WomanOnWheels.ca

What's going to happen with scrapped electric-vehicle batteries?

Electric cars are poised to be the future of transportation, but what about when they reach their end of life? Everyone's trying to figure out what to do with the batteries - and some governments are trying to mandate them on the folks who don't want them, while ignoring the people who do. Find out more in my story at AutoTRADER.ca.

In Review: 2022 Toyota Prius Prime

I like plug-in hybrids: They have the fuel-free capability of an electric vehicle, but if you run out of power, they'll continue on for as long as they have gas in the tank. You can get the 2022 Toyota Prius as a plug-in, and find out more in my review at AutoTRADER.ca.

A first look at Ford's all-electric E-Transit

Ford's upcoming all-electric delivery van might just seem to be news for commercial customers, but I think it could also be the push needed for consumer EVs. Find out why in my story at the National Post (Driving.ca).

GM EV1: Not ready for prime time

California's zero-emission vehicle mandate of 1990 required major automakers to sell a percentage of electric-only cars if they wanted to sell anything in the state. Ford, Toyota, and Honda built some, but the best-known -- if perhaps for the wrong reasons -- was GM's EV1. It was leased to drivers, and then taken back and crushed when the leases ended. Find out more in my story over at AutoTrader.ca.

The history of early electric cars

Automakers are offering several different all-electric models these days, but they're nothing new. In 1900, the best-selling car in the United States was powered by batteries. So what happened? It all traces back to a broken jaw...find out more in my story at AutoTrader.ca.

How far does that electric vehicle go?

The biggest question for anyone looking at an electric car is just how far it'll go after it's plugged in. While much depends on such factors as driving style and ambient temperature, each vehicle has a range under Natural Resources Canada's regulations, and I've collected 'em all. Find out more in my story at AutoTrader.

Seeing the future at Movin' On

Want to ride on an electric bus or electric boat, see a wind-powered car, or a tire that can be 3D printed? It's all part of Michelin Movin' On, a three-day summit on mobility that presents all kinds of concepts for getting around -- some of them way out there, and some of them ready to go. It always moved around between global cities, but now it seems to have found its home in Montreal. Find out more in my story at the National Post.

Auto recycling: Far more than just scrap

We usually say a car goes to the "scrapyard," but it's always been a valuable resource for recycling, and even more now as recyclers find new ways to separate the pricey bits and companies figure out how to use them again. Find out more in my "How It Works" column at the National Post.

GM's new truck engines can take it down to just one cylinder

The upcoming 2019 Chevy Silverado and GMC Sierra have a trick up their sleeves: Dynamic Fuel Management, which can deactivate various cylinders when full power isn't needed, right down to running on just one out of eight. There's a new four-cylinder turbo engine, too. Find out more at my "first look" story in the National Post.

Is your recycling going back into your car?

Recycling is a big business in the auto industry, and automakers are always looking at ways to turn waste materials into new ones. Plastic bottles turn into seat fabric, old tires become gaskets, and olive pits ... well, find out what they're turned into at my story over at AutoTRADER.ca.

What's in an electric vehicle battery?

Chemicals, minerals, and lots of other stuff that, depending on your viewpoint, might either solve many of our environmental issues, or hand us some new ones. Find out the differences between lead acid, NiMH, lithium-ion and other electric vehicle batteries in my "How It Works" column at the National Post.

What's being spread on winter roads?

It used to be just rock salt, but now it can also be brine, pricey anti-icers, or even beet juice. Find out more in my story at AutoTRADER.

How is fuel economy rated?

You might think it's a lightweight driver taking the car out on the track, but it's actually all done in a lab. And in addition to fuel consumption, you'll also know more about emissions on the labels as well. Find out more in my "How It Works" column at the National Post.

How does a hydrogen-powered fuel cell car work?

It's actually an electric car that makes its own power while it's driving. Find out more in my "How It Works" column at the National Post.

Leaded gas: What it finally took to get rid of it

Lead can be deadly to humans, but for decades, we spewed it out of tailpipes, spilled it on the ground, and let it leak into waterways. Find out the history of leaded gasoline and what finally ended its reign in my "Rearview Mirror" column at the National Post.

What does "lightweighting" a car mean?

