California: ACLU sues LAPD and Sheriff’s Department over license plate scanners
Both the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department and the Los Angeles Police Department have become big fans of cameras that capture license plate numbers and check them against information in registration and criminal databases. Authorities tout how the information helps find stolen cars and help solve investigations, but the American Civil Liberties Union has an issue with the police holding onto the plate images of innocent people.

North Carolina: Court costs – where your fine from speeding tickets really goes
Many drivers know it’s the court costs that will really ding you, typically tacking on almost 200 dollars to your initial speeding fine. You may be surprised to learn hardly any of the “court costs” actually make it back to the courts. The vast majority of the court cost money actually goes straight to the state’s general fund.

Florida: Shortened yellow lights lead to more tickets
A subtle, but significant tweak to Florida’s rules regarding traffic signals has allowed local cities and counties to shorten yellow light intervals, resulting in millions of dollars in additional red-light camera fines.

Illinois: Proof lacking red-light cameras installed at most dangerous intersections
The Chicago Inspector General’s Office said in an audit summary Tuesday that the Chicago Department of Transportation cannot prove it installed red-light cameras on the city’s most crash-prone intersections as promised. The audit suggests CDOT should implement and follow “clear” criteria for choosing red-light camera placement and keep records on the decisions and basis for each location.

Minnesota: What metro area city tickets speeders more than others?
On average, nearly 120,000 people are ticketed for speeding in the seven-county metro area each year. We spent months crunching the numbers and discovered your chance of getting caught varies greatly from city to city.

New Jersey: Bill would make it easier to reduce speed limits to 15 mph
A bill penned by Burlington County legislator Scott Rudder and Assemblywoman Celeste Riley would require the New Jersey Department of Transportation to reduce the speed limit on qualified local roads from 25 mph to 15 or 20 mph if a community association or majority of the residents in a neighborhood request it. The bill would apply only to access streets within residential neighborhoods where the majority of streets do not have sidewalks.

New Jersey: Coming soon to the skies near you
It sounds like something dreamed up for “The Jetsons” — flying vehicles flitting through the skies, transporting everything from medical devices to Chinese food, no pilot required. But in two years, New Jerseyans may see these airborne robots soaring above them on the Turnpike, a cause of concern for some and a source of wonder for others.

To see more stories like the ones above, check out our NMA Driving News site. Each weekday we update the site with news stories that are interesting and/or informative for drivers like you.

• Driving News Roundup: February 15, 2013
• Driving News Roundup: November 9, 2012
• Driving News Roundup: January 18, 2013
• Driving News Roundup: December 14, 2012
• Driving News Roundup: March 29, 2013

By Eric Peters, Automotive Columnist

Cue ’80s-era Queen… another one bites the dust.

Another V-6, that is.

The 2014 Mazda6 — all-new — is now also four-cylinder-only.

The good news is the new “SkyActiv-G” four is stronger than the old four — 184 hp vs. 170 last year. It is also a much peppier performer (0-60 in about 7.5 seconds vs. over 9 last year) in part because the new 6 is about 100 pounds lighter than the old 6. The new four-cylinder-only 6 is also much more fuel efficient: 26 city/38 highway vs 21 city, 30 highway last year.

Even better news: A “SkyActiv-D” 2.2 liter turbo-diesel — and 40-plus MPG — is on deck for the 6 later in the model year. Reportedly, the diesel-powered 6 will also be quicker than the gas-engined 6. Look out, VW Passat TDI.

The bad news is the diesel won’t be available for awhile. Also, there is a gorgeous wagon version of the new 6 that won’t be sold here. It’s an export-market only deal — because Mazda believes not enough Americans are interested in sportwagons.

Sigh.

And no more 272 hp. So, no more low six-second to 60 runs. The formerly available 3.7 liter V-6 was just too thirsty (18 city, 27 highway) for current — and pending — political realities. In two model years (2016) all new cars will have to average 35.5 MPG, courtesy of Uncle Sam’s edicts — or saddle their manufacturers — and thus, buyers — with onerous gas guzzler taxes.

So, sayonara to the V-6.

Still, Mazda has done more than put lipstick on a pig by making the 2014′s four better than last year’s four.

Let’s get into that now.

WHAT IT IS

The 6 is Mazda’s Altima-Fusion-Optima fighter, with the chief difference between it and them being efficient sportiness. It no longer offers a powerful but consumptive V-6 engine, but it does offer a highly fuel-efficient four cylinder engine — with an even more fuel efficient (and sportier) turbo-diesel engine on deck.

Prices for the 2014 model start at $20,880 for the base trim iSport — vs. $21,900 for a base Ford Fusion, $21,760 for the base-model Nissan Altima, $21,680 for a base Honda Accord sedan and $21,200 for the base Kia Optima.

A top-of-the-line i Grand Touring lists for $29,495 — vs. $30,200 for a top-of-the-line Fusion Titanium, $30,560 for a V-6 Altima SL, $33,430 for an Accord Touring w/V-6 and $26,800 for the turbocharged Kia Optima SX (the deal of the bunch).

The pending SkyActiv diesel version of the new 6 will directly challenge the efficiency hegemony of the VW Passat TDI — which lists for $26,225.

At the time of this review, Mazda had not released any details about what the price of a Sky-D equipped 6 might be. If it’s significantly less than the $26k VW is asking for the TDI Passat, it’s going to get very interesting.

WHAT’S NEW

The 2014 Mazda6 is all-new, a complete redesign.

WHAT’S GOOD

Arguably one of the best-looking cars in this class — and for this coin.

Supple, quiet ride.

New four delivers much better power/performance than the old four — and very good gas mileage.

Pending diesel engine will give the 6 better performance — and close to hybrid-car fuel efficiency.

WHAT’S NOT SO GOOD

New four maxxes out at 184 hp — which looks a bit weak relative to several competitors’ available 250-plus hp V-6s (and turbo fours).

SkyActiv diesel engine should be on the menu now — not later.

No wagon for us.

UNDER THE HOOD

As mentioned above, the 2014 6 has lost its formerly optional V-6 and — for the first few months of its life — will be available only with a 2.5 liter gas-burning four. It’s the same size as before, but Mazda has tweaked and tuned it to get 184 hp (and 185 lbs.-ft. of torque) out of it as opposed to 170 hp (and 167 lbs.-ft. of torque) last year.

The object appears to have been to bridge the gap between last year’s too-weak/too-slow base-engined 6 — and the too-thirsty V-6 that was optional but which one almost had to buy because the base four (in the old 6) wasn’t getting it done, performance-wise.

Or even efficiency-wise.

The updated four in the new 6 rates a very solid 26 city/38 highway — and gets the car to 60 in 7.5-7.6 seconds, depending on the transmission: your choice of six speed manual or six-speed automatic. This is a big improvement over the old four-cylinder 6′s glacial 9 second run — and not-so-hot 21 city, 30 highway EPA mileage stats.

It’s also only about a second or so off the pace of last year’s 6 with its optional V-6 — and more important, very competitive with the performance of base-engined versions of cars like the Ford Fusion — which takes more than 9 seconds to reach 60 with its standard-issue 2.5 liter, 175 hp four — or the base-engined Kia Optima, which also needs about 9 seconds to reach 60.

