It's chilly out here, and deception

I'm sitting on my back patio, and it's chilly out here! The thermometer on the back porch says 53, so maybe it's not that cold, but it sure feels cold - guess it's the relative temperature drop from the summer that's fading into memory. At least I've got my laptop to keep my lap warm... wonder if I could create a device to pump the fan exhaust around my head to keep my ears warm? Oh, and I can see my breath, the moisture from the warm air inside my body condensing as it hits the cool night air.

I just wish the street light up the hill behind my house wasn't there. (I know, I know, get a .22.)

OK, it's too chilly for me now (I'm adding this sentence about halfway through the next section); going inside!

Out of curiosity, what would you consider "false advertising" when it comes to a car dealer? For instance, if they list the MSRP on their web site for a vehicle, wouldn't you consider it false advertising if the Manufacturer's Suggested Retail Price, according to the window sticker on the vehicle, is actually a much lower price? Consider, for instance, this car, at a local car dealer:

Ford Fiesta at Chuck Stevens Ford 

According to that page, the "MSRP" is "$20,780" and the "Internet Price" is "$19,280" (and you can send them contact info to get "Chuck's price" which, I would assume, is even lower).

And yet, if you look at the window sticker from Ford (note: the following link will open a PDF of the window sticker from Ford; some browsers may prompt you to download it):

Ford Fiesta Window Sticker (direct from Ford)

Um, Chuck, the MSRP - from the manufacturer - is "$17,285."

Did I miss something? Chuck's "Internet Price" - showing you saving "$1,500 off MSRP" - is actually about two grand higher than the official MSRP from Ford. What's up with that? Now, don't get me wrong, Chuck Stevens is legally able to charge any value they can get for the car (within certain consumer protection provisions, of course - they can't scam you for extra, for instance). But, wait, this seems like a scam. Why are they posting "MSRP" that is, oh, $3,500 more than the MSRP on the official, manufacturer's window sticker?

And it's not just this one car. I actually chatted with one of their "internet sales reps" a few months about about this when I noticed it was the case on all the Mustangs on their lot, that the "advertised" MSRP was well inflated above the MSRP on the Ford window sticker. "Oh, that's a clerical error, we'll get it fixed." It was never fixed, and it was apparently a "clerical error" on every car they had on the lot (at least all the ones I looked at).

Here we are, a few months later, and all the new Mustangs on their lot once again have inflated MSRPs on their web site. And, again, not just Mustangs, but every vehicle I've looked at on their web inventory. Again I chatted the internet sales rep, a different one (the internet sales manager, actually), and she had no explanation, but "will look into it." When I said, "Honestly, it looks like deceptive sales tactics" - well, she didn't close the chat, but never replied after that.

If it's something that they've added, dealer markup, various "dealer add ons," etc., that's fine - but that's not MSRP. Maybe "DSRP" - "Dealer's Suggested Retail Price." But there's nothing on the web site of the vehicle to indicate why the listed "MSRP" is way more than the one that Ford - the manufacturer - put on the window.

So, what say you? Is it "false advertising"?

Note: Chuck Stevens has multiple brands - I have not attempted to check whether their other lines follow a similar deceptive advertising policy; I don't even know if you can get to the window sticker of other brands online like you can with Fords.

Interesting Alfa Romeos for sale

I apologize to my regular readers who have no interest in automobiles (other than transportation factors). You may stop reading now and return next time for something more interesting. To those car-head readers, or any Alfisti (Alfa Romeo enthusiasts) out there, please read on!

There's a dealer (Classic Cars of Plano) in Texas with some interesting Alfa Romeos for sale.  I say interesting, because they were never actually for sale in the US originally (and they both have speedometers marked in "KPH" - not "MPH").

• 1993 Alfa Romeo 155 2.0TD (yes, a turbo diesel!) - it has a Texas title and is advertised cheaper on Craigslist here
• 1993 Alfa Romeo Tipo 33 - this one's oddly titled, not sure if it would be an issue with your DMV

If you happen to buy one (or both!) of these, and live anywhere near the Mobile/Pensacola area, please let me know - I'd love to come take a look (or a spin, if you're so inclined). I'd consider buying them myself, but there are other things that are of more importance right now (reliable transportation, college tuition for the kids, etc.).

