to grant Tammy‘s request - creating a unique truck mural that includes the U.S. Marine Corps emblem, silhouettes of Marines, and the shadow of a bull rider to reflect SSgt. Karl‘s love for the rodeo.

That‘s not all, of course. Tag Motorsports installed a Banks Stinger 2 Power suspension free of charge, with Banks Engineering donating the system. Herbie Auto Detailing also got into the act with a full detail & chrome polishing of Karl‘s truck as well.

So, after this latest tour spent training Iraqi police forces, let‘s hope SSgt. Karl and wife Tammy get some time off to enjoy his new custom truck and each other‘s company. SSgt. Karl, thank you for your service to our country and to us - “Semper Fi” indeed.

“The real problem with the attacks on [Barack Obama‘s] tire-gauge plan is that efforts to improve conservation and efficiency happen to be the best approaches to dealing with the energy crisis — the cheapest, cleanest, quickest and easiest ways to ease our addiction to oil, reduce our pain at the pump and address global warming. It‘s a pretty simple concept: if our use of fossil fuels is increasing our reliance on Middle Eastern dictators while destroying the planet, maybe we ought to use less.” -Michael Grunwald, Time magazine

Whether you agree with the slant Time magazine brings to journalism or not, the recent article penned by Michael Grunwald about Senator Barack Obama‘s plan to beef up conservation efforts hits on many MANY tactics the trucking industry has championed for years to reduce petroleum consumption.

(Senator and Presidential Hopeful Barack Obama’s fuel conservation pointers make plenty of sense.)

Grunwald‘s column - entitled “The Tire Gauge Solution: No Joke” - is illuminating not so much for the concept that properly inflated tires and regular, preventive maintenance both improve car and light truck fuel economy (some 3% to 4%, respectively) but that so many people blow this kind of stuff off as a worthless waste of time. Yes, since Obama is promoting it, it‘s going to get hammered in the political arena, but let‘s face it - these very concepts are promoted heavily in trucking (by the Technology & Maintenance Council no less) to achieve substantial fuel savings - and thus cut operating costs.

“The tire gauge is really a symbol of a very serious piece of good news: we can use significantly less energy without significantly changing our lifestyle,” Grunwald says in his article. “The energy guru Amory Lovins has shown that investment in ‘nega-watts‘ — reduced electricity use through efficiency improvements — is much more cost-effective than investment in new megawatts, and the same is clearly true of ‘nega-barrels.‘”

He adds that, while we‘re at it, we can cut down on idling, which can improve fuel economy another 5%, and cut down on speeding and unnecessary acceleration, which can increase mileage as much as 20%. Of course, Grunwald then starts melding these tips with larger policy and political issues - some that many won‘t agree with.

“That‘s just the low hanging fruit,” he says. “There are other ways to reduce demand for oil — more public transportation, more carpooling, more telecommuting, more recycling, less exurban sprawl, fewer unnecessary car trips, buying less stuff and eating less meat.”

From there, he goes on to slam President Bush, Vice President Cheney, John McCain, the Republican Party as a whole … you get the idea. It‘s personal opinion and he‘s certainly welcome to it, but no one must agree with him (that includes me.)

The important thing, though, is that it‘s the simple yet effective stuff that is finally - FINALLY!!! - getting some attention. I mean, for years, I‘ve watched cars in all states of disrepair passing me on the highway, many times spewing white smoke - a clear sign that engine oil is burning in the crankcase.

After the recent gasoline and diesel price spike, though, people are finally beginning to wise up. Let‘s hope that trend continues despite any continued slide in prices at the pump.

“Electrically powered vehicles are going to provide tremendous benefit and excitement for the customer, while also hastening the move to a more diverse choice of energy alternatives.” -Jon Lauckner, vice president of global programs, General Motors

When I heard about the new deal between the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), General Motors and 34 big utility companies across the country to create a “refueling network” for plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs), I couldn‘t help but shake my head.

Back in the early 1990s, I watch a very similar strategy get launched with a lot of fanfare and hoopla, only to die a slow and largely quiet death, with little care from an American public now so desperate to find an alternative to petroleum-powered cars and trucks.

(The EV-1 … one FAST car, let me assure you.)