The Sky-G Mazda also beats the base-engined (2.5 liters, 182 hp) Nissan Altima, which takes about 7.8 seconds to get to 60.

In fact, the only competitor that’s as quick as the new 6 in base-engined form is the just-updated Accord, which gets there in the same 7.5 second range (and also rates a very respectable 27 city, 36 highway).

But there will inevitably be comparisons between the power/performance offered by the new 6 — which is after all, a sporty-minded car — and sporty-minded competitors like the Optima and Accord, Altima and Fusion when fitted with their much stronger optional engines . . . which Mazda hasn’t got an answer for at the moment.

The Fusion, for instance, has also nixed its six — it only comes with fours now. But you can upgrade from the gimpy 175 hp engine to a turbo 2.0 engine that makes 240 hp and cuts the 0-60 time down to 6.8-6.9 seconds. So equipped, the Fusion still gets decent gas mileage, too: 22 city, 33 highway.

The Kia Optima can be equipped with a 274 hp turbo 2.0 four that beats the turbo Fusion — and runs circles around the 6 — with a 6.5 second to 60 posting. It also carries a very impressive (given the power/performance) EPA fuel efficiency rating of 22 city, 34 highway.

And models like the Honda Accord and Nissan Altima (and some others, including the Toyota Camry) still offer very potent V-6 engines. In the case of the Accord, a 278 hp 3.5 liter V-6 that rockets this car to 60 in six seconds flat. It’s not a hog, either: EPA says 21 city, 34 highway — which isn’t at all that far behind the Mazda’s 26 city, 38 highway.

But, Mazda’s got a one-up: That 2.2 liter SkyActiv-D turbo-diesel that’s in the works for later in the model year. It will — reportedly — provide better acceleration than the current 2.5 liter gas engine in addition to better fuel economy (more than 40 MPG on the highway and probably 30 or better in city driving).

Unfortunately for Mazda buyers, the Sky-D diesel engine will not be available in the 6 until sometime next calendar year.

That is, 2014.

We’re still only about a third of the way through 2013. The risk Mazda runs is that the newness halo of the “2014″ 6 may have waned by the time we actually get to 2014.

ON THE ROAD

The Sky-G engine is a very torquey, quiet and smooth powerplant. The nearly 20 lbs.-ft. bump in output is particularly relevant insofar as how the car pulls. Not only is there more torque than last year, it’s available almost 800 RPM sooner — at 3,250 revs vs. the old non-Sky-G four’s 167 lbs.-ft at 4,000.

However . . . today’s four cylinder engines have the same issue to overcome that modern diesel engines have had to overcome. The perception issue — based on what these engines were like 20 or 30 years ago. Back then, diesels were slow — and smelly.

They are neither today.

Similarly, wonders have been worked with today’s small-displacement (and non-turbo) gas engines. The Sky-G’s 184 hp out of 2.5 liters is more hp than was being pulled out of bigger sixxes just 10 or 15 years ago — and more than some V-8s were making 25 years ago.

If you were to tele-port a new Mazda6 back to the early Reagan years, you’d find yourself keeping up with Corvettes — no, really — and obliterating the typical family sedans of that era. A mid seven second 0-60 run circa 1983 would have been smiled upon as extremely speedy. And from a car capable of averaging 34.2 MPG (as I did, during my week-long test drive). . . ?

Are you kidding me? Where do I sign up?

So there’s that.

Still, many people regard fours — especially if they’re not turbocharged fours — as fundamentally economy car engines. This is ok if the car is an economy car. But the 6 isn’t primarily — or even secondarily — an economy car. It is primarily a sporty car. People who shop sporty cars expect things to happen when they push down on the gas pedal.

Good gas mileage is desirable, certainly. But it’s not everything. Maybe it is for the government control freaks who keep insisting on ratcheting it ever upward by legislative fiat — and to the exclusion of almost every other consideration. But consumers may have different needs and wants.

This is the crux of the dilemma.

A mid seven seconds to 60 run isn’t slow.

However, is it quick enough? Relative to what the competition offers?

If the 6 still had its optional V-6 (or could be ordered with the pending but not-yet-here turbo-diesel four) the performance uptick achieved by the base four would be hailed as exemplary.

It is certainly no longer necessary to upgrade to get adequate performance — as it arguably was last model year. “Adequate” being defined as guts enough to achieve freeway-matching speed from merge ramps and so forth sufficiently quickly such that you don’t feel as though you’re driving an overloaded Geo Metro.

You will never feel this way driving the new four-cylinder 6.

Unless, of course, you square off against a V-6 Accord or Altima — or the turbo’d versions of the Fusion and Optima.

And therein lies the rub.

If the diesel SkyActiv engine gets the 6 to 60 in seven seconds or close to that — while delivering 40-plus MPG — this rub will be salved. Such performance — and economy — would be very appealing. So why — why — is Mazda sitting on the diesel? It’s a potential war-winner, right up there with the Germans’ WWII-era Arado AR234 jet bomber. Which the idiot Nazis could have mass produced as early as ’43 but which they didn’t get into front-line service until it was already far too late to do them much good.

The diesel dallying makes me angry, because the new 6 is a damn nice car — and deserves to go to the front lines with a full kit.

The ride/handling of this car is just excellent. Plush — and firm. It sounds like a contradiction in terms, I know. But go for a drive. You will find the suspension’s dampening ability phenomenal. Luxury — and sport — in the same car. If the road dips — or a pothole drops a wheel — the driver (and passengers) will hardly know it. Perhaps this is due to the new car’s longer wheelbase — now 111.4 inches vs. 109.8 for the old model. But Mazda deserves credit for doing more than just stretching the chassis. This car modulates itself to accommodate imperfections in the road with impressive subtlety. Yet it does not wallow. The steering isn’t sloppy.

It reminded me of the way Pontiac, back in the day (’70s) set up the Trans-Am to ride well and handle well — vs. its sister car, the Camaro Z28, which also handled well but rode like a military half-track.

And, it’s really quiet. Especially the Sky-G engine. Which is amazing, given it’s a four.There are no sounds of strife, even at high RPM.

The only deficit is you can’t power out of the curves like you used to be able to — when the 6 could be had with 270-plus hp under its hood.

AT THE CURB

The new 6 is a slightly smaller — and lighter — car than before: 2.2 inches shorter overall and about 100 pounds less beefy (3,183 lbs. vs. 3,268 for the ’13). It sits almost 1 full inch lower to the ground, too: 57.1 inches vs. 57.9 last year.

The front clip especially is lithe, sinuous — almost feline in the way it stretches forward over the arched wheelwells — with the arches rising like a an ocean swell from the front door area before they wash over the tires. The much-enlarged grille opening, meanwhile, suggests a lust for airflow — and a need for speed.

It’s a pretty car — a sexy car. No doubt about it.

And a lot more distinctive-looking than the previous 6 — which was more generic “Japanese sedan” than Mazda sedan.

Those are the subjectives. And the objectives?

The elongated wheelbase allowed Mazda to carve out about 3/4 of an inch more rearseat legroom — which stands at 38.7 inches for the 2014 vs. 38 for the ’13.