The more something weighs, the more energy it takes to move it around, which is why automakers are putting their cars on diets: less weight equals better fuel efficiency. Still, there's a lot more to it than just using lighter materials. I visited GM's technical centre to find out more for my story in the National Post.

What's the future of sustainable mobility?

No one knows for sure, of course, but there are a lot of people working on it, and I met many of them at the Michelin Challenge Bibendum in Chengdu, China recently.

It's a regular meeting-of-the-minds, held in cities around the world, where participants learn about new technologies, drive new advanced vehicles, and discuss the issues and how they might be solved. Find out more in my report over at the Toronto Star.

Fuel-efficient cars: Do you know all the terms?

Hybrids, extended-range, plug-ins, direct injection ... there are all sorts of new technologies to improve fuel efficiency, and there are so many that it can be confusing. Cut to the chase with my explanation over at the Toronto Star.

Headline of the day ...

I just received a press release from Environment Canada. The headline is in big, bold letters - Harper Government Improves Fuel Efficiency of Canadian Vehicles.

Wow.

I write a lot of technology columns, and that means I spend time talking to automakers about fuel efficiency. They dedicate a lot of money to this. I've been to R&D labs where people spend all their time working to shave half a kilogram off car parts to improve fuel mileage. I've talked to engineers who are up to their armpits in engines every day, figuring out how to coax a little more energy efficiency from them. Even companies that make tires and oil are working on their products so they'll help contribute to the improvement.

Why they bother I don't know, because Stephen Harper is taking care of the problem.

Now, if you read the fine print, what the government has actually done is proposed stricter regulations for fuel efficiency. By 2025, we're told, new cars will consume 50 per cent less fuel. It's all on the automakers, of course, because the government wouldn't dare suggest that consumers change their driving habits - which in many cases could pretty much achieve the same goal tomorrow, on the cars we're driving today.

Still, it's good to know that, judging by the headline, our men and women in Ottawa are making such a substantial improvement to our vehicles. And they didn't even have to put on a lab coat. Amazing!

E85 ethanol: Really, what's the point of reporting?

J.D. Power and Associates regularly sends out updates on how vehicle sales are doing in Canada. And like forecasting companies across Canada and the U.S., it reports on how many "flexible-fuel" vehicles - those that can use E85, a fuel that's primarily made up of plant-based ethanol - are sold.

Last year, for example, sales of flex-fuel vehicles increased almost twofold, to 13.2 percent of the market. And I say, so what?

The number of hybrids sold is an important indicator of how consumers are looking at alternative vehicles. (For the record, hybrid sales dropped, concurrent with stabilized gas prices - backing up what I've always said, that for most people it's about cash, not climate change.) The number of flex-fuel vehicles sold means nothing, and I hope that people aren't looking at those sales numbers and thinking that the tide is turning.

The fact is, any vehicle on the market that will run on E85 fuel will also run on gasoline; it just means that it has special seals and pumps that the ethanol can't corrode. That 13.2 percent didn't buy the car because it ran on E85, but because the car met their needs and it just happened to have the yellow fuel-filler cap. And almost every one of those vehicles will run exclusively on gasoline, because in most places in Canada, it's impossible to find a station that dispenses E85. I think there are a handful in all of Ontario. According to Petro-Canada's website, that gasoline giant doesn't even carry it.

At least the ecoAuto program is over - the one that gave rebates to fuel-efficient vehicles, including flexible fuel models. You could get $1,000 back from the feds if you bought a vehicle that could run on E85, because you were saving the planet, at least in theory. I wonder if any car that qualified for the rebate has ever had a drop of E85 run through its guts.

Sure, it's chicken-and-egg - you don't get E85 without the cars, and you don't get the cars without E85. But don't tell me that sales of flex-fuel vehicles are rising, because it means squat. Tell me when there's a possibility I might be able to put some of this corn-based fluid into its tank. That is when the numbers will actually make a difference.

One million electric vehicles by 2015: Not as long as gas is cheap

The U.S. Department of Energy has released a new report, One Million Electric Vehicles by 2015, which backs up President Obama's stated goal of ... well, guess how many EVs will be on the road by what year. The report says that the goal is "ambitious" but "achievable." Of course, I wouldn't expect the report to conclude anything else, but I'm not buying it, not the way it's written. I'm certainly no expert, but I'm not seeing it.

