Ford's CEO Mulally says internal combustion engines are #1 priority...

[SP33Demon]

Look at what Ford's CEO said today:

Roberts: General Motors has got an electric car coming out. It's not going to come out until 2010, 2011. Does Ford have a fully plug-in hybrid vehicle coming?

Mulally: We are working on that also, but let me just share with you the Ford plan about that. Our No. 1 priority is to improve the internal combustion engine, and that's why the turbocharging, the direct fuel injection, we get a 20 percent improvement in fuel mileage and a 15 percent reduction in CO2, but we get that across all of the engines, across all the vehicles. Then we move to more electrification with the hybrids as you mentioned, and we are very excited that the next step after that will be full electrification. Now we're tied into the grids, and we really have moved to an energy independence solution.

Stupid fckstick says Ford is going to focus on combustion engines first and THEN Hybrids? Big NO vote to helping these POS's out. Especially when they HAVE the hybrid technology to go 30 miles on a regular charge with their PHEV's.

From the 2008 Washington Auto Show (wiki - PHEV):

Also on display at the show is a Ford Escape Plug-in Hybrid (PHEV) alongside the production Escape Hybrid. The plug-in research vehicle uses high voltage, lithium-ion batteries and can travel up to 30 miles (48 km) on battery power alone before switching to full hybrid mode, delivering the equivalent of up to 120 miles per US gallon (2.0 L/100 km/140 mpg-imp) for far fewer trips to the gas station.

Ford is collaborating with Southern California Edison in a unique partnership to advance the commercialization of PHEVs. This is part of Ford?s sustainability strategy, which also includes EcoBoost engine technology, announced at the 2008 North American International Auto Show.

Why the HELL wouldn't that technology be your top priority over combustion engines????? Bullsh*t. Utter bullsh*t IMO. What do you guys think.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon
Why the HELL wouldn't that technology be your top priority over combustion engines????? Bullsh*t. Utter bullsh*t IMO. What do you guys think.

Profit. You can't sell something that is too expensive for people to purchase.

 

[Skitzer]

I don't see anything wrong with what he said ........ combustion engines will be around for many more years so while you're building electric ones why not improve the existing ones and improve mileage and lower emissions?

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: SP33Demon
Why the HELL wouldn't that technology be your top priority over combustion engines????? Bullsh*t. Utter bullsh*t IMO. What do you guys think.

Profit. You can't sell something that is too expensive for people to purchase.

1) When you're pleading for a government handout, only a moron would say they're prioritizing their current technology over their new.

2) Chinese company is releasing a full electric plug-in for $22,000 with a 68.5 mile range. Why can't our government subsidize THAT instead of Ford's bullsht? Link.

It's a fcking outrage that China is beating us to the punch on this, while we have dipsht CEO's like Ford's talking about prioritizing combustion engine efficiency. That money should be going to hybrid technology...

 

[Jaskalas]

Initial cost of $22,000 sounds great but what about battery replacements? There is additional cost on the owner to maintain the vehicle, no?

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Initial cost of $22,000 sounds great but what about battery replacements? There is additional cost on the owner to maintain the vehicle, no?

Plus it's Chinese so odds are something that it's made out of will kill you.

 

[StageLeft]

I will believe the Chinese can release a 22k plug in with 68.5 mile range that goes faster than I can run and doesn't simply disappear in an accident when I see it.

Domestics have been dragging their heels with hybrids, but let's make no mistake: economically hybrids are, even at $4/gallon gas, mostly a nice-to-have. They make no economic sense. They costs generally thousands more and it takes far too long to realize the gain. It's getting better but if money is the bottom line, hybrids are still not worth buying.

And look at GM. They're pushing the boundary with their locomotive-like drivetrain in the Volt but the damn thing is obscenely expensive. It will be a statement more than an economically viable vehicle when it comes out at 40k or 48k. It seems like hobbyists are able to make decent electric cars themselves by ripping up a production car and putting in a motor and a bunch of batteries but for some reason no manufacturer with a real name has been able to do it at a good cost.

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon
Look at what Ford's CEO said today:

Roberts: General Motors has got an electric car coming out. It's not going to come out until 2010, 2011. Does Ford have a fully plug-in hybrid vehicle coming?

Mulally: We are working on that also, but let me just share with you the Ford plan about that. Our No. 1 priority is to improve the internal combustion engine, and that's why the turbocharging, the direct fuel injection, we get a 20 percent improvement in fuel mileage and a 15 percent reduction in CO2, but we get that across all of the engines, across all the vehicles. Then we move to more electrification with the hybrids as you mentioned, and we are very excited that the next step after that will be full electrification. Now we're tied into the grids, and we really have moved to an energy independence solution.