This is an area where the Mazda absolutely mops the floor with the very appealing Kia Optima — which is otherwise one of the strongest contenders in this segment and arguably, the 6′s closest-in-spirit competition. It has only 34.7 inches of backseat legroom. That’s three full inches less — a big difference. The Optima makes up for this with 45.5 inches of front seat legroom — which is more than any car in this segment by several inches, including the 6 (42.2 inches). But frankly, unless you’re an NBA forward, the Kia’s 45.5 inches up front is an on-paper advantage and more than you’ll ever need to be comfortably situated. I say this as a guy who’s six feet three — which means I’m taller (and longer legged) than 95 percent of the population. If you’re my height or less, you’ll be fine with the 6′s 42.2 inches up front — and your passengers in the second row will be fine, too.

Meanwhile, if you buy the Kia, your backseat passengers will be miserable — unless they’re proportioned like Danny DeVito.

However, all is not sunshine and light. The subtraction of those 2.2 inches of overall length from the 6′s silhouette has had a more meaningful downsizing effect on trunk space — which drops to 14.8 cubes from the old 6′s much more generous 16.6 cubic foot trunk. The new 6′s trunk capacity is less than many of the other cars in this class, including the Fusion (16 cubic feet) the Optima and Camry (15.4 cubic feet each) as well as the VW Passat (15.9 cubic feet).

THE REST

Though the base iSport trim is well-equipped (standard AC and major power options, 17-inch wheel/tire package, LCD driver display, etc.) some stuff that probably ought to be included — like satellite radio/Bluetooth — isn’t. They’re extra-cost. Also, the base car with six-speed manual transmission comes with a smaller LCD display. If you order the optional six-speed automatic (which brings the MSRP up to $22,495) then you get the larger (5.8 inch vs. 3.5 inch) display, Bluetooth/HD stereo and a rearview back-up camera.

THE BOTTOM LINE

The Sky-G 6 is a player — but a Sky-D 6 could be a game-changer.

I just wish it were in the game — instead of waiting in the wings.

Comments?

www.epautos.com

• 2013 Mazda CX-5 Review
• 2012 Kia Optima Hybrid Review
• 2012 Mazda3 SkyActiv Review
• 2012 Suzuki Kizashi Review
• 2012 Volkswagon Beetle Review

Wednesday, May 15, 2013
Chicago, Illinois Inspector General Rejects Red-Light Camera Justification
There is no evidence that the world’s largest red-light camera program is operated as a safety program, according to a report released Tuesday by the inspector general for the city of Chicago, Illinois. The independent investigation comes as Redflex Traffic Systems continues to operate every aspect of the automated ticketing program despite Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s promise to cut ties with the Australian firm.

Tuesday, May 14, 2013
Maine: Legislation Would Reverse Toll Road Secrecy
The Maine state legislature’s Joint Transportation Committee on Monday reported a bill that would lift the veil of secrecy from a major toll road project and force private developers to pay for their own feasibility studies. On April 5, 2012 Governor Paul LePage (R) signed a bill ordering the state transportation department to conduct an economic feasibility study of a $2 billion, 220-mile toll road cutting across the state from east to west, connecting the Canadian provinces of New Brunswick and Quebec. The new bill repeals that provision.

Monday, May 13, 2013
Ohio Appeals Court Forbids Traffic Stop Over Unpaid Parking Tickets
Since April last year, Dayton, Ohio has been trying to generate millions in additional revenue by towing vehicles said to have unpaid photo enforcement or parking tickets. The city’s policy instructed police to pull over motorists and taking their car away until the alleged debt was paid. To keep a steady stream of $85 citations, Redflex Traffic Systems of Australia operates ten red-light cameras and ten speed cameras in Dayton.

Sunday, May 12, 2013
League City, Texas Red-Light Cameras Bagged
Red-light cameras in League City, Texas were covered with bags this week, but not by vigilantes. Australian camera vendor Redflex Traffic Systems had no choice but to shut down the devices.

Friday, May 10, 2013
Minnesota City Settles After Cop Uses Mace On Deaf Motorist
A police officer who lashed out at a deaf driver with whom he had difficulty communicating cost St. Paul, Minnesota $93,450 on Wednesday. The city council approved a settlement with Douglas D. Bahl, who had sued over a traffic stop that took place on Friday, November 17, 2006. Bahl is a high school teacher, but he can only express his thoughts fully in American Sign Language.

Thursday, May 09, 2013
Nebraska Supreme Court Upholds A Little Weaving
Police officers who want to stop and interrogate a motorist often claim he “weaved within his lane” as justification. Until now, this common pretext has generally been upheld by the judges around the country. The Nebraska Supreme Court, however, expressed its doubt on Friday.

• TheNewspaper.com Roundup: March 13, 2013
• TheNewspaper.com Roundup: March 20, 2013
• TheNewspaper.com Roundup: August 22, 2012
• TheNewspaper.com Roundup: March 21, 2012
• TheNewspaper.com Roundup: February 13, 2013

Investigative reporter Noah Pransky of Tampa Bay TV station WTSP filed an explosive report earlier this week about the intentional shortening of yellow-light intervals at red-light camera intersections for the purpose of raising ticket revenue. Pransky noted that of the more than $120 million of photo ticket revenue collected across Florida in 2012, $50 million was directly attributable to red-light camera program operators setting yellow lights too short.

That is a startling number, particularly for those who aren’t familiar with the multitude of documented accounts of short yellow lights that the NMA has gathered over the years. More alarming still is that the combination of red-light cameras and improper yellow-light timing creates the dubious double penalty of inflating ticket revenue while simultaneously making intersections less safe.

A common counter claim against lengthening yellow-light cycles is that drivers will eventually adjust to the conditions and go back to their supposed natural instincts of playing “let’s beat the light.” Both Florida State Senator Jeff Clemens and Charles Territo, chief propagandist of camera vendor American Traffic Solutions, voice this in Pransky’s report.

That is not an uncommon position for pro-camera legislators and camera company employees to make. Some of the public jump on that bandwagon because it makes intuitive sense to them that motorists can’t help but push the margins, whether it be ignoring the speed limit or following an urge to zip through intersections at the first sign of a yellow light, safety be damned.

This view of kamikaze drivers is not only intuitively incorrect, it is factually wrong. Several studies have shown this:

“The data show that the percentage of last-to-cross vehicles clearing the intersection (T + 0.2) seconds or more past the yellow onset was not appreciably changed by the extension of the yellow phase.”

The Influence of the Time Duration of Yellow Traffic Signals on Driver Response, Stimpson/Zador/Tarnoff, ITE Journal (November 1980)

“Research has consistently shown that drivers do not, in fact, adapt to the length of the

yellow.”

Determining Vehicle Change Intervals – A Proposed Recommended Practice,Institute of Transportation Engineers (1985)

“Drivers do adapt to the increase in yellow duration; however, this adaptation does not undo the benefit of an increase in yellow duration.”