First, there's the o'er-the-ramparts-we-watched aspect of it. "This is a race America can win," says DOE secretary David Sandalow, "if we answer the President's call to out-innovate, out-build, and out-compete the rest of the world."

Sure, you need the all-American aspect of it to lead the troops, and I'm the first to say that a country only becomes strong when it has a solid manufacturing base. America needs to build these vehicles at home. But as soon as you make it a race to beat everybody else, you've severed your ties with the people who can help you. The Japanese were building viable hybrids when American companies were still trying to figure out four-cylinder engines. Why start at the very beginning, when you can work in conjunction with people who know what they're doing? Contrary to popular redneck belief, Nissan won't be sending every penny it makes on the Leaf back to Japan. That cash will stay in Smyrna, Tennessee where the car will be built, going home with the workers, going into the local tax coffers, working its way into the community.

Getting plant capacity up to one million electric vehicles isn't a problem, the report says, and it's correct on that. We can probably pop out many more than that every year. What we can't do as easily is find people to buy them. So the government is offering a rebate of up to $7,500 on each one, and offering grants to communities that prioritize electric vehicle deployment.

The problem is that the government won't do the one thing that is needed to advance the deployment of electric vehicles - raise the price of gasoline. Because that will be political suicide, and everyone in Washington knows it.

Why do Europeans buy little cars with little engines? Because gasoline costs a fortune over there. As long as gasoline is cheap, people will buy the relatively inexpensive vehicles that use it, rather than the relatively expensive vehicles that don't. People do the math. If the premium on that electric or hybrid car is more than what it saves in fuel, most won't buy it. Despite the whole "green" movement, and sending children to school to learn about rain forests, and putting cans out to the curb for recycling, most people will put their coins ahead of their carbon footprint. If a car costs too much, it doesn't matter how little it spews out the exhaust pipe, if it has one at all.

I wonder what One Million Electric Vehicles by 2015 cost to produce. I could have saved them a bundle and written it up in the time it takes to say it: If you want people to buy alternative vehicles, raise the price of gas until it's worth their while. Sure, there will always be people who buy Volts or Leafs because they're cool and techy and neat. But as long as gas costs less than bottled water, it will be a long, long time, if ever, before you find a million of those folks willing to open their wallets.

Ethanol: We have to make it, but we can't take it

There's an interesting new study out of Purdue University in Indiana on ethanol use. The U.S. has mandated ethanol through its Renewable Fuel Standard, which required some 13 billion gallons of it in 2010, and will insist on 36 billion gallons per year by 2022.

The problem, according to the study, is that there's no way that much ethanol can get used up. There aren't enough vehicles that can accept E85 (which will chew up rubber seals in a vehicle that isn't specifically flexible-fuel capable) and there isn't enough infrastructure to get it to the pumps.

Wally Tyner, a professor of agriculture and one of the authors of the study, says that the amount made in 2010 is just about all that the country can consume. Only some 7.3 million of the 240 million vehicles currently on American roads can run on E85. As well, there are only about 2,000 E85 pumps in the U.S., and Tyner said it took 20 years to install them. To meet the 36 billion gallon mandate, he estimates that 2,000 pumps would have to be added per year -- and right now, only about 100 are being installed annually.

As well, ethanol has another problem: it doesn't get the mileage that gasoline does. Tyner estimates that if gasoline sells for $3.00 per gallon, E85 has to be priced at $2.34 for a driver to break even on the mileage.

And if the government does go through on a decision to raise the minimum level of ethanol in gasoline from 10 to 15 percent, Tyner said that we'd hit the same wall in about four years. He believes the only way the industry can meet the mandate is through thermo-chemical biofuels, which use heat to chemically alter biomass and produce a fuel that's similar enough to gasoline that it can be blended for use in all vehicles and all gasoline pumps.

Don't you love it when a plan doesn't come together?

Small car sales: it ain't the car, it's the fuel

After fears that it might follow companies like Hudson and Studebaker into that good night, General Motors has reported a profit of $1.33 billion. In fact, all of the Big Three seem to be turning around; in Canada in July, sales of domestic nameplates were up 18%, while import nameplates as a whole dropped by 3%.