Back then, GM and Ford in particular were rolling out near-production level electric vehicles - GM‘s famous EV-1 electric car, shaped like a cruise missile, alongside Ford‘s electric-powered Ranger pickup-based light trucks. I test drove both vehicles back then as a (much younger) transportation reporter just starting out in the business and they displayed all the power and performance you could ask for.

In fact, I nearly cracked up an EV-1 during my short (but eventful) test drive. Little did I know that GM‘s electric car accelerated FAR faster than most internal combustion engine-powered vehicles, as the transmission contained no gears. Depressing the accelerator like I normally did shot me and the GM technician riding shotgun in the EV-1 out of the parking lot like the proverbial bat out of hell, whereupon he slapped my chest and hollered, “Take your foot off the accelerator, Dale Earnhardt!” That sucker had some real power, let me tell you: GM‘s test track drivers could crank them up to 130 mph plus in the blink of an eye.

Back when the utility still sported the name Virginia Power (It‘s now Dominion Power), I drove down to its Richmond, VA, headquarters to participate in a ride and drive with big electric-powered pickups modified by local firm Baker Equipment Co., via its Baker Electromotive division. The parking lot sported all of these electric recharging stations, so the trucks could be kept fully juiced for whatever job needed. These were full sized pickups, mind you, with battery packs encased in solid steel boxes in the cargo bed, snug against the cab. I remember thinking about the potential of this concept, driving to work and plugging in your car or truck to recharge, then driving home and doing the same on the other end.

Suffering as we were with a mild oil price shock (compared to what we‘re going through now, it was VERY mild indeed) and recession following the Gulf War, it seemed an electric car recharging network would be a cinch to set up - and that its practicality would make it a slam dunk for consumers and corporations alike.

Dream on, apparently.

The price of oil started a long, slow slide, and with it went any thought of developing alternatively powered vehicles. GM, poised to crank out thousands of natural gas-powered pickups, hung up those plans. Both GM and Ford shelved their electric vehicle projects, eventually leading to that side splitting documentary “Who killed the electric car?” in 2006.

I mean, come on - the killer of the electric car is in the mirror every day. I mean, how do you sell an expensive product (Ford‘s all-electric Ranger retailed for $30,000 back in 1998) with limited “refueling” sites? The concept of PHEVs, like the Chevy Volt of today, were non-existent sad to say. By 1998-1999, gasoline cost LESS than a dollar a gallon - so no one looked twice at small cars, much less alternative-fueled ones.

But here we are again, come round to the same concept - creating an national electric “refueling” network from the county‘s power grid, a key step in providing the nation’s drivers an alternative to petroleum fuels, said Arshad Mansoor, EPRI‘s vice president of power delivery and utilization this week.

”The EPRI-GM-utility effort is the result of many years of work by EPRI and its members to advance plug-in hybrids and related infrastructure technology to a point of feasible implementation and eventual commercialization,” he said. “The seamless integration of PHEVs into the electric grid will require close collaboration between the automobile and electric sectors.”

(Baker Electromotive and Ford joined forces to build all-electric postal delivery trucks back in the 1990s too. Bet the U.S. Postal Service wishes it had more of those vehicles in its fleet right now.)

Mansoor said the EPRI-GM-utility collaboration would work to accelerate large-scale deployment of PHEVs and create a blueprint for an electric fuel infrastructure, addressing a range of issues to ensure safe and convenient vehicle charging, public education, and public policies requirements to enable a smooth introduction of PHEVs as a transportation alternative to conventional vehicles.

”This research program will help link a low-carbon generation portfolio and a smart grid, which in turn will facilitate widespread adoption of electricity as an alternative transportation fuel,” Mansoor noted. “PHEVs have the potential of creating tremendous value for society by use of lesser emitting and lower cost electricity.”

Troy Clarke, president of GM‘s North America operation, noted those cost advantages in a speech at the Brookings Institute back on June 12. “A conventional vehicle that gets around 30 miles per gallon costs about 13 cents per mile to operate. But when you do the math to convert a kilowatt hour to cost per mile, an extended range electric vehicle like the Chevy Volt will cost about 2 cents a mile for electricity from the grid,” he explained. “So, it‘s not going to be difficult for customers to see the advantage in their pocketbooks.”

(The Volt — sleek, super, and more than a decade late to the party.)