Effect of Yellow-Interval Timing on Red-Light-Violation Frequency at Urban Intersections, Bonneson/Zimmerman, Texas Transportation Institute (January 2004)

Several communities, from Gwinnett County, Georgia, to Loma Linda, California, and places in-between, have put this to the test by analyzing intersection safety statistics in the months and years after lengthening their yellow lights by 0.5 to 1.0 seconds. Violation rates typically plummet 50 to 90 percent almost immediately, and have been shown to remain at those low levels years after the fact.

If you hear a state legislator or city official trying to justify the use of short yellow lights in conjunction with a red-light camera program on the basis of “it doesn’t matter, drivers can’t help themselves,” don’t let them get away with it. Your fellow drivers and your wallet will thank you.

• Help Us Stop Short Yellow Lights
• 6 Cities That Were Caught Shortening Yellow Light Times For Profit
• How To Turn A Red Light Camera Into A Cash Machine In Three Easy Steps
• Red-Light Cameras Do Not Reduce Right Angle Crashes
• Short Yellow Light Times No Longer Going Unnoticed

By Eric Peters, Automotive Columnist

There is an interesting species of near muscle car that came into being and briefly existed for a handful of years, beginning in the early 1970s — just as the high tide of the real muscle car was receding. These were cars that did not come with high-powered V-8s from the factory. But which did come with V-8s that could very easily be made high-powered. The rest was already covered. They had the necessary foundations: rear-wheel-drive layout, sporty two-door styling. And they often had advantages many of the factory muscle cars of the ’60s did not, including low curb weight — and a low price tag.

They were “do-it-yourself muscle cars” — just add horsepower.

One of these was the Grabber version of Ford’s Maverick. It existed for five short years, from 1970 through 1975. It was supposed to be merely an appearance package, but soon came to be more than that. The package appeared about halfway through the Maverick’s first full year in production in Dec. 1970 and included:

* Five Grabbber-specific colors: Brite Yellow, Grabber Yellow, Grabber Green, Grabber Blue and Thanks Vermillion (later color choices would include Freudian Gilt, Anti-Establishment Mint, Original Cinnamon and Hulla Blue).

* Special “Grabber” side stripes and decals, blacked-out grille and rear valance panel, dual sport mirrors.

* Trunk mounted spoiler.

* Chrome drip moldings and door frames.

* “Dual dome” hood with dummy scoops (1970-72 models).

* Bench or bucket seats, trimmed in either Ruffino vinyl or Manston cloth (1972).

* 14 inch wheels with special trim rings.

This was in addition to neat Maverick features such as the “flipper type” rear vent windows, which could be opened outward to draw air into the car. “Select Aire” AC could be ordered, but the car’s effective ventilation system made this unnecessary.

Standard under the Grabber’s dual-dome scooped hood was the base Maverick’s 105 hp 170 CID straight six, with two larger (200 and 250 CID) sixes available as step-up options. But buyers in search of a muscle car in the rough checked off the option box for the 302 V-8, which, became available shortly after the Maverick’s launch.

It was not a Boss 302 — or even a four barrel 302 — but it was a V-8 and even better, it was a 302 V-8. The same basic V-8 that had made big power in other Ford vehicles and which only required a dusting with various factory and aftermarket performance parts to rise from its slumber. It had the potential to be a screamer — especially in a car that only weighed 2,786 lbs. — a flyweight even by early ’70s standards. (For some perspective, the “compact” 1970 Chevy Nova SS weighed about 3,200 lbs.)

The little V-8 was factory rated at 210 hp (SAE gross) in 1970 — or about 100 hp less than the output of a healthy 302. Part of the reason for the modest output was the extremely mild camshaft — a stick designed to deliver good low-speed torque for A to B driving. It was further choked-down by its economy-intended two-barrel carburetor and a very restrictive single exhaust system. Restrictive, not because of catalytic converters — these would not be an issue until 1975 — but rather because the super-tight packaging of the Maverick did not allow for factory dual exhausts or even a decent-diameter single exhaust system.

The Grabber’s 302 left the factory constipated — but this proved to be a blessing in disguise.

As far as the government — and insurance companies — were concerned, this was an economy car. Not a performance car. It could, therefore, slip under the radar. It was cheap to buy — and even more important, it was cheap to insure — unlike an out-of-the-closet muscle car. And once the keys were in your hands — and the car in your garage . . . . A weekend and a few hundred bucks later could — and often did — transform the 302 into a ferocious performer. And no one except you — and those you smacked down on the street — would ever be the wiser.

Even without changing cams, simply swapping out the stock two-barrel intake and carb for a four-barrel intake and carb, diddling the ignition timing to more performance-favorable calibrations — and installing what was known back in the day as a “bang plate” (shift kit) in the three-speed automatic (most of these cars came through with automatics) really woke the thing up. I can vouch for this personally, having helped so modify a ’73 Grabber this way. We also managed to install a proper dual exhaust system — it takes some work, but it is doable — and changed out the economy-minded ring and pinion for a more aggressive set. The effect of these tweaks was like jumper cables on your nipples in January. The otherwise stock 302 — never opened up, with its factory low-performance camshaft in place — easily barked the tires on both the 1-2 upshift and the 2-3 upshift at WOT.

Remember, this car only weighed about 2,800 pounds.

A new (2013) Mustang GT weighs 3,622 lbs. — 800 pounds more.

A new Mustang GT also costs $30,750 — vs. $1,995 for the base 1970 Maverick, plus another $194 for the Grabber package. Add the V-8 and you were maybe up to $2,500 or so in early 1970s dollars — about $14,000 in 2013 dollars. Imagine being able to buy a RWD car with a V-8 engine for that kind of money. Not used.

Brand-new.

This was part of the Maverick’s genius. It was incredibly affordable, yet it wasn’t a bottom feeding basic transpo unit like many of its competitors, especially those from Japan. You could get a V-8, after all. You could also get AC. And in addition to the Grabber package, there were almost as many a la carte options for individualization of each car as the 1964 Mustang had offered. In fact, the man responsible for the ’64 Mustang was trying to recreate history by reviving the same basic idea — fun, affordable, personal — behind the ’64 Mustang. In 1969, then-Ford Vice President Lee Iaccoca told Time magazine: “You dumb foot draggers — you in Detroit — what took you so long to know imports were going to hit a million? Now the market is damn well defined, and you know what the market says? ‘Give me a hell of a good buy for two grand, will you? ‘ ”

Thus was born Ford’s answer to the imports — among them, VW’s hot-selling Beetle.

But like the four-cylinder econo-boxes from Japan, the four-cylinder-only Beetle could never even dream of being a muscle car, while the Maverick — in Grabber trim — could be one with just a little bit of work, most of it backyard mechanic doable with basic hand tools.

There were only two really significant issues with the Maverick, from the standpoint of high-performance. First, there was no limited slip differential option — and the most aggressive factory gearing was 3.08 (most Grabbers came through with a burnout-unfriendly 2.79 ring and pinion). Second, while a manual transmission was available, it was only a three-speed manual. If you wanted a factory four-speed car, you had to move up to a Mustang.

And there were incidentals — such as the absence of a factory-available tachometer or “rally” gauge cluster. You got a speedo, fuel gauge and a few idiot lights.