In the U.S., according to Edmunds.com, it's big trucks that are leading the resurgence -- the vehicles the Big Three do better than anybody else.

It's an inescapable fact: the vehicles people are buying are the vehicles that the letter-writers and the government don't want those companies to make. You can cite gas prices, you can cite greenhouse gas emissions, you can point a finger out to BP's mess in the Gulf, but the fact remains: given a choice, consumers buy big vehicles. And those big vehicles drive the automotive industry's wheel.

The size of vehicles moving off dealer lots is in direct proportion to what's on the gas station sign across the street. Prices go up, little cars go up. Prices go down, little cars go down. And whenever gas prices hike up, the letter-writers bemoan the fact that car companies aren't making enough little cars. I suspect these people have no clue how the auto industry actually works, because I think they seriously believe that auto companies work like the local bakery: white flour's expensive today, we'll make brown bread, and see what's costly tomorrow.

Most of the letter-writers have it backwards. Don't tie the auto industry to the price of gas; tie the price of gas to the auto industry. Why does Europe buy small cars? Because gas is four times what it costs here. If the government were really serious about fuel economy and greenhouse gas emissions, it wouldn't even be talking to the automakers about what they're going to build. It would be talking to the gasoline companies about what they're going to charge.

Electric vehicles: Get to know your local dealer

There's an interesting item out on the news wire today from research firm Frost & Sullivan about hybrids and electric vehicles. In the chicken-and-egg situation that greets almost all new technology, it seems that OE dealers may be keeping their hands on these cars long after the warranty's up.

More than 40% of independent garages surveyed said they aren't equipped to service hybrids, while almost 60% can't fix or maintain electric vehicles (and those numbers are low enough that I'm suspicious about the ones who said they can). And since hybrids make up less than 3% of market share each year, no one's really running out and spending the time and money to learn all about them. Very importantly, the aftermarket parts companies - the ones that make the less-expensive components that most of us buy when the dealer wants three times their price for OEM - aren't tooling up to make hybrid- and EV-specific parts.

When the Prius was young, my friend and colleague Brian Early took a test-car version to a Toyota shop and had to show the guys there how to start it. All new ideas have to start somewhere and build gradually, but I think the early adopters may well be in for a somewhat bumpy ride. 

CAA and Tim Hortons: Heart's in the right place, brain is out to lunch

In the news: CAA and Tim Hortons are teaming up, "protecting the planet one kilometre at a time," according to the press release. Eco-driving tips will start showing up on tray liners and television screens inside Tim Hortons coffee shops.

The tips include keeping the tires properly inflated, removing excess weight, reducing highway speeds, avoiding hard braking and jackrabbit stops, and combining trips.

See anything missing?

C'mon, think hard.

Okay, here it is, CAA and Tim Hortons. Want to save gasoline, reduce emissions, and maybe help make our roads safer to boot? Ban the bloody goddamn drive-through windows.

CAA and Tim Hortons: joining together to help save the planet, but still missing the big picture by a country mile.

Chevy Volt and fuel cells: Electric power to the people!

I had quite the glimpse into the automotive future yesterday: I had the opportunity to drive both the Chevrolet Volt and Equinox Fuel Cell Vehicle in Vancouver.

I'll be officially reporting on the Volt in print shortly, but in the meantime, suffice to say that even for a short spin around Stanley Park, it was exciting to be at the wheel, just to get a look at what's coming. It's fun to read about technology, but it's even better to get a hands-on chance to experience it. 

It's all in the numbers ...

This is Scott Niedermayer, captain of the Anaheim Ducks hockey team, with his new Honda FCX Clarity hydrogen fuel-cell vehicle. He has just become the first professional athlete to lease one of the zero-emission vehicles.

According to Honda's press release, Neidermayer is a perfect fit for the vehicle because he's an environmentalist. He seeks a "greener lifestyle" that includes adding insulation around his house, and installing a radiant barrier on the roof to conserve energy. He carpools to hockey games with his fellow teammates, and promotes a recycling program in the dressing room.

Oh, and he has four children.

'Nuff said.

Why all the CAFE in the world won't make a difference ...

 My local landscape is changing again. A farm here has moved out all of its horses, the survey stakes are in the ground, and the "presentation center" is being erected to sell the cookie-cutter houses that will go up on the land. This is now a regular occurrence in the rural area where I live.