Too bad we didn‘t see this “advantage” about 16 years ago when the idea took its first lap around the track. Then maybe we wouldn‘t be in the position we are today, staring $120 to $140 per barrel oil prices in the face and $4 gasoline alongside $5 diesel at the pump. We wouldn‘t be witnessing a mad scramble for mass transit, nor the wholesale conversion or outright shut down of truck plants. We might‘ve had an orderly transition to light vehicles powered primarily by electricity, freeing up much-needed refinery capacity for fuel powering the freight sector. One can dream that we‘d be so smart as a society.

Dream on, apparently.

“Since the first of this year, U.S. market and economic conditions have become significantly more difficult. Of greatest concern is the unprecedented rise in oil prices, which have more than doubled over the past 12 months alone. [They] are viewed by most experts as part of a long-term trend toward higher energy costs - a structural change, not just a cyclical change.” -Rick Wagoner, chairman and CEO, General Motors

We‘re witnessing history in the making when it comes to cars and trucks right now - a massive, almost instantaneous shift away from sport utility vehicles (SUVs) and light trucks among consumers. At the same time, automakers are speeding up efforts to bring more hybrids to the four-wheeler market - not an easy thing to do when vehicle development is a process typically measured in years.

Yet desperate times make for desperate measures. When the cost of fuel hit $4 a gallon for gasoline and soared over $5 per gallon for diesel in the U.S., it created all sorts of bad karma for everyone. Some 835 trucking companies went out of business in the first quarter alone this year, reducing truck capacity by 3%, due to the spike in fuel costs. It‘s hitting everyone in the wallet, which is why public transit agencies are witnessing a big hump in ridership - a 3.3% increase so far, which equates to 85 million more trips at this point compared to the same period in 2007.

People‘s car buying patterns are also changing, with all kinds of consequences for automakers - none of the pretty. For the U.S. domestic manufacturers - General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler - it‘s a bad patch, for they all committed heavily to building predominantly SUVs and pickups back in the 1990s, when fuel costs bottomed out at 90 cents a gallon. Now consumers are abandoning those vehicles in droves, forcing the automakers to switch their focus to fuel-efficient cars, hybrids, and alternative fuels - probably for good.

“These higher gasoline prices are changing consumer behavior, and rapidly - significantly affecting the U.S. auto industry sales mix,” explained Rick Wagoner, GM‘s chairman and CEO, in a speech before analysts in Delaware earlier this month.

(It’s tough navigating the rough economic waters of today, Rick Wagoner will tell you.)

”We at GM don’t think this is a spike or temporary shift; we believe that it is, by and large, permanent,” he said. “Reflecting this rapid increase in oil prices, general economic conditions in the U.S. have changed considerably in recent months. While we remain reasonably constructive on the long-term prospects for the auto industry in the U.S., we view the near-term U.S. economic and auto market environment with considerable caution. These conditions, along with the rapid change in auto industry sales mix, require us to take further actions that will position us for sustainable profitability and growth.”

For starters, GM is green lighting a plan to build 1.0- to 1.4-liter engine, which will be the standard power plant for its new next-generation Chevy compact car. Waggoner also noted GM plans to have 20 hybrid vehicles on the market by 2012, is beefing up investments in two cellulosic ethanol startups to help foster much needed growth in biofuels, and plans to turn its Chevy Volt electric prototype into a mainstream offering by the end of 2010.

(Chevy’s Volt sure doesn’t look like an electric car, now does it?)

The Volt is critical, because it‘s an electric car with a small gasoline motor designed to recharge the batteries when plug-in power isn‘t available. Dubbed an “extended range” electric vehicle, it could represent a major breakthrough in vehicle design - the ultimate commuter car, so to speak. That would really alter the energy consumption pattern in transportation - if consumers accept it.

“We believe [the Volt] is the biggest step yet in our industry’s move away from its historic, virtually complete reliance on petroleum to power vehicles,” said Waggoner. “We also believe the technical goals of the Volt are not only achievable, but achievable generally within the time frame we previously outlined … and we are convinced that the Volt is an important investment for the future of our company and our stockholders.”