Even so, the Grabber was still a low-bucks way to get into a brand-new RWD/V-8 performance car — or at least, a RWD car with a V-8 that could be made into a performance car. Even by 1974, with inflation eating away at everything — by causing the prices of everything to rise — the Maverick’s base price was still just $2,591. With the Grabber equipment, the V-8 and AC, the out-the-door price was in the neighborhood of $3,400 — just under $16k today.

Not everyone could afford a GTO — or a Mustang. As much then — as now. Cars like the Maverick Grabber gave buyers who wanted something more than an import econo-box but which was still priced about the same a real alternative. Something they could work with.

In 1973, the Maverick lost its dual-dome scooped hood — but since the scoops had never been functional anyhow, there was no loss in performance. What did hurt the Grabber’s performance was creeping curb weight — up to 2,957 lbs. by ’75. The additional beef was seen as well as felt. The 1970 model’s aesthetically appropriate thin-line bumpers (available with twin vertical bumperettes) were replaced — also in ’73 — with a set of massive-in-comparison “energy absorbing” bumpers easily three times their size.

And, their weight.

All the cars of the period were similarly afflicted — and if you wanted to identify the moment in time when external forces (the government and insurance mafia) were consolidating their death grip on the American car industry — the moment at which these forces and not consumers would determine what kinds of cars would be allowed on the market — it was the dread year 1973. “Unilock” seatbelt buzzers and ignition interlocks were mandatory standard equipment — and catalytic converters were less than 24 months down the road. The buzzers would go away for awhile — then return to afflict all new cars to this very day. Catalytic converters, of course, never went away. We just got more of them (most new cars have at least two and many have four or more).

Simple, affordable cars were on the way out. Simple, affordable RWD cars with V-8 engines were soon to be rendered extinct forever.

Ford discontinued the Grabber package after the ’75 model year. The Maverick would live on for another two years. During these final two seasons, Ford gamely tried to keep the idea alive. A Stallion package that offered many of the erstwhile Grabber features appeared — very briefly — in 1976. It also had a sporty exterior/interior — and could be ordered with the 302 V-8 as well as Lacy Spoke aluminum wheels — which had never been available with the Grabber. But by ’77, the gig was up. Maverick was cancelled — and both the Grabber and the Stallion were automotive history.

The Maverick Grabber and Stallion (as well as their Mercury Comet equivalents) and a number of other almost muscle cars built during the early-mid 1970s like the Oldsmobile Rallye 350, the “Heavy Chevy” Chevelle, the Buick Apollo, the Dodge Aspen R/T, etc., are today perhaps the only not-yet-mined repositories of affordable old-school RWD/V-8 performance.

Cars of a type that will probably never be made again.

You can still pick up a nice one for under $5,000 or so.

Good luck finding a factory-built muscle car — that still runs or with a body not Swiss-cheesed by rust — for anything near that.

Nearly four decades after the last one left the line, the Grabber’s appeal continues to increase. As they were when they were new, these cars are a performance bargain — and potential wolves in sheep’s clothing.

Comments?

www.epautos.com

• Retro Review: De Tomaso Pantera, 1971-1993
• Catalytic Converter Snatching
• The No Longer Necessary V-8
• Why Muscle Cars – The Old Ones – Still Rule
• 2015 Mustang… Probe Revisited?

Florida: Red-light camera fines may go up to $408 and be harder to fight under new rules
A bill that cleared the House and Senate in the final days of the legislative session vastly increases the power of local governments to issue red-light camera violations. It discourages people accused of running red lights from challenging their ticket by increasing their fine from $158 to $408 should they contest and lose.

Illinois: Sheriffs seem OK with raising interstate speed limit
Although a state transportation official opposes a proposal to raise the speed limit on rural interstate highways to 70 mph, most county sheriffs apparently aren’t opposed to the increase. In April, the Illinois Senate voted 41-6 for that change from 65 mph. The measure is Senate Bill 2356.

Germany: Not so fast: Merkel challenger seeks to cut off debate on speed limit for all German autobahns
German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s challenger in September’s election is trying to avoid a political speed bump. Peer Steinbrueck is trying to halt a debate set off by a Social Democrat colleague about whether to introduce speed limits on all German highways — a potential turnoff for voters. Stretches of Germany’s autobahns have no speed limit, traditionally a cherished freedom.

California: Murrieta red-light camera program shut down
To hearty applause from the audience in a packed City Council chamber, City Council members voted on Tuesday, May 7, 4-0 to end the red-light camera program. In doing so, council members are requesting American Traffic Solutions to remove the cameras and all associated equipment. Additionally, council members said they planned to consider proposals from the public to extend the time a traffic light stays yellow before turning red.

U.K.: 20mph speed limits backed by World Health Organisation
The Pedestrian Safety report summarises published research on the science of road safety and uses a case study of Lancashire’s 20mph limits. It stated that ‘one of the most effective ways to improve pedestrian safety is to reduce the speed of vehicles’ with ‘area-wide lower speed limit programmes’ being a proven intervention.

Nebraska: Supreme Court upholds a little weaving
Police officers who want to stop and interrogate a motorist often claim he “weaved within his lane” as justification. Until now, this common pretext has generally been upheld by the judges around the country. The Nebraska Supreme Court, however, expressed its doubt on Friday.

Illinois: 70 mph speed limit clears House committee
Legislation that would raise the speed limit on interstate highways in most sections of downstate Illinois to 70 mph advanced through the House Transportation Committee Wednesday, 8-0. The bill, SB 2356, now moves to the full House for its consideration. It already passed the Senate, 41-6, in April.

To see more stories like the ones above, check out our NMA Driving News site. Each weekday we update the site with news stories that are interesting and/or informative for drivers like you.

• Driving News Roundup: March 9, 2012
• Driving News Roundup: February 22, 2013
• Driving News Roundup: April 26, 2013
• Driving News Roundup: November 11, 2011
• Driving News Roundup: March 8, 2013

By Eric Peters, Automotive Columnist

The Kia Rio I just spent a week driving around is an extremely fuel-efficient little car — one of the very best in its segment, actually. And not just on paper, either. Out in the real world, in real-world driving, it lives up to its EPA billing: 30 city, 40 highway. I averaged 32.2 according to the car’s computer. But you’d never know it if you went by the gas gauge — which drops from “F” to a quarter-down almost as quickly as the gas gauge in my ’76 Trans Am — and it gets about 12 MPG. Of course, my Trans-Am has a 21 gallon tank — so its rate of consumption is appalling. The Kia’s isn’t — but seems like it is — because it only has a 11.3 gallon tank.

That is a very small tank.

Think about it. Three gallons is almost a third of its total capacity. Even if the car averages low 30s — as the Rio did during my test drive — you will burn through the available fuel pretty quickly.

Which creates the perception that the car is pretty thirsty.

Toyota — just to give you a frame of reference — fits the Prius hybrid — which burns less gas — with a larger (12 gallon) tank. So it goes pretty far on a full tank. Or, consider the Ford Focus — a car closer to the Rio in terms of price and size and layout. Its EPA mileage stats (26 city/36 highway) aren’t nearly as good as the Kia’s, but because it has a larger tank (12.4 gallons) it will seem more economical than it actually is.

