For the past few years, as hybrid electric/combustion engine cars have entered America's lexicon and driveways, the automotive press has generated reams of reportage on them. The hybrid idea crosses into politics in a way that other more "gearhead" oriented auto stories do not. Nevertheless, industry and the auto press have carefully danced around the most important aspect of hybrid drive. For the benefit of TPM readers, I'd like to give you something surprising to say about hybrids at your next cocktail party.

The number one hybrid car myth: "The hybrid drivetrain is the royal road to super high gas mileage." Yet that doesn't mean they're bad. They're great! Why does Liberal KingElvis speak such hybrid heresy?

The number one way to reduce fuel consumption is to reduce vehicle weight. Hybrid drive adds weight, because it requires heavy batteries, not to mention an additional motor. You want a 50mpg vehicle? They abound in Europe. They use pint sized diesel engines to get Prius type economy without dragging big batteries around. Furthermore, even large European cars use much smaller engines and have far less "reserve power" on tap than typical US cars. It's a truism of combustion engineering that engines are most efficient when running near the peak of their power output - at least in terms of power/gallon.

In fact, the idea of hybrid drive has been around at least since the 1960s, but hasn't caught on where fuel thrift is the primary concern. Don't take my word for it either. None other than efficiency guru Amory Lovins of the Rocky Mountain Institute will tell you the same thing. He has said over and over that his concept of a super high mileage "hyper car" is about using ultra light carbon fiber construction rather than steel. The drivetrain is a secondary consideration - vehicle weight is primary. He doesn't much care if it's hybrid or fuel cell, though, hydrogen fits in with his vision of a total switchover from oil to a hydrogen based economy. Yet I think he will tell you that unless weight is reduced, you'll just be using more fuel, whether gasoline or hydrogen. 

Hybrid drive is complex and expensive. Even with $3 gasoline you have to drive the car for 5 or 6 years to get the fuel savings to compensate. Now should you be "anti hybrid?" Hell no! Here's the rub about the hybrid question. It has to do with the inborn, inherent quality of automotive "aesthetics" more than any of the allegedly rational arguments like energy autarchy, foreign policy or global warming.

The Theory of the Aesthetic of Automotive Excess:

We have always associated fuel economy with tiny, spartan, low priced cars. They use the least materials possible and have not just the lightest weight, but the least "reserve power." The more expensive vehicles are not only bigger, but faster, despite increased weight over economy models, because makers install a massive engine with loads of "reserve power." It's not necessary that you use the power, but you, and more importantly, that Milquetoast liberal next door, "know it's there." In fact, there is less and less "utility" in the extra horsepower as you spend more and more on it, because once you go past 220hp or so, where the hell are you going to use it without ending up in jail? The point is that the extra power is mostly ornamental - not "utilitarian." Remember that peak power/gallon is when the engine runs near peak RPM. So the bigshot in the 500hp M5 BMW is doubly wasteful - most of the time he is demanding the same power as us mortals, but that engine is particulary wasteful in delivering the relatively low power needed in mundane traffic driving.

OK. This is the part where I tell you what is the best kept secret in auto journalism: The "hybrid question" is being posed in exactly the wrong way. It's literally 180 degrees wrong. Why? "Liberals" should be talking about "gas mileage equallity" rather than consumerism. Liberals should be making demands on the rich, not shouldering the load by "choice." That argument frame plays right into the hands of the right wing! Should a small minority of "nice" people "choose" to avoid global warming, while the immoral majority can "choose" to go to hell in a hand basket?

Since at least 1990, there has been a backlash against the "Corporate Average Fuel Economy" NHTSA regime, despite its stellar success in lowering the growth rate of US oil consumption. Some interest groups allied to Bush senior and the auto companies framed the criticism that CAFE defied that all important totem pole of 'Merikun civilisation: "Consumer Choice." CAFE was outlawing rich people's cars! 

Hybrid drive gets rid of the "Consumer Choice" rationale that has frozen CAFE increases for nearly twenty years now, and auto companies as well as auto magazines have carefully avoided mentioning that. 