Yet GM also realizes that the shift away from SUVs and light trucks by non-commercial users means other major structural changes are necessary - such as shutting down plants. “We need to address the rapid industry shift away from trucks and SUVs … so, over time, we will cease production at four GM truck assembly plants,” said Waggoner, by 2009 and 2010. That includes GM‘s Janesville, WI, plant where the Chevy Tahoe and Suburban, GMC Yukon, and Chevy, GMC, and Isuzu medium duty trucks are built. The Toluca, Mexico, plant where the Chevrolet Kodiak medium duty trucks goes silent by the end of this year, as GM sold its medium-duty line to Navistar earlier this year.

(The oversized Hummer is also on the chopping block, according to GM.)

“To reiterate, timing of all these actions is subject to model lifecycles and market demand. If volumes continue to wane, the timing could be pulled ahead,” Waggoner stressed.

Yet it‘s not all bad, stressed Troy Clarke, president of GM‘s North American operations. In a talk given at the Brookings Institution, Clarke noted that vehicle sales are actually growing, especially when one looks at the global picture, and that if electric and hybrid vehicles make up a significant part of that growth in the near future, the pressure on petroleum prices may ease up even faster.

“Despite the current challenges of the auto industry in the U.S., globally our industry is in the midst of tremendous growth,” said Clarke. “There are about 820 million vehicles in the world today; roughly 12% of the world‘s population enjoys the benefits of automobile ownership and driving. As such, we expect that at least 15% of the world‘s population will own a vehicle by 2020 - that‘s a billion vehicles. This expansion is being fueled by growth in emerging markets like China and India.”

While Clarke readily admitted such growth creates serious concerns about the automobile‘s almost exclusive dependence on petroleum, creating issues with supply and availability, sustainable growth, climate change, and even national security, electrification of the automobile could be a solution to all of them.

“Going forward, we can no longer rely primarily on oil to supply the world‘s automotive energy requirements,” he said. “ GM believes that the long-term solution involves a march toward electrification - and the debate has shifted from ‘if‘ this would happen to ‘when.‘”

(Troy Clarke is trying to look on the bright side of the structural changes now occuring in the automotive industry.)

Parallel hybrid automotive powertrains are an important step on the journey, but the real value hybrids bring to the table is that they allow automakers to develop standards, engineering methods and tools, and real world validation models to further advance all-electric cars.

“City transit buses were the exact right place to start with hybrids: City driving cycles; Thousands of stops and starts per day; High up time and reliability requirements; and enough space to package first generation components. This was a great opportunity to demonstrate big fuel savings potential and that we did,” he said. “Over the past five years, we‘ve helped save three million gallons of fuel, and 30,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions.”

This next step represents the transition to a true electrically driven vehicle, Clarke noted, and when you consider that three-quarters of American drivers travel less than 40 miles in their daily commute, a fleet of Volts can have a huge impact on America‘s petroleum dependence.

“The best part is an extended range EV like the Volt can do this while saving its owner a lot of money in operating expenses,” he added. “A conventional vehicle that gets around 30 miles per gallon costs about 13 cents per mile to operate. But, when you do the math to convert a kilowatt hour to cost per mile, an extended range electric vehicle like the Volt will cost about 2 cents a mile for electricity from the grid. So it‘s not going to be difficult for customers to see the advantage in their pocketbooks.”

There are a lot of challenges to work through, such as further improving lithium-ion battery technology so they‘ll last 10 years of life, 150,000 miles in a very rugged and hostile environment. But once that marker is reached, structural change to our transportation environment is really going to accelerate.

“Yes, we want to make an environmental technology statement. But we also want a car that sells and that people aspire to own,” Clarke said. “We want consumers to see the Volt as the game changer it is not only for our business, but for the way the world drives. Once they do, we can build on that success with other creative E-Flex models - but one step at a time.”

All I can say is, let‘s hope they get a move on, for oil prices hovering around $140 a barrel is making mincemeat out of all kinds of household and trucking budgets in rapid fashion.

“Our goal is to save fuel, not endanger jobs.” -Mary Peters, U.S. Transportation Secretary

So, the Department of Transportation (DOT) officially gave the green light (pun intended) yesterday to new fuel efficiency standards for cars and light trucks. The question we need to figure out is, will these new standards actually help reduce the consumption of oil by our nation? And frankly, with oil now costing $117 per barrel, is it already too late?

The DOT‘s new rules call for fuel efficiency standards for both passenger vehicles and light trucks to increase by 4.5% per year over the five-year period ending in 2015 - a 25% percent total improvement that exceeds the 3.3% baseline proposed by Congress last year.