The Rio needs — deserves — a larger gas tank. Thirteen gallons, at least. That would keep the needle pegged at “F” for longer — and slow its descent to “E.”

It’s one of the few things I’d change about this car if it were up to me.

More on that now.

WHAT IT IS

The Rio is Kia’s entry-level compact sedan/hatchback sedan — and one of the most affordable (and economical to drive) small cars on the market.

Prices start at $13,600 for the LX sedan- which comes standard with AC as well as heated outside mirrors and a decent stereo system — and top out at $17,900 for the sporty SX hatchback, which comes with an aggressive 17-inch wheel and tire package, sport-tuned suspension, leather trim, LCD information screen with Kia’s UVO voice-activated control system and rearview camera.

WHAT’S NEW

For the new model year, the Rio gets an optional auto-stop function (like more and more new cars) to help squeeze the most MPGs possible out of the thing — by cutting off the engine when the car rolls to a stop. The system automatically re-starts the engine when the driver takes his foot off the brake and pushes down on the gas pedal.

SX trims with the optional automatic get secondary paddle shifters mounted behind the steering wheel.

WHAT’S GOOD

Excellent gas mileage is standard. (You don’t have to buy an optional engine — or extra-cost “eco” package — to get it.)

SX version is a low-bucks VW GTI in the corners — that also gets excellent gas mileage.

More substantial-looking (and less expensive) than a Mazda2.

Lots of stuff for not much bucks.

WHAT’S NOT SO GOOD

Tiny gas tank means frequent fill-ups.

Some might find the engine overly noisy.

Some may find the ride (SX versions) overly firm.

Sporty-themed SX trim shares its engine with the base LX trim. A bit more power would give the SX the Walk to go with the Talk.

UNDER THE HOOD

All Rios come standard with a 1.6 liter, 138 hp Gas Direct Injection (GDI) four-cylinder engine driving the front wheels through either a six-speed manual or six-speed automatic transmission. Direct injection — and the six-speed transmissions — account for the Rio’s excellent 30 city, 40 highway MPG ratings.

For perspective, the standard Chevy Sonic with 1.8 liter engine makes the same power — but only rates 26 city, 35 highway. Even with its optional (and more complex) 1.4 liter turbo engine, the Sonic only manages to not-quite match the Rio’s at-the-pump performance with a 29 city, 40 highway ranking.

Another car in this class, the otherwise appealing Mazda2, is crippled up by its ancient (1990s-era technology) four-speed automatic transmission — which limits mileage to 28 city and 34 on the highway. Even the manual five-speed equipped version of the Mazda2 is pretty piggy for such a small car: 29 city, 35 highway.

With the newly available Auto-stop system and a light right foot, it ought to be possible to consistently average low/ mid 30s in the Rio — with either transmission.

I did — so I know it can be done.

How about when the light goes green?

The Rio takes about 9.7-9.8 seconds to get to 60, which is on the slowish side relative to others in this class. For example, the turbo Sonic is a full second quicker and even the Mazda2 (with just 100 hp on tap and less efficient transmissions to deliver what’s on tap) is only a couple of ticks of the stopwatch behind the Rio. Probably this is because the Kia weighs about 100 pounds more than the Mazda (2,410 lbs. vs. 2,306 lbs.).

2,410 pounds is pretty porky for a small car — about 400-500 pounds more, in fact, than comparable cars weighed back in the ’80s. This is why, by the way, modern economy cars struggle to break 40 MPG on the highway while back in the ’80s, numerous economy compacts were doing almost that well in city driving — and pushing 50 on the highway — with carbureted engines.

And — in some cases — three-speed automatics.

But don’t blame Kia — or Mazda or any of the other car companies. They’re just doing what they have to (adding bulk) to comply with ever-more-demanding federal safety requirements — which are increasingly coming into conflict with federal fuel economy requirements. You can have a very safe car, or a very economical car. But not both in the same car.

At least, not without compromise — or cost.

ON THE ROAD

I tested an SX Rio — the sportiest trim — which comes with a pretty aggressive 17-inch wheel-tire package that reminded me of the current VW GTI (check the design of those pie-cutter wheels … see anything familiar?)

Ditto the handling.

The stiff sidewall tires and a very firmly calibrated suspension translate into minimal body roll — and “point and click” directional changes. Pick your line and the car will hold it, requiring very little in the way of course corrections to keep on track.

But, there is a downside — ride quality. The SX is a stiffy — and not for everyone. Both my wife and father-in-law (neither of them “sporty” minded people) made negative comments.

Now, of course, the SX is built for people who are sporty minded. Who want a firm ride. So, it’s probably not an issue. What may be, though, is the SX’s engine — which as mentioned earlier is the same engine as in the base LX and every other Rio. Put another way, a base $13k LX is just as quick as the “sporty” — and $17k — SX. I think the SX ought to be noticeably quicker than the base LX. Another 10 hp or so would do it — and probably not incur much of a fuel economy penalty.

While it may not have deep reserves of power, the Rio does have deep gearing, six-speeds (manual or automatic) in a segment where many still have five speeds and even — in the case of the poor Mazda2 — four-speeds. What does it mean? It means that you’ve got long legs. Once in top gear — a deep overdriven sixth — you can comfortably roll 80, even 90 mph with the engine turning relatively low RPMs, about 3,300 at those road speeds — and not making a lot of noise.

It’s only when you attempt a pass at those speeds — and lower speed, too — that you’ll notice the hp deficit. The transmission will downshift two gears (or you’ll do it yourself, if it’s the stick version) and then the engine will make a lot of noise — but not much forward progress will register on the speedometer.

But, we shouldn’t complain too much. After all, here we have a 40 MPG economy compact that is absolutely capable of running close to 100 MPH all day long — with more on tap. I’m old enough to remember the ’80s. Maybe you aren’t. Well, back in those days, an economy compact might have been able to deliver 50 MPG on the highway. But at 70 MPH, you were approaching its Top Speed — and the thing felt like it was about to come apart.

And sometimes, did.

AT THE CURB

Inside skinny: The Rio is a Hyundai Accent that’s been to body combat — those classes they have down at the gym. It’s butched-up and muscular, tight and right.

For this — and a sportier ride/handling experience — you pay a couple of bucks more than you would for its Hyundai-badged corporate cousin.

Subjectively, I think the Rio looks a lot more solid than the cute but fragile-appearing Mazda2. And though the Chevy Sonic has a handsome face, its tail end (with those bulbous, out of proportion tail-lights) could use some work.

What’s objective is that Kia charges about the same for either version of the Rio — the standard sedan or the more functionally versatile hatchback. A Rio hatch is only $200 more than a Rio Sedan — and this overlap continues all the way up to the range-topping SX trim, where, again, there’s only a $200 difference either way.

Kia also lets you get the same equipment, with either body style.

A few months back, I reviewed the Mitsubishi Lancer — which like the Rio is offered in both sedan and hatch-wagon bodystyles. But Mitsu only lets you have certain options — like a manual transmission — if you buy the sedan. But not the hatch. Why any automaker would do such a thing, I don’t know. If someone wants to buy your car but you tell him he can only have this version with that engine (or whatever) it’s a real turnoff.