You will save money!

Just thought I'd let you know: you're going to save money. On fuel. Check it out:

Obama's Historic 54.5 mpg Fuel Efficiency Standard

That's right: automakers are going to have to increase fuel efficiency of their fleets, and that is going to save you money at the pump.  I haven't quite figured out how the increase in efficiency of cars I don't own is going to save me money, but according to the article, the agreement for model years 2012-2016 (35.5 mpg) will start saving families money at the pump this year.  Cool, huh?

These new standards will also "spur economic growth" - you know, by ... well, I'm not really sure.  Reducing income of oil companies.  Increasing income of automotive manufacturers (since you'll have to pay for all that fancy engineering to double the average fuel economy of vehicles in a decade and a half).

EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson said, “American consumers are calling for cleaner cars that won’t pollute their air or break their budgets at the gas pump, and our innovative American automakers are responding with plans for some of the most fuel efficient vehicles in our history.”

So, we'll have more fuel efficient (and more expensive because of all the engineering and R&D and technological advances that went into making them more efficient) vehicles, vehicles that you'll have to go out and buy (all the while taking a loss on the depreciation of the car you currently own), and will be more than making up for the savings at the pump by the increased monthly payment of your vehicle.  (Maybe this is really just a government scam to try to get GM stock up to where the gov't can sell it off and recoup the money they put into saving the company?)

Here's something else they should think about: ethanol vs. gasoline. Ethanol is not as efficient as gasoline. (Do your own research, but I'll give some links to get you started later.)  E10 (10% ethanol) is generally 3-4% less efficient than 100% gasoline, while E85 (85% ethanol) is 25-30% less efficient.  Now, recently, ethanol blends are slightly cheaper than "real" gasoline, which helps offset the reduced efficiency when looking at "cost per mile" - but this doesn't take into account the reduced efficiency from increased fueling frequency (say you're on an interstate trip - every time you stop for fuel, you're typically reducing your efficiency because of the energy spent in heating the brakes while slowing, excess energy spent to accelerate to interstate speeds vs. the amount of energy spent maintaining that speed, etc.).  However, engineering engines to run on various fuel sources, vs. optimizing for a particular fuel source, that's going to bring compromises all around.

Anyway, back to the original point: requiring increased MPG ratings for a fleet will have an effect on purchasers of the new cars only. There are somewhere north of 250 million passenger vehicles registered in the US, and of those, only 13.5% were less than two years old. So, of those 250 million vehicles, about 34 million are "new" vehicles and will get the fuel savings. And who will save? Those families that can afford to get a new car. How's that for ironic? If you can afford a new car, you will get to save money on fuel! If you can't afford a new car, you get to plod along at your old car's MPG rating, and likely losing money at the pump as the auto makers have to design to new regulations and MPG standards and take advantage of every possible trick to increase MPG, all the while "reduce dependence on foreign oil" pushes more and more ethanol out of the fuel nozzle (and into either your new car designed to run more efficiently on ethanol, or your old gas-burner that will be getting less and less MPG from the fuel that's offered to you, all the while the gov't quietly fails to tell you - other than a sticker on the pump - what you're putting into your car, and those stickers do not mention the reduced efficiency of the fuel in your designed-for-gasoline engine).

Well, that's enough encouragement for one day.  Here are some links if you want to start looking at ethanol vs. gasoline efficiency:

• American Coalition for Ethanol fuel economy study (pdf) - note: this one may be slightly biased toward the ethanol side, based on the source :)
• What About Ethanol MPG? Tech Tidbits (Road & Track)
• E85 vs Gasoline Test in a Suburban -  this article notes that currently ethanol production is subsidized by the government - if unsubsidized, ethanol prices at the pump (E85) would increase by about 51 cents/gallon (this may be one reason for the price swap in the next link)
• Nebraska Ethanol vs. Unleaded Gasoline Rack Prices - note that until recently, ethanol was significantly higher priced than gasoline (per this chart, which I've included because it goes through 2010, vs another chart I found that only goes through 2007); there are obviously many factors involved in the pricing, but government subsidization of ethanol production may be one influencing factor in ethanol's recent price falling at or below the price of gasoline - they want to make ethanol seem like a viable fuel source, so have adjusted the price to make it more consumer friendly

OK, I'm out of here... enough gloom and doom for one post!