(Chevy Suburbans like this one are covered by the new rules … when they go into effect that is. Photo courtesy of GM).

“This proposal is historically ambitious, yet achievable,” Mary Peters, U.S. Transportation Secretary, said in a speech yesterday. “It will help us all breathe a little easier by reducing tailpipe emissions, cutting fuel consumption and making driving a little more affordable.”

For passenger cars, the proposal would increase fuel economy from the current 27.5 miles per gallon to 35.7 miles per gallon by 2015. For light trucks, the proposal calls for increases from 23.5 miles per gallon in 2010 to 28.6 miles per gallon in 2015.

All told, the DOT said its proposal should save nearly 55 billion gallons of fuel and a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions estimated at 521 million metric tons. The plan should also save American drivers over $100 billion in fuel costs over the lifetime of the vehicles covered by the rule, Secretary Peters said.

(Will these new fuel efficiency rules reduce trips to the filling station? That remains to be seen.)

Is it enough? Many don‘t think so - though it should be noted that the voices giving the thumbs down to these new standards, such as Ralph Nader‘s advocacy group Public Citizen, opposed them from their very inception.

“The problem is that the nation is addicted to foreign oil, and transportation is one of the biggest reasons why,” commented Public Citizen last year as these new rules were in development. “This problem is simply much too big to be left up to the individual purchasing decisions of consumers, many of whom live in parts of the country in which they have no choice but to drive every day to go to work or the supermarket.”

The group noted that the federal government established the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) program precisely because the market without any fuel economy requirement left the nation dangerously dependent on foreign oil. In fact, as CAFE standards have been allowed to stagnate for the past 20 years, that problem has duplicated itself: Manufacturers have chewed up fuel efficiency gains with larger engines, increased vehicle weight and many extras instead of applying them to increase fuel economy, said Public Citizen.

“Instead of taking advantage of technologies that could make vehicles more fuel-efficient, automakers have allowed those technologies to gather dust on the shelf and have produced gas-guzzling sport utility vehicles (SUVs),” the group stressed. “Automakers aggressively marketed SUVs to the American public … and U.S. auto manufacturers have focused a greater proportion of their production on the light-truck sector than the Japanese and European manufacturers and have recently extended a long-standing practice of giving consumers discounts, rebates and preferential loan rates in exchange for buying vehicles whose utility exceeds their needs.”

Now, there is some truth in all of this - in fact, much as I disagree with many of Public Citizen‘s stances on a variety of issues, they hit this one close to the bone. Back in the 1990s, Toyota and Honda were feverishly working on hybrid cars in their labs, while the “Big Three” (General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler) sat back and watched the money roll in from their highly profitable truck products - making as much as 50% profit on each vehicle sold.

Hey, gas hovered around 90 cents a gallon back in 1999, and everyone projected that fuel would stay at that bargain-basement price for years to come. Just the way housing prices would keep going up 20% a year, Internet companies were a sure-fire investment, and Enron‘s accounting practices conformed to accepted standards.

Yeah, right.

So here we are - finally!! - addressing fuel economy standards for cars and light trucks. Yet this is still just a proposal, now - it must go through the rulemaking process, which takes years. Meanwhile, gasoline costs an average of $3.60 a gallon across the country, with diesel spiking to $4.21 per gallon. These new standards are like over a decade too late, if you ask me.

Then again, it‘s better than nothing. DOT noted that, as required by Congress, the proposed rule allows for automakers to earn credits for exceeding CAFÉ standards - serving as an incentive to exceed these goals while giving manufacturers flexibility to meet the standards without compromising their economic vitality. “The goal is to save fuel, not endanger jobs,” Secretary Peters said.

(Alternative fuels such as hydrogen — as demonstrated here by President Bush — can’t come to market soon enough with gasoline and diesel pump prices as high as they are.)

“Looking at the fuel-efficient technologies already available, it‘s easy to see a not-too-distant future when cars fueled by something other than gasoline will be readily available and affordable,” she added. “Until that time, however, we will continue to do what we can, safely and efficiently, to improve gas mileage and help consumers spend less time and less money at the pump.”

Don‘t know about you, but I think that empty feeling in my wallet is going to be around for a long, long time to come.