If it's like every other subdivision around here, it will consist of hundreds of single-family houses (and will be named for the farm/creek/forest/orchard it destroyed). Any non-house land use will be restricted to schools, parks, and perhaps a church. There will be no stores or businesses within the maze of cul-de-sacs. Public transit may run up and down the main street outside, but not within the development itself. If you want a quart of milk, you'll need to get into your car and drive to get it.

My area isn't unique. This is happening in areas all over North America, and it's why fuel economy standards and hybrid cars and electric vehicles are never going to be enough. For some reason, we only look at the puzzle pieces, and we never try to put them all together.

We complain about pouring tax dollars into truly improving public transit. We let various municipalities work against each other, rather than harmonizing their systems, effectively preventing the seamless bus and train service that we need to get from one end of a huge metropolitan area to the other. We've gutted our railways, making highways the only options between towns. We refuse to give up portions of our roads to bicycle lanes, making it dangerous and inconvenient to use them as serious transportation.

Our municipal governments bend over backwards to (or more likely in front of) developers, giving them access to huge tracts of unserviced rural land, while city lots surrounded by infrastructure stay vacant because it's not as easy to build on them. Adding insult to injury is zoning that prevents people from being able to work or shop within walking distance of their houses. If you want to live in a subdivision, you have to own a car.

And yet, the only ones held accountable in all of this are the automakers, who are under ever-increasing government pressure to squeeze out another quarter-mile per gallon, and keep in another gram of CO2.

We've put a Band-Aid on the bruised finger. The problem is, we then just keep hitting it with the hammer.

CARS is over: back to big-car reality

Well, the honeymoon's over. According to a new report by J.D. Power and Associates, the end of the U.S. Car Allowance Rebate System (CARS) -- the "Cash for Clunkers" program -- has resulted in a return to the status quo.

Specifically, compact cars held 28% of the market in August, when consumers could receive substantial rebates for buying fuel-efficient vehicles. In September, with the program no longer in effect, compacts now hold only 19% of the market. Premium vehicles and large pickups have returned to the levels they held prior to the rebates.

Which goes to show you a number of things. People say the environment is important, but only to the point that it doesn't personally affect them. Gas is expensive, but it obviously isn't expensive enough to make people change their minds. And most importantly, the rush by the Detroit Three to put as many tiny cars onto their dealer lots as possible -- whether to satisfy the letter writers or the government, or both -- could turn out to be the most expensive error they've made in a long time.

GM-town mayor vs. GM-town taxpayer: Camaro 1, Saturn 0

There's a tempest brewing in Oshawa, home of General Motors of Canada -- and me. The mayor, John Gray, can buy a car as one of the perks of the job. He purchased a V8-powered Camaro. Oshawa is the only plant anywhere that builds it.

That isn't sitting well with some people, including Oshawa resident Bill Steele, and the story's here in the Toronto Star. Steele wants Gray to raffle off the Camaro, which cost $38,000, and buy a hybrid or "an economical car for the future," and give the remaining money to a food bank.

(Full disclosure: I know John Gray on a first-name basis, but only through chatting with him at various car shows. His Worship has a fondness for Chevrolet Corvairs and owns a few of them -- presumably not directly funded by taxpayers -- and while I seldom agree with his political policies, he's a really nice guy on a personal level.)

Steele's argument is wrong on a number of levels. First of all, he says that he doesn't want part of his taxes going to buy a sports car that "gets 17 miles to the gallon." Now, Gray may well drive it hard and affect the fuel numbers, but cars are measured by official figures, and on paper, the V8 Camaro gets a combined 26 mpg (Imperial): 21 in the city, 36 on the highway. Steele gets nowhere fast by pulling random numbers out of his butt.

Gray can't buy a hybrid made in Oshawa, unless he picks up one of the last Chevrolet Silverado or GMC Sierra hybrid pickup trucks built in that city before GM shut the truck plant down. Such a truck is rated at 27 mpg in the city, but only 29 on the highway -- nowhere near as good as Gray's 36-mpg Camaro. And GM cancelled its only other hybrid, the Chevrolet Malibu -- built not in Oshawa, but in Kansas -- because no one was buying them.