Infrastructure

Gas. That's the primary infrastructure of the American traveling public.  There are gas stations just about everywhere (except at that exit you're about to pass when you really need to stop to unload some liquid instead of loading some).  What don't we have at every corner?  LPG stations (you know for LPG-powered vehicles).  Hydrogen stations (for liquid hydrogen powered vehicles, whether it's a hydrogen burning engine or a hydrogen fuel cell to create electricity from the hydrogen to power an electric motor).  240-volt quick-charging stations (for purely electric vehicles).  Granted, these technologies may be coming (or, then again, they may not be).  And there's still expense related to these types of vehicles (e.g., the Chevy Volt is much more expensive than the Chevy Cruze Eco - and the Cruze Eco actually has a higher EPA highway mileage rating!).

So, what are we to do?  Wait?  Come on, we're American, we have no patience for that!

But wait, there's something else... something that has a decent infrastructure in place already.  Something a little more closely related to gasoline: diesel.  Typically at any given "fueling location" (that is, a place with multiple gas stations) there's at least one station which sells diesel fuel.  Now, currently, we only really have the VW diesels: the TDIs (Golf, Jetta, and Passat).  (Note: I know we have plenty of large truck diesels, but I'm talking about fuel-efficient commuter cars.)  Granted, there are some BMWs, but they're more on the luxury end of the market.  Why do I mention this?  Because I think we're missing out.

Generations of Americans have been spoiled by relatively low fuel prices.  Horsepower has been the ruling stat in American vehicles, and diesel engines just don't put out the horsepower of their gasoline counterparts.  Fuel economy might be better, but most people weren't concerned about that "MPG" stat, instead looking at the "HP" number and 0-60 times from magazines and (later) web sites.  Diesel engines?  Those were the noisy, stinky, black-smoke-belching engines found in semis, some pickup trucks, and old, slow Mercedes.

Or are they?

Consider the Mini Cooper D (not available in the US): 0-60 in 8.9 seconds, 41mpg over the course of Car & Driver's two-week test, and "the sporty and fun driving experience we’re used to in gas-fired versions" - while beating the 30 and 23 mpg averages that C&D experience in regular and S model Coopers.  (Note: the Mini diesel does not meet American emission standards, so would require some reworking to be sold here.)  Similarly, the Fiat 500 diesel gets 56 mpg on the EU combined cycle.  It's only a bit over a second slower to 60 than the gas-powered 500.

So, why don't we have some of these diesels in the US?  Probably perception: they won't be "accepted" by US buyers, so going through the trouble of certifying them for American standards would seem to be a wasted expense.  But VW's TDIs seem to sell pretty well, and with current gas prices, I think more people might be interested in the diesels than most marketing types would guess.

Besides the efficiency improvements, there are some other advantages to diesels.  One is torque: because of the difference in the operating characteristics, diesel engines are much torquier than their gasoline counterparts.  For instance, that Mini diesel puts out as much torque as the much-higher-horsepower Cooper S model, and the Fiat 1.3 diesel puts out about 50% more torque than the 1.4 gas engine.  Torque is what you "feel" when accelerating - that's why a good ol' V8 engine "feels" so good and powerful.  They (diesels) won't rev as high as a gas engine, which is why they don't produce as much horsepower, but in most driving scenarios (other than running 0-60 or a 1/4-mile on a drag strip), the torque advantage more than offsets any lack of high-end power.  Diesels also generally are longer-lasting engines - they are built stronger (they have to be to withstand the diesel operating characteristics), and generally have fewer things to go wrong (e.g., no spark plugs or ignition system).

And, of course, there's that improved fuel economy.

I really hope that small diesels make their way into the US.  Mini, Fiat, even GM has some small diesels (initially engineered in conjunction with Fiat) that they could put into the Sonic line of cars (among others).  Small, light-weight, great-handling, "fun" little cars, with torquey diesel engines that get awesome mileage (even if they're slower on a drag strip than their gasoline-powered brethren) - that's what I'd like to see, and I think they may be more popular than some automotive executives might think, especially if advertised correctly.  And, the more they sell, the more word-of-mouth advertising will get around, improving the reputation of "little diesels" even more.