Competitors like the Chevy Sonic also offer the sedan/hatch choice — but Chevy charges you $600 more for the hatchback Sonic ($14,785) than you’d pay for the sedan ($14,185) and of course, both versions cost more than either version of the base Rio — both of which start under $14k.

The Mazda2, meanwhile, only comes as a hatchback sedan — and it starts at $14,720, or almost $1,000 more than the hatchback Rio. It also has less interior/cargo space. The Rio hatch has a 15 cubic foot cargo area behind the rear seats — comparable to the trunk space of a mid-sized car — and just under 50 cubic feet with them folded flat. The Mazda2 has 13.3 cubic feet — and maxes out at 27.8 cubes with its backseats folded down.

The Chevy Sonic beats both behind the second row, with 19 cubic feet of cargo space — but comes up short with them folded down, just 30 cubic feet to work with.

The Kia also has significantly more front seat head (40 inches) and legroom (43.8) than either the Mazda2 (39.1 inches, 42.6 inches) or the Chevy Sonic (38.7 inches, 41.8 inches). But it comes at a cost — to your backseat passengers. The Rio’s second-row legroom (31.1 inches) is significantly less than in the Mazda (33 inches) and the Sonic (34.6 inches). Rear headroom’s a draw: 37.6 inches for the Rio, 38.1 for the Sonic and 37 even for the Mazda2.

THE REST

I really liked the large pushbuttons below the LCD display on the center stack — the controls for the AC, defrost and so on. Above these are also large rotary controls for fan speed, outlet and temperature control. They are all easy to see — and so, hard to miss — even for those of us with fat fingers. Ditto the USB hook-up for your iPod. It’s ahead of the shifter, in the forward part of the center console — not hidden inside a storage cubby (or the glovebox) where it’s awkward to access while you’re driving.

Overall, this car struck me as a compelling commuter because it’s more than just an A to B appliance, despite its low-bucks MSRP. The base LX is well equipped — or at least, equipped with all the necessaries (such as AC and an adequate stereo) as it sits — so it’s not necessary to spend more coin to make it pleasant for everyday use. It’s almost as easy on gas as a hybrid or diesel — but the buy-in is thousands less, so you will probably end up paying less overall.

It has everything it needs to be a great all-around except (as regards the SX trim) for maybe a few more beans under the hood.

Or a bit less girth around its middle.

Oh, and a larger fuel tank.

Please.

THE BOTTOM LINE

Did you notice Honda and Toyota weren’t even mentioned in this review? Go check the Rio out — then check out what the same money would buy you at a Toyota or Honda store.

Then you’ll know what I know.

But better you find out for yourself.

Comments?

www.epautos.com

• 2012 Hyundai Accent Review
• 2012 Kia Rio Review
• 2012 Mazda3 SkyActiv Review
• 2012 Toyota Prius C Review
• 2014 Mazda6 Review

Wednesday, May 08, 2013
California: Privacy Groups Sue LAPD Over License Plate Readers
Privacy groups are upset that law enforcement has been using cameras to track the movements of motorists who are not suspected of any wrongdoing. To investigate how this information is used, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) last year formally sought information on automated license plate recognition cameras (ALPR, also known as ANPR in Europe) from law enforcement agencies around the country. The Los Angeles, California Police Department (LAPD) refused to hand over some related documents, so the ACLU joined on Friday with the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) in filing a lawsuit to compel disclosure.

Tuesday, May 07, 2013
Australia: Another Toll Road Goes Bankrupt
Transportation officials in the United States and around the world remain fascinated with tolling public-private partnerships as a method of financing roads, but tolling continue to prove itself an unreliable choice. Last week, the Rivercity Motorway Group’s bankruptcy administrators began soliciting bids for the Clem7 toll road in Brisbane, Australia. The 4.2 mile tunnel links five major area roads at a cost of $8.10 per round trip — a proposition few residents found worthwhile. A bankruptcy judge with the Federal Court of Australia explained the problem.

Monday, May 06, 2013
Iowa Supreme Court Approves Use Of Tinted License Plate Covers
Motorists can use a license frame with a tinted cover, the Iowa Supreme Court affirmed in an April 26 ruling. The court considered the case of Tommy Tyler Jr. whose white Cadillac Escalade was stopped at 2am on October 13, 2010 as it was driving along Merle Hay Road in Johnston. Officer Brad Lowe, who was waiting in the parking lot of Dragon Car Wash, recognized the Escalade that he had pulled over two days earlier over its plate cover.

Sunday, May 05, 2013
Israel, Poland: Speed Cameras Attacked
Vigilantes near Lodz, Poland painted a speed camera pink on Monday, Polskie Radio reported. The device had been issuing tickets on the road between Gmina Sieradz and Zdunska Wola. A woman about to join the Israeli Defense Forces burned a speed camera in Haifa, Israel last July. She admitted to the act and was sentenced this week by a district court judge. According to Ynet News, she was sentenced to 500 hours of community service and a 25,000 sheckel (US $6970) fine.

Friday, May 03, 2013
Florida Increases Maximum Red-Light Camera Ticket Fine To $408
The Florida Legislature on Thursday gave final approval to legislation limiting the due process available to recipients of red-light camera tickets and increasing the potential penalty for those challenging a fine to $408. The changes were included in a 220-page omnibus transportation bill which saw more than sixty amendments considered. The final package was adopted unanimously in the state Senate and with only one dissenting vote in the state House.

Thursday, May 02, 2013
Opinion: Chicago Mayor Makes Parking Meter Deal Worse
From The Expired Meter,  Chicago, Illinois Mayor Rahm Emanuel may have done the impossible. He may have actually made Chicago’s reviled parking meter lease deal even worse. At a press conference Monday morning Emanuel announced a settlement in the ongoing legal battle between the city and Chicago Parking Meters, LLC (CPM). Initially, it sounded like the city had indeed arm twisted some mild improvements to the universally despised deal out of CPM, but as details of the proposed settlement emerged, Emanuel’s allegedly new and improved parking meter lease deal looks like it could make things even more challenging and expensive for Chicago drivers.

• TheNewspaper.com Roundup: February 20, 2013
• TheNewspaper.com Roundup: August 17, 2011
• TheNewspaper.com Roundup: October 24, 2012
• TheNewspaper.com Roundup: April 17, 2013
• TheNewspaper.com Roundup: March 13, 2013

The Florida sting is simple: A police officer parks his cruiser on the side of the road and turns on the emergency lights. Another officer monitors drivers as they pass. If motorists don’t move over into the far lane, or slow down enough, they are stopped and given a $165 ticket.

In addition to the Florida news, emails describing Move Over stings have once again been circulating around the Internet, so we thought an update was in order.

Move Over laws essentially require motorists traveling on multi-lane roads to move over one lane for a designated emergency vehicle on the side of the highway. If it is unsafe to move over then motorists must slow down significantly while passing. The intent is to decrease the risk to police officers and other roadway workers. Hawaii was the last state to enact a Move Over law in July 2012, leaving only Washington, D.C. without such a law.

Specific provisions and penalties vary significantly from state to state. Here in Wisconsin not moving over will cost you $260 and three points on your driver’s license. In Alabama fines range from $25-$100. In Virginia failure to move over is a class 1 misdemeanor, carrying a $2,500 fine and possible jail time. Check here for more information on the law in your state.