Steele argues that Gray's vehicle choice is out of sync with Oshawa's bleak unemployment picture. Well, here's a news flash: Oshawa's employment rate improves considerably when people are working, and more people work in Oshawa when General Motors is running at full tilt. The plant there currently produces the Chevrolet Camaro and Chevrolet Impala, and that's it. Gray put another order on the assembly line when he took delivery of his car. Steele's used, nine-year-old Saturn never put a dime into Oshawa's manufacturing economy; it wasn't built in Canada. (And given that he also slams Gray's choice on environmental grounds, I wonder what kind of fuel economy and emissions he gets from a $200 "grey and rust" car.)

The mayor of an auto town needs to drive the car that auto town builds. Gray could have chosen an Impala -- which, in its smaller-engine configuration, gets only 5 mpg better than his Camaro -- which would have blended into the traffic scenery like a white dog in a snowstorm. He could have waited for the hybrid that rumor has it the Oshawa plant will build, but GM hasn't even confirmed it, much less given a date. Instead, the mayor bought a car that turns heads wherever he goes, and has many people saying, Hey, that's way-cool, and it's built right here.

My taxes helped pay for John Gray's Camaro, as well. But unlike Bill Steele, I think it was money well spent.

How do you destroy an engine? The government knows!

How do you destroy an engine? Well, if you're the U.S. government, you use sodium silicate.

As you're no doubt aware, the U.S. has passed a "cash for clunkers" law that will give rebates to people who trade in old, thirsty vehicles and buy new, fuel-efficient ones. Since the whole idea is to get these old cars out of circulation, the program includes recycling them. But if someone takes that old engine out of the car and continues to use it, the whole point of the program is lost.

According to the website Cash For Clunkers, car dealers taking in these old vehicles will have to give each car a "lethal injection" in order to render it permanently inoperable. It seems that NHTSA wrestled with several options -- after a bit of whining in its final ruling that Congress never gave a definition of an "engine block" (follow that link to page 38) -- including parting out the engine components, destroying the oil filter threads, drilling a hole in the block, and running the engine without oil.

Finally, it determined that car dealers must do the equivalent of an oil change, but after draining the block, they add two quarts of sodium silicate, at a cost of about $7.00, and run the engine until the stuff dries up inside.

The stuff you learn on the Internet. Perhaps, as the website suggests, we should be buying shares in sodium silicate companies: it sounds like it's about to take off.

Now it's special glass for California ...

I never thought I'd say this, but from an environmental standpoint, I feel a bit sorry for the automakers.

The state of California has become the environmental hotbed, setting mandates that have required companies to produce vehicles that meet specifications unique to the state. I'm sure every car company breathed a long sigh of relief when the U.S. federal government finally agreed that California's fuel and emissions standards would apply everywhere. As one automaker told me, "We'll meet whatever you want -- just give us one number for everybody."

And just when the playing field was equal again, California looked at glass. So starting in 2012, all new vehicles sold in the state must have window glass that reflects at least 45% of the sun's energy. And by 2016, the glass must reflect 60% of heat-producing rays. The theory is that cars will be cooler, air conditioning won't have to work as hard, and fuel use and emissions will benefit.

Which means that, once again, automakers will have to outfit vehicles specifically for California. And the state estimates that the cost for the windows will average $70 for the 2012 standard, and $250 for the 2016 standard. It's expected that the annual gasoline savings will be $16 and $20 a year respectively.

That's a lot of money to add to the price of a car, and I wonder where it's all going to stop. In the U.S., cars will now have to have airbags, vehicle stability control, anti-lock brakes and tire pressure monitoring systems by law. And yet, buyers still flock to vehicles that start around $10,000, because that's all they have to spend.

It's not going to be California's mandates that help clean the air; it's going to be the fact that no one will be able to afford to drive. And in a state that was developed primarily around single-occupancy vehicles, how will the less-well-off ever get around?

The new U.S. auto standards: everyone is working TOGETHER?

Hard to believe, but in the news today, it looks like everyone with a stake in the U.S. auto industry and the environment is on the same page. Did you ever think you'd see it?

We're talking the EPA, NHTSA, the automakers, California -- hell, it's even the Republicans and Democrats nodding their heads together. I'm going to check the sky tonight to see if there are two blue moons.

