Gas 2.0

40 mpg Chevy Sonic: If Joe Camel Were A Car
Petition to Bring Ford’s Global Diesel Ranger to America
GM is Getting Serious About CNG Fleet Vehicles
2011 Chicago Auto Show

40 mpg Chevy Sonic: If Joe Camel Were A Car

Posted: 10 Feb 2011 04:00 PM PST

There it is, this generation’s Joe Camel. Remember Joe Camel? If you’re over 30, you definitely remember the smooth-talking cartoon Camel that was RJ Reynolds’ mascot for Camel-brand cigarettes back in the 80′s and 90′s. Joe Camel was everywhere … until a federal court decided that you shouldn’t market products that may cause “serious injury, addiction, and death“.

Imagine my surprise, then, when Chevy’s product specialists (you can see them in the photo, above) told me who their new, interactive marketing program for the new-for-2012 Chevy Sonic was aimed at … any guesses?

If you guessed “13-18 year-olds” you nailed it.

That’s right: thirteen to eighteen year-old children are GM’s target audience at the 2011 Chicago Auto show, where kids are encouraged to “design a Sonic” using a touchscreen display and a selection of drag-and-drop graphics … which just happen to be available at the show (below) so young ~~Rembrandts~~ Xzibits can see their creations “IRL”.

As I’m listening to the GM reps tell me about “engaging” young audiences and getting them to “connect” with the car, it occurs to me that this shouldn’t be happening.

Think about it: The Chevy’ Sonic is a sounds like a solid car. It offers great gas mileage (over 40 mpg), respectable performance from a 1.4L turbocharged engine (138 hp, 18 more than Ford’s award-winning new Fiesta) and a close-ratio 6-speed manual that alone would have made it a “hot hatch” less than 20 years ago – all with modern safety (10 airbags!) and convenience features wrapped in an aggressive, sporty look. Also, Transformers. Can it really be that people don’t care about any of that?

If they did, I suspect GM wouldn’t need the graphics – which is too bad.

About this point in the article, however, I suspect that you’re beginning to ask yourself what all of this has to do with green cars. My answer? EVERYTHING.

See, despite the Volt and the excellent new CNG trucks and hybrid Buicks, GM is still a big, gasoline-burning dinosaur, and for every new Camaro or V8 Silverado Chevy sells, it needs to move one or 2 Sonics or Cruze Ecos, just to meet CAFE standards – but GM doesn’t WANT to build small, efficient, nimble little cars. GM wants to build profitable, cheap-to-build, low-tech “retro” cars and iron-block pickups that cost less to build than a Cruze, but can retail at 50-100% more.

Imagine a GM without CAFE, then ask yourself if they would ever build (or sell) a car like the Sonic.

They wouldn’t, I think. They wouldn’t build a Chevy Sonic, or buy a Chevy Sonic – and they can’t imagine anyone else would, either … so they market to kids, people who have little to no interest in cars these days. They market the idea of customizing a car mobile technology device, rather than the car itself, and it might be the best they can do.

Why do I say that? The GM reps I talked to, informally, said that the only groups of people who cared about cars anymore were the performance enthusiasts and the environmentalists. They were actively reaching out to kids in an effort to find someone (anyone) who they could convince to care about cars again.

Good luck, GM.

Source: 2011 Chicago Auto Show, GM.

Petition to Bring Ford’s Global Diesel Ranger to America

Posted: 10 Feb 2011 10:49 AM PST

The fuel efficiency of trucks big and small hasn't budged in 20 years. Ford is building a fuel-efficient diesel Ranger that can tow a train for the rest of the world, and we must convince them to bring it to America.

The Ford Ranger was first conceived in the mid-70's, as Ford and the rest of the Big Three worked to improve fuel efficiency as mandated by the U.S. government. The Ranger was designed to be economical, but with similar versatility compared to full-size, V8 pickups.

Get this. When the Ford Ranger first debuted in 1983, it could be had with a diesel engine, and in 1985 a turbodiesel engine. A '85 turbodiesel Ford Ranger with 2wd is rated by the EPA at 30 mpg (and once rated as high as 39 mpg highway before the new testing standards) and I've heard of people getting upwards of 45 mpg from gentle driving. That, my friends, was the high point, as oil prices eased and the diesel option was quietly discontinued. Since then, small truck fuel efficiency has been on a dramatic downward spiral.

The fact of the matter is, the Ford Ranger has not received a genuine update in almost 20 years, the last major "improvement" being the addition of the gutless, gas-guzzling 4.0 liter V6 engine (that was old even in the 90′s) as the top-end engine choice. Over the years, the Ford Ranger (like the F-150) has grown in size and weight without any serious improvements to the body or drivetrain. A 2011 Ford Ranger looks a lot like a 2000 Ford Ranger, which isn’t all that different from a 1994 Ford Ranger.

Sure, Ford toyed around with an EV Ranger, flex fuel, and even LPG models, but only because they had to. None of these models stuck around for long, and Ford has given the Ranger the same treatment it gave to the now-defunct Mercury brand. Offer the customers nothing new to differentiate it from other products in the lineup, and let sales of these aging vehicles slowly slide into oblivion. Then they have a great case for canceling the brand or model, and that's exactly what happened, as the Ford Ranger is on the chopping block with no replacement in sight as Ford focuses on full-size trucks.