And don’t think you only have to move over for police or emergency vehicles. The laws have evolved to include tow trucks, utility vehicles, official vehicles and highway machinery. Again, check the law for your state to see what vehicles you have to watch out for.

We don’t question the hazards faced by police and others who work along our nation’s highways, and we don’t question the need for all motorists to drive in a safe and responsible manner. But we do question the effectiveness of these kinds of laws. When the NMA has contacted supporters of Move Over laws asking for evidence of their benefits, none has ever been forthcoming.

We also realize that Move Over laws may actually lead to more traffic safety incidents than they create. Jim Baxter hammered this point home in this blog from 2007. It’s not hard to imagine a scenario in which a Move Over sting operation actually creates the kinds of hazards the law is meant to prevent.

History shows that heavy-handed enforcement efforts designed to entrap motorists (think speed traps and red-light cameras) have little positive impact on driver behavior. Consider this: 71 percent of Americans aren’t even aware that Move Over laws exist. This points to a need for public awareness campaigns along with enforcement that’s focused on driver education and warnings—not stings and traps.

• Watch Your Wallet When Driving Through These 10 States
• The Traveling Public Can Go Elsewhere
• Lane Courtesy Redux
• Driving News Roundup: February 15, 2013
• Move Over, Slow Down, And Crash!

By Eric Peters, Automotive Columnist

If electric cars are The Future, why are so many automakers — quietly — backing away from them?

GM has decided against mass production of its Adam electric city-car. Audi has kiboshed the Tesla-esque electric R8 that had been scheduled for a launch sometime this year or next. Nissan has slashed the base price of its Leaf electric car from $35,200 to $28,800 — hoping to defibrillate flat-lining sales.

But the real canary in the coal mine is Toyota, which has dropped plans to mass-produce the electric eQ — stating it had “misread” market demand for such a vehicle. Maybe 100 of these things will ever see the light of day, according to the latest statements from Toyota. “The current capabilities of electric vehicles do not meet society’s needs, whether it may be the distance the cars can run, or the costs, or how it takes a long time to charge,” explained Toyota Executive Vice President Takeshi Uchiyamada. (Reuters news story here.)

Instead, the world-leader in hybrid cars will concentrate on bringing out … more hybrid cars. Twenty-one of them by 2015 — vs. one all-electric car (the electric version of the RAV4, which Toyota — optimistically — expects to sell about 2,600 of during calendar year 2013).

For some perspective, Toyota sold 37,000 Camry hybrids in a month (August, 2012).

Can you say, cut bait?

The future car is not an electric car — it is the internal combustion-engined car. The IC engine may be teamed up with electric motors and batteries (hybrids) or made more efficient via technologies such as direct gas injection (already becoming a de facto standard feature across the board, from inexpensive cars like the $13k Kia Rio I just tested to high-end luxury cars like the $75,000 Q56 Infiniti I had a few weeks prior) . . . but the IC engine itself is not going away anytime soon.

Gas-fired engines are getting smaller. But turbos are being added to make them bigger on-demand (a turbo temporarily increases an engine’s airflow capability — which is the same thing as having a larger engine, as far as power produced is concerned — but with the smaller engine’s smaller appetite for fuel when more power is not needed, as when idling in traffic or just cruising along in top gear). Turbos used to be almost exclusively used as power-adders for already-powerful engines. Now, turbos are being turned to as a way to maintain the power/performance level consumers expect from “everyday” engines — such as the engines in economy cars like the Chevy Sonic. And — in vehicles like the Ford F-series truck — to maintain V-8 levels of horsepower and torque with a smaller, less fuel-thirsty V-6 under the hood.

Many automakers are adding Auto-stop technology to their latest models (including the 2013 Rio I just reviewed). When the car rolls to a stop, as at a red light, the system automatically shuts off the engine to save fuel — then restarts it when the driver takes his foot off the brake. Expect this to become as commonplace as AC and power windows within a year.

Similar fuel-saving technologies include electric-driven power steering, water pumps and even air conditioning compressors. Eight and nine-speed transmissions are also coming online. Many of the latest gas engines have very high (almost diesel-level) compression ratios — which makes them both more powerful and more fuel-efficient.

And down the road a couple of years, we will see some really radical stuff in new car showrooms — including hybrids with hydraulic motors driven by nitrogen gas, compressed by the process of regenerative braking (capturing and making use of inertia), electro-pneumatic valvetrain actuation and micro-engines such as VW’s less-than-one-liter two-cylinder engine, currently in development.

But underneath it all — and powering it all — is gasoline (or diesel) and internal combustion. Because it works. Because it’s the most efficient, least expensive way to get things done.

Electricity isn’t.

Yes, great strides have been made as far as improving the efficiency/output of batteries — and reducing their weight. They’re still nowhere near efficient enough — or light enough.

Yes, the range/performance of electric cars is much better than it was 20 years ago. But it’s still not better than the range/performance of the average gas-burning car of 60 years ago.

This, despite literally billions invested in R&D and decades of brain-sweat. No one can fault the engineers for not trying hard enough to make it work. They’ve been at it for generations.

It’s time to take a breather. Time to stop trying to force a square peg into a round hole — which is what Dear Leader Obama, et al, are demanding when they insist that “we” must have 1 million electric cars in circulation by 2015. Wishing — and demanding — isn’t going to make it happen.

Some EV advocates reference the Apollo Program to argue the opposite. That — yes — it can be done. True. When cost is no object, a man can indeed be put on the Moon. But when it comes to electric cars — to cars, period — cost is very much an object. The reason the Nissan Leaf isn’t selling is — Rocket Science Moment — very few people are going to pay nearly $30k (and that’s the price-slashed 2013 model) for an “economy” car because — Rocket Science Moment II — while it may be almost cost-free to drive it, you still have to buy it. Money spent is money spent — whether it’s at the pump or at the dealership. This is a difficult concept for Dear Leaders to understand.

Well, they kind of understand it — which is why they throw other people’s money at it. The Leaf (and other EVs.) are massively subsidized both at the manufacturing and the retail level.

Even then, they are far too expensive.

But it’s more than just dollars and cents. There is a psychological component, too. Subsidizing a not-yet-viable technology turns people off to the technology. No one likes a lemon. Much less being forced to help pay for it. Why should Jones down the road get a $7,000 check from the government — that is, from taxpayers — to drive a new electric car when I am still making payments on my five-year-old Corolla? The market distortions — and bad press — that flow from these subsidies and the boondoggles they create (e.g., Chevy Volt, the Tesla fiasco) will make it that much harder for a viable electric car to make it, if one ever does become viable.

The subsidy gravy train needs to be sidelined. The political fatwas must cease.

If an electric car can be built, it will be built. Not because of some government edict, not because of open-ended subsidies — but because someone figures out how to make it work without either of them.

It’s that hard — and that simple.

Comments?

www.epautos.com

• Some Cars I Can’t Review
• 50 MPG Then – and Now
• Automotive Trends To Look For In 2011
• Electric Lemon Aid
• Will Plug-in Hybrids Save Us From High Gas Prices?