The U.S. has announced a commitment to establish a unified national program that sets tailpipe emissions standards and accelerates a new fuel economy standard.

The short version seems to be that fuel economy standards and tailpipe emission standards will be uniform across the country, and the standards will be set in stone until 2016. According to various reports, this means that California won't need a waiver for its stricter-than-usual standards (although it will be able to enforce its own limits until a national standard is set), the automakers that are taking the state to court over its standards will drop their lawsuits, and most importantly, the auto companies will be able to plan their vehicles for all 50 states, without having to worry that they'll meet a standard over here, and then be looking at a new one over there.

I sat down one day with the vice-president of Honda Canada, who said that was the toughest thing. "Tell us what we have to meet, and we'll meet it," he said. "Just give us one standard to meet."

Well, it looks like he got his wish. And what's even more surprising is that, according to the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, this means that three regulatory bodies, 15 states, a dozen automakers and various environmental groups agreed to work together on a national program.

Never thought I'd live long enough to hear that, I must say.

What's missing from a "complete community"

On my way home today from an event, I passed the site of an upcoming subdivision. The cornfield and its topsoil have been scraped away, and the maze of cul-de-sac roads is starting to go in.

There were three huge signs around the property, announcing that it will be a "Complete Community!" They were "Complete Community - Schools," "Complete Community - Nature," and "Complete Community - Parks."

That ain't complete, says I.

A complete community enables people to do more -- to shop and, if at all possible, to work. On one hand, we bemoan the fact that our roads are stuffed to capacity, our air is filled with vehicle exhaust, and people spend hours of each day commuting. And on the other hand, we create these sprawling "horizontal apartments," where a car isn't a luxury but an absolute necessity. On this side, we're telling the auto companies to make tiny cars to help save the environment. And on that other side, we do absolutely nothing about improving the environment, every time we scrape another farmer's field down to the raw clay, and put up a self-contained ghetto in its place.

Plant some sedum, save the planet ...

  I'm in Detroit right now, and in my hotel room is a copy of a magazine called Visit Detroit. It suggests I take a tour of the Ford Rouge Factory (which I have, and it's quite interesting). But here's how the spin is spun in this particular piece:

Auto manufacturers have been taking a lot of heat for contributing to global warming. But Ford Motor Company's Rouge Center - where the new Ford F-150 is built - is an exception to the American philosophy of letting our children worry about it later.

The roof of the complex's Dearborn Truck Plant is alive and breathing, covered by a soft blanket of drought-resistant sedum. This not only creates a habitat for birds, butterflies and insects, but also absorbs carbon dioxide and creates oxygen. If more companies - automotive or otherwise - were to be so creative, we might just repel the scary eco-changes to come.

Fuel figures: Ever wonder why you can't match them?

  Every time I take out a test car, I do a mileage check on it. I start with a full tank, drive it for a week, fill it up, and then do the math. And much of the time, I don't achieve the vehicle's official mileage figures.

I always thought that the official figures were achieved by taking out the vehicle on a cloudless day, dropping by the racetrack to find the smallest jockey there, and having him drive it on a glass-smooth road. But it turns out that, compared to the way it's actually done,that would be too realistic.

Instead, according to Natural Resources Canada, here's the story. First of all, the government only compiles the figures (and then prints them in a guide that you can find online at ecoENERGY, or as a hard copy by calling 1-800-387-2000, or dropping by most new-car dealers who will give you one at no charge).

Instead, it's the car manufacturers that do the actual testing, in laboratory conditions (which, in fairness, eliminates outside variables). They use a procedure standardized to government specifications, on a two-wheel chassis dynamometer, with a new vehicle that's got about 6,000 km "run-in" on it. Four-wheel and all-wheel-drive vehicles are tested in two-wheel drive mode, and then the tests are "adjusted to reflect the increased weight and engine load using 4x4 and AWD systems," according to the government's website. On all ratings, "other adjustments are made to reflect the average fuel consumption of vehicle configurations, options and sales mixes sold in Canada," although it doesn't specify exactly what the adjustments are. The automaker submits the figures, and only if they seem truly out of whack does the government get involved in the procedure.