Unless I am mistaken, the Ranger the only vehicle left in Ford’s lineup with the abysmal 4.0 liter V6 engine and and so-old-it-should-be-dead 2.3 liter four-cylinder engine…which was first developed for the Ford Pinto. Both of these engines have roots dating back forty years ago.

Ford isn't alone though. Both the Dodge Dakota and Chevy S10 offered awful gas mileage and meager towing/carrying capacities especially compared to the full-size trucks that were just a few thousand dollars more. As was the common theme during the early 2000's, people bought more truck than they needed, and wound up with a 100 mile commute in a vehicle that gets, at best, 10 mpg at highway speeds. This is why the Big Three claim the small truck market has all but disappeared, and really, it's their own doing as Toyota, Mitsubishi, and Nissan followed Detroit into small truck irrelevance.

Ford has already built the savior of the small truck market though, and it’s the new global Ford Ranger. This diesel pickup being marketed and sold in all the Blue Oval's other markets (188 other countries in total) except America. Ford claims it is because the new Ranger is only 10% smaller than the F-150, and it doesn't sell the F-150 anywhere else in the world. So what? This new Ranger has two diesel engine options; a 2.2 liter four-cylinder with 276 ft-lbs of torque, and a 3.2 five-cylinder with 346 ft-lbs of torque. For those keeping score at home, the bigger diesel engine is nearly as powerful as Ford's much-touted EcoBoost V6, but with one less cylinder and, in all likelihood, much better gas mileage. That’s enough torque to tow a train. Why can’t we have that?

Sorry Ford. I don't need your EcoBoost F-150. It's just too much truck for me, and quite frankly, 22 mpg on the highway ain't that impressive, especially considering what you are offering the rest of the world.

I want torque. I want fuel efficiency. I want towing and versatility and four-wheel drive, which is what I thought I'd get in the Mahindra diesel pickup from India. At the very least, just give me a small diesel engine as an option in the F-150, and I'll be one happy camper. Better yet, just bring the global Ranger to America. That's the shot in the arm the small truck market needs. If it doesn't sell well, you can always stop importing it, right? Give America the small diesel pickup we deserve, damnit.

If you agree with me, leave a comment down below, and get your friends to sign it too. This is a 1-in-1,000 shot here, but that doesn't mean it’s impossible. We have to show Ford, and the rest of the automakers, that there are people out there that want to buy a small, versatile, fuel efficient truck. Is that really so hard to believe?

Chris DeMorro is a writer and gearhead who loves all things automotive, from hybrids to HEMI’s. You can follow his slow descent into madness at Sublime Burnout.

GM is Getting Serious About CNG Fleet Vehicles

Posted: 10 Feb 2011 09:27 AM PST

What you see here is Chevy’s newly-available, 4-tank CNG commercial van. This was news last year, but despite that, this is the first one we’d seen “in the flesh”. So, when one of GM’s marketing reps realized we were ignoring the ZL1 Camaro launch (by which time we had – ahem – already gotten the hood up, pulled back the vinyl that was sealing off the filler cap, opened the back of the van, etc.) we asked questions.

Here are a few of the things we learned (in no particular order).

the Chevy Express CNG is the first CNG vehicle offered by GM to both fleet and individual customers. The CNG fueling system is, as of this year, uses a standard GM option code (FHZ).
the vans are available 2 ways: UFM and UFP. The UFM trucks use 3 fuel tanks which fit beneath the van’s cargo floor, which are fully contained within the vehicle’s steel frame rails. Trucks fitted with the UFM system are visually indistinguishable from their gas and diesel fueled siblings, and travel about 250 miles between fill-ups (equivalent to 16 mpg, per the GM rep). UFP trucks add a 4th fuel tank, which increases operational range by 100 miles, but occupies some floor space in the cargo bay (shown, below).
GM’s CNG vans (like the Chevy Volt electric car) are equipped with OnStar as standard equipment, in part to help alleviate what GM calls “range anxiety”, and in part because the CNG tanks displace the spare tire. GM hopes to side-step the “what happens if I get a flat?” question by giving prospective buyers the “we’ll send someone to help.” answer.
GM delivered 16,000 CNG Chevy Express and GMC Savana vans, last year, and has plans to begin offering CNG cab-and-chassis vehicles to construction crews, ambulance fleets, and RV manufacturers next year.
These are the only readily-available CNG commercial truck conversions on the market which are fully CARB approved, and which pass all government safety tests.
Carb certified these vans SULEV-ii, which is cleaner than Chevy’s own ~~Jesus Car~~ Volt.

For my part, I was most surprised by how invisible the whole system was. Save for the CNG fuel nozzle and a decal advertising Natural Drive under the hood (the aftermarket company that GM contracts the CNG fuel system assembly/installation to) there was absolutely nothing to indicate that this van produced nearly zero emissions while helping to reduce dependency on foreign oil … which, perhaps, is exactly what it will take to sell to the neophobic fleet market.

Sources: 2011 Chicago Auto Show, GM.

2011 Chicago Auto Show

Posted: 10 Feb 2011 07:57 AM PST

We just got back from this year’s Chicago Auto Show press days, and -despite the show being a bit “light” on green-car news, we got a few good pictures, a few good press releases, and even some good swag to show for the day spent in single-digit weather. Here’s a sneak-peek at my next few posts: