Over the past year or so, you may have noticed that more and more car and truck advertisements are including miles per gallon in that long list of enticements, such as air conditioning, leather seats and satellite radio.

It's really quite pathetic.

Don't get me wrong. I get it. I get why they're attempting to boast about higher-than-average mpg. But that doesn't really amount to a whole hell of a lot when the average is about 60 to 80 percent less than what these car manufactures are capable of producing.

And this is true for all car manufacturers, too. Not just the antiquated suits at Ford and Chrysler who lounge in their boardrooms, not having even the faintest idea how higher gas costs affect the average consumer.

If they did, you wouldn't be seeing all those trucks and SUVs collecting dust at the dealerships.

No, the foreign competitors that so many eco-friendly consumers love to champion, like Toyota and Honda, are only mildly better when it comes to efficiency.

In fact, just yesterday an article came across the wire that screamed this headline:

"Honda, Toyota lead in average fuel efficiency."

Okay, then. Let's take a look:

The average fuel economy for 2007 was 20.2 miles per gallon. This is exactly what it was in 2006.

Now, Honda came in with the highest fuel economy of any manufacturer with 22.9 mpg. Toyota came in second with 22.8 mpg.

Granted, the Toyota Prius will get you anywhere between 50 and 60 mpg. And compared to the average, that's very impressive. But not nearly as impressive as what we'll have the opportunity to drive in less than three years. Fuel-efficient vehicles are poised to make early-adopting investors very rich.

Transitioning from Mediocrity

I'm often asked why car manufacturers haven't significantly increased fuel efficiency over the years. And the fact is, there are a number of reasons I could list. But in an effort to avoid being called out as a conspiracy theorist or crazed tree-hugger, I'm just going to go with the "safest" answer for now:

Complacency.

Why go out of your way to produce a more fuel-efficient car if the consumer is going to buy your vehicle anyway?

As long as gas prices remain reasonable (and you'd better believe $3.00 a gallon is not only reasonable, but dirt-cheap), there's little reason to cause a fuss.

Problem is, gas prices can't remain reasonable. Not with the reality of peak oil upon us.

Of course, even at $3.00 a gallon, we can already see the beginnings of a major transition to increased fuel efficiency.

Toyota's Numbers Tell the Story on Fuel-Efficient Vehicles!

The profits Toyota's been able to pull in over the past couple of years from its fuel-efficient Prius prove that fuel-efficient vehicles are what more and more consumers want.

In 2006 alone, Toyota sold 800,000 of its hybrid superstar, and earned a record $14 billion. In contrast, GM lost almost $2 billion.

Of course, GM claims that it's going to deliver its new Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicle, the Volt, in 2010 in an effort to tap the overwhelming demand for fuel efficiency.

If they can pull it off, and deliver it at a reasonable price, we could see the next stage of fuel-efficient vehicles, at least from the major automakers, in less than three years. Because unlike your typical hybrid, the Volt doesn't use a drop of gasoline for the first 40 miles. Instead, the batteries in the Volt can be charged up at night, via a typical 110V outlet, and that's your "fuel."

After the first all-electric 40 miles, the car turns into a typical hybrid vehicle utilizing both high-performance batteries and a small internal combustion engine.

Now while 40 miles may not seem like much, it's actually the distance 78% of the daily commuting population in the U.S. drives to get to and from work.

Imagine not having to spend a dime on gas to get to and from work everyday!

That alone could transform consumer demand AND the entire automobile market overnight.

And you'd better believe there's some money to be made here.

Just look at China BAK Battery (CBAK:NASDAQ), a company that formed a cooperative relationship with the battery manufacturer for GM's Volt.

Two weeks ago, at our Profit from the Peak Summit, I told attendees that CBAK was a way to play this thing.

Was I right?

Well, take a look at CBAK's chart this week:

That's a 116% gain in 4 days.

And take a look at this other high-performance battery stock I told attendees about at the conference.

The company is called Ener1 (ENEI.OB), and it develops and markets lithium-ion batteries for electric vehicles.

This one pulled a 91% gain in 5 days, after announcing it landed two contracts worth a combined $9 million.

Folks, I'm telling you, this is just the beginning. Anything related to alternative energy markets will continue to deliver for us.

In fact, I'm predicting that our latest solar play, a small company that's aligned itself with one of the biggest solar manufacturers on the market to install solar-powered roofing tiles, will see gains in excess of 67% by January.

That's about four months away!

For more on this company, click here .

Until next time . . .

Jeff Siegel

Enter Your E-mail Address Below:

By signing up, you'll also get our latest report, Sound Investing in Uranium.

The last three comments seem to be brain dead.

Paul Taylor: He did not said electricity is free, but it sure going to be cheaper then oil down the road.

OB: No one can predicted what the future hold, but I would says it better then what we have now. The basic gas engine have not change over 50 years. why it had not change from the basic gas engine? Let push foward to other type motor and see what the out come will be. There are many ways to get electricity. Who says it had to be one of them. The answer is any forms that make electricity.

The statement of:
"Imagine not having to spend a dime on gas to get to and from work everyday!"
it outright misleading and a lie. Sure imagine it, but dont imply it will happen. Jeff conveniently forgot to mention that electricity is not free either.

PHEVs?!? A possible future solution. The question is where is all this surplus electricity coming from? Solar? Geothermal? Nuclear fusion?

No offense Jeff, but you need to take a course in physics and economics. Electric cars actually burn more BTU's than gas or diesel equivalents. Hydrocarbons, falling water, and a small amout or other energy sources are used to put all of those volts into the grid. The utility companies must maintain a huge infrastructure (far more expensive than oil wells and refineries per BTU). With the life line rates given to the small users, this increases the cost per volt or BTU to the rest of the market. No one on lifeline rates will be buying those cars. Sooo the cost will be borne by you, me, and other folks who get their electons from the grid. Electrical transmission is lossy. That is, more gets put into the grid than comes out at the other end. Plug in youR hybred car and you will notice the added electrical use reflected in the highest rate category that you pay on your next utility bill. This is because your other usage probably won't go down. So you are buying the most expensive volts to replace the gas that wasn't used.

A few years back, I sunk more that $80K into a solar system that I am quite prowd of. But the payout is heavily influenced by the utility rate structure. You see, PG&E takes the power that I generate off of the low rate end of my bill. CUTE. Nevertheless, the capital investment in solar makes far more sense than buying a hybred. The additional capital cost of the hybred car does not payout when you consider the the true cost per mile driven. The electrical meeter on the side of your house is just going to spin around more times as you burn less gas. At 5 or 6 bucks a gallon, the hybreds might actually give you the same (true) rate of return as putting the incrimental capital that you didn't spend into a CD.
REALLY POOR ECONOMICS.
In summary, tell your readers to install all of the solar that they can, but to pass on the hybred.
W. R. BERRY

Hey W R Berry, learn how to spell HYBRID and then maybe your comments would hold more weight.