Hybrid drive is great at providing vast "reserve power" because you have two power sources rather than just one. Electric motors are uniquely suited to intermittent lead-footing you associate with that asinine jerk blasting around you in traffic, because peak power comes at low electric motor rpm. You get 'instant' power, whereas even Mr. Richy McJerk's M5 requires the engine be revved to the stratosphere to get that 500hp. The rich 'n jerky can then recover some of that battery power used in blasting away from the green light when they invariably jam on the brakes at the red light, since the electric motor becomes a generator and converts the vehicle's kinetic energy into electrical current.

Most importantly, hybrid drive's extra weight and expense doesn't make any sense on a cheap, small, economy car, but on big and expensive models, it becomes a small fraction of the price of the vehicle. 

Complexity itself is a virtue in the realm of "conspicuous consumption," so all that extra stuff under the hood becomes another emblem of automotive status - like having a supercharger or an 8 speed transmission. Also, more expensive materials like aluminum or the carbon fiber favored by Amory Lovins can boost performance and gas mileage by lowering weight, but they would be too expensive to employ on cheap models.   

The question of whether or not to buy a hybrid has been framed as a "moral" one. In fact, one "consumer" cannot have any leverage whatsoever on global events. To believe so borders on hyper delusion. But then again, it plugs perfectly into the biggest myth in America: "Individualism." Even if you want to make it "personal" the cliche of the hybrid driver should be the exact opposite of what it is now.

"Hybrid cars: perfect for rich, selfish jerks who drive like maniacs." 

We should recoil at token measures like tax credits for hybrids. Instead, the focus should once again return to constant, gradual increases in the boring but effective "CAFE" regime. By getting rid of loopholes for SUVs, the market for hybrid drive will take care of itself. Rich, selfish jerks will be forced to buy hybrid drive to maintain their addiction to "reserve power," and most importantly, everyone will be required to help in this noble project of reducing energy consumption.   

General Motors is heralding the arrival of two hybrid drive SUVs at the Chicago Auto show. Even their 3 ton, 300hp morbidly obese Chevrolet Tahoe SUV will allegedly have a 25mpg average EPA rating. So why did GM blow tens of millions of dollars lobbying AGAINST a Corporate Average Fuel Economy boost suggested in Congress in 2003?

Much wiser men than KingElvis have pondered why GM engages in seemingly bizarre and irrational behavior. Look at it: they're the first to market with a honkin' big hybrid SUV, and would be perfectly poised to catch Ford and Chrysler with their SUV pants down. Had GM supported a CAFE boost they could have bragged that their SUV gave up nothing in size and power, while the other makers would have had to decrease power, use diesel engines or (the HORROR!) make them a little smaller and lighter. Remember, the 25mpg figure is the average rating. That's damn good - better than KingElvis gets in his pride and joy, a Mustang GT (17city/25hwy) with a measly 21mpg average. (Don't ask me about "real world" mileage - that's for another blog entry). Even then the Mustang doesn't qualify for a "guzzler" tax and that's in the "passenger car" universe where the fleet has to average 27.5mpg. "Light Trucks" with their famous CAFE loophole are presently going up to a still lousy 22.5mpg. But why not just have one "car" standard if even a giant hybrid SUV can get "car" mileage?

The answer my friends is not blowin' in the wind. It's in my first TPM blog entry. You can get a summary of KE's famous theory of "The Aesthetic of Automotive Excess," for the particulars. Basically, GM want's to hang on to the idea that the problem of national oil dependency/terrorism/global warming, etc is one that can be solved through "consumer choice" and "individualism." Toyota and Honda are doing the same thing in their hybrid marketing. But the idea of a tiny minority of virtuous and big hearted TPM types saving the world by driving cars that get 44mpg instead of 32mpg is, to be polite, horsepoop! Makes The King feel like shootin' the TV when he sees those ads! Does the individualism/consumer paradigm of the global survival of humanity also mean jerks and dumbies can "choose" oil addiction or even apocalypse?

Another reason GM doesn't advocate getting rid of the SUV loophole, despite offering a giant sized SUV that has a higher average than many "passenger cars," is a little more mundane. By selling the hybrid SUV, and more importanly the "Greenline" Saturn soft roader SUV, they will be able to sell more dreadnaught fuel swillers, because the high hybrid numbers will balance out the mega-monster guzzlers.

Let's say the glass is half full with this latest hybrid news, but Elvis knows his 'rithmetic:  full is twice as good. It's not too much to ask "light truck" buyers to contribute to this whole save America project. It's literally the least they could do to help reduce oil consumption: being "forced" to buy a hybrid drive king size SUV. That would happen if we got rid of the light truck CAFE loophole. Now GM has proven hybrid drive can make even massive trucks get "car" gas mileage - too bad they'll apparently just be used to balance out the sales of even more super sized non-hybrid guzzlers.

Here's the press release. Incidentally, if you've got corporate tattoos, is that really rock 'n roll?  

 General Motors Press Conference



Declaring that “we’re in the hybrid game,” officials for General Motors Corp. unveiled two gasoline-electric hybrid SUVs.


The two SUVs will go on sale in the U.S. in each of the next two model years. And the giant automaker promised more hybrids “in every market segment” will come by the end of the decade, including a hybrid version of its Cadillac Escalade by calendar 2008.


GM’s Tom Stephens, group vice president of powertrains, said consumers can expect a 20 percent improvement in fuel economy from the two initial hybrid vehicles—the 2007 Saturn Vue Green Line and the 2008 Chevrolet Tahoe SUVs—over comparable gas-only models.


The Saturn Vue Green Line hybrid will be in showrooms this summer with a starting manufacturer’s suggested retail price of less than $23,000. This is some $4,000 less than the current lowest-priced hybrid SUV, the 2006 Ford Escape Hybrid.


Saturn General Manager Jill Lajdziak estimated fuel economy of the Saturn Vue Green Line of 27 miles a gallon in city driving and 32 mpg on the highway, which compares with 22/27 mpg in a gas-only four-cylinder two-wheel-drive Vue with automatic transmission. The hybrid Vue has front-wheel drive only.


But the Saturn Vue Green Line system operates a bit differently than the Ford Escape Hybrid, as well as hybrids from Toyota.


Different Hybrid Technology
While the Vue uses an electric motor and nickel-metal hydride battery pack to supplement a 2.4-liter Ecotec four-cylinder engine with 170 horsepower, the Vue cannot run beyond a few seconds solely on electric power. The Ford and Toyota Hybrids can run for extended periods on electric power.


Rather, the Vue’s hybrid system is designed to supplement the gas engine, via extra launch power as a driver starts up from a stop, as well as via additional power for passing maneuvers.


The Vue does save gas by turning off the gasoline engine when the vehicle comes to a stop, say at a stoplight. The engine starts automatically when the driver lets up on the brake pedal.


GM officials have called the Vue system a simpler hybrid technology than that of competitors like Toyota. As a result, the Vue system adds about $1,500 to the price of the vehicle vis-à-vis the $3,000-plus cost for the more complicated Hybrid Synergy System of Toyota, they said.


But consumers should note that there’s no gauge or information display in the Vue to tell drivers exactly what fuel mileage they’re getting. GM engineers said the Vue electronic architecture does not support that kind of calculation. Vue hybrid owners can calculate their mileage on their own after each gasoline fill-up, they said.


Full-Size Hybrid SUVs
The second hybrid SUV from GM, the 2008 Chevrolet Tahoe, has a more robust hybrid system that does allow the vehicle to operate solely on electric power, when possible.


When it debuts in about a year and a half, the Tahoe Hybrid and its twin, GMC Yukon Hybrid full-size SUVs will become the largest hybrid vehicles on the market.


“Our hybrid strategy will not be confined to small cars,” said Mark LaNeve, vice president of sales, service and marketing at GM. He added that prices won’t be announced until closer to the on-sale date next year.


The Tahoe’s Vortec V8, with automatic cylinder shutdown, will be mated to an electric motor to produce a 25 percent fuel economy improvement, officials said.


After the hybrid press conference, GM invited media to an event at the Cadillac display, where the 2007 Escalade was unveiled amid a party during which Travis Barker, drummer for the band Blink 182, entertained. Barker, who stars on the MTV show Meet the Barkers is an Escalade fan. He owns three of the big SUVs and has Cadillac tattoo artwork on his body.