In any case, the automaker has to provide figures for both city and highway use. So on the city course, the test simulates a 12-kilometre, stop-and-go-trip, with an average speed of 32 km/h, and a top speed of 91 km/h. The test runs for 23 minutes and includes 18 stops, with about four minutes of that test time spent idling to represent waiting at traffic lights. The test begins from a cold engine start, similar to starting a vehicle after it has been parked overnight during the summer. When the test is completed, it's done again with a hot engine start, and the first eight minutes of the test are repeated, to simulating restarting a vehicle that has been warmed up, driven, and then stopped for a short time.

Now we're on to the highway, which simulates a 16-kilometre trip, with an average speed of 77 km/h, and a top speed of 97 km/h. The test begins from a hot engine start, and runs 31 minutes, with the speed varying to simulate different kinds of highway and rural roads.

There you have it: slightly over an hour for everything, at a top speed that is not even the posted maximum speed limit on a Canadian limited-access highway.

Remember that, all you readers who write in on a fairly regular basis to complain that my week-long, 200-km-or-so, real-world-driving fuel figure isn't "realistic." I'm already over the official tests long before I even get the car home.

The Volt: Look what it started

  Just a couple of weeks ago, General Motors unveiled the production model of the Chevrolet Volt, and now the floodgates have opened.

One of the three electric prototype models that Chrysler unveiled recently is an extended-range, meaning that, like the Volt, it runs on plug-in battery power and when that runs out, it goes to a gasoline engine that makes more electricity, rather than running the wheels itself. And at the Paris Motor Show today, Volvo announced that it will also have a similar vehicle, scheduled for production after 2012, which will run on battery power and then on gasoline to generate electricity.

So I wonder: did everyone have the same idea at the same time, or did automakers see the Volt concept unveiled in 2007, run to the drawing board, and then wait for the production model to be presented before making their own announcements? It sure seems odd that others are coming out with similar cars so quickly -- and very heartening, too.

I Am Curious (Electric)

  I saw the production Chevrolet Volt yesterday, just one of many plug-in electric or hybrid-electric vehicles that are being planned, from automakers including Nissan and Toyota.

The idea, the companies tell us, is that we'll be able to charge these electric vehicles during "off-peak" hours -- presumably in the evening -- when power requirements are low and prices go down.

But if we're all using air conditioning and lights and water heaters and electrical appliances during the day, and we've got several million electric vehicles all plugged in and charging once we go to bed at night ... then exactly when will "off-peak" be?

Chevrolet Volt: And the hits just keep on coming

  I was in Detroit for GM's hundred-year anniversary celebration, where the company rolled out the production version of the Volt. It's Chevrolet's extended-range electric car, which drivers will plug in to get a 40-mile range on battery power; if you need to go beyond that, there's a small gasoline engine that doesn't power the wheels, but runs the electric motor. GM first introduced it as a concept in 2007 and says it'll be built in November 2010.

The moment it rolled out on stage, the bloggers and the chat rooms exploded. And y'know, I'm no fan of corporations, but I have to admit that I feel for GM on this one. It seems that no matter what you do, you just can't make some people happy. Check out a few message boards and you'll see what I mean.

GM was castigated for dropping the EV1 program. People were furious that the company discontinued its electric car program. And now it's back with one, that addresses the EV1's drawback of range, and people still aren't happy.

The company did its research and found that the average American commuter trip is 40 miles. But if you go beyond that, there's a gas engine to get you a few hundred more miles, either to a wall socket or another gas station. And yet I've heard complaints of "but not everybody drives just 40 miles." Hit. Head. Here.

People complained that the Volt concept's styling was too "out there" to be taken seriously. So the company designs a more conventional (and to my eye, attractive) design, and people are complaining that it's too bland.

There are complaints about the price, even though GM hasn't yet said what it will cost. Yes, price will make or break this car. Do these people honestly think that the company doesn't know that?

And already I've heard complaints that it's an "untried technology". What, and the Prius and Insight were just new versions of hybrids that we'd been driving for the last 50 years? Yes, the battery is new, the system is new, the car is new. Perhaps these folks haven't realized that no matter what it is, from computers to refrigerators to ballpoint pens, somebody had to take a chance on the first ones.

What's wrong with the Volt that makes these people immediately hate it, even though it's been rolled out just once? Simple. It doesn't have Toyota on the nameplate.