Stupid fckstick says Ford is going to focus on combustion engines first and THEN Hybrids? Big NO vote to helping these POS's out. Especially when they HAVE the hybrid technology to go 30 miles on a regular charge with their PHEV's.

From the 2008 Washington Auto Show (wiki - PHEV):

Also on display at the show is a Ford Escape Plug-in Hybrid (PHEV) alongside the production Escape Hybrid. The plug-in research vehicle uses high voltage, lithium-ion batteries and can travel up to 30 miles (48 km) on battery power alone before switching to full hybrid mode, delivering the equivalent of up to 120 miles per US gallon (2.0 L/100 km/140 mpg-imp) for far fewer trips to the gas station.

Ford is collaborating with Southern California Edison in a unique partnership to advance the commercialization of PHEVs. This is part of Ford?s sustainability strategy, which also includes EcoBoost engine technology, announced at the 2008 North American International Auto Show.

Why the HELL wouldn't that technology be your top priority over combustion engines????? Bullsh*t. Utter bullsh*t IMO. What do you guys think.

Obama said step number 1 is conservation. This direction was probably decided on years ago. At this time, there is no reason to believe that the supply side of the market for crude is not going to control what direction we go short term.


Think again about what you are suggesting also. Trading gasoline use for coal use. What would be the point?

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

1) When you're pleading for a government handout, only a moron would say they're prioritizing their current technology over their new.

2) Chinese company is releasing a full electric plug-in for $22,000 with a 68.5 mile range. Why can't our government subsidize THAT instead of Ford's bullsht? Link.

It's a fcking outrage that China is beating us to the punch on this, while we have dipsht CEO's like Ford's talking about prioritizing combustion engine efficiency. That money should be going to hybrid technology...

Does that Chinese car provide acceptable driving characteristics? (acceleration, etc.) Does it meet US safety standards? Does it provide the sort of amenities that US drivers require in a car over $20,000 that they would purchase? I'm guessing the answer to one or more of these questions is a resounding 'no'.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

1) When you're pleading for a government handout, only a moron would say they're prioritizing their current technology over their new.

2) Chinese company is releasing a full electric plug-in for $22,000 with a 68.5 mile range. Why can't our government subsidize THAT instead of Ford's bullsht? Link.

It's a fcking outrage that China is beating us to the punch on this, while we have dipsht CEO's like Ford's talking about prioritizing combustion engine efficiency. That money should be going to hybrid technology...

Does that Chinese car provide acceptable driving characteristics? (acceleration, etc.) Does it meet US safety standards? Does it provide the sort of amenities that US drivers require in a car over $20,000 that they would purchase? I'm guessing the answer to one or more of these questions is a resounding 'no'.

It's like that $30 car from India. To meet US safety standards you'd see many more thousands go into it, from crash testing (probably need more weight, thus lowering its economy) to airbags, so then we're likely looking at more money and more weight which means an even slower car. And who knows how the reliability of a strut is going to be if it was put in a car made by a cell phone company.

 

[conehead433]

Look at what Ford's CEO and other execs are getting paid for running the company into the ground.

Text

 

[miketheidiot]

good for ford :thumbsup:

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

1) When you're pleading for a government handout, only a moron would say they're prioritizing their current technology over their new.

2) Chinese company is releasing a full electric plug-in for $22,000 with a 68.5 mile range. Why can't our government subsidize THAT instead of Ford's bullsht? Link.

It's a fcking outrage that China is beating us to the punch on this, while we have dipsht CEO's like Ford's talking about prioritizing combustion engine efficiency. That money should be going to hybrid technology...

Does that Chinese car provide acceptable driving characteristics? (acceleration, etc.) Does it meet US safety standards? Does it provide the sort of amenities that US drivers require in a car over $20,000 that they would purchase? I'm guessing the answer to one or more of these questions is a resounding 'no'.

You're asking questions that aren't know yet, and even IF the answer is a resounding NO; with the investment of the amount the Big 3 are asking for, safety could be easily ameliorated. Amenities would just raise the price beyond $22K, but at most it would amount to $30K.

All in all, if a relatively unknown sht company in China is NOW releasing a prototype, why don't we have an economically feasible (finished) product?

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Why the HELL wouldn't that technology be your top priority over combustion engines?????

The internal combustion engine is the technology we have, now. Unless you're prepared to underwrite and deploy a replacement technology, immediately and universally, we're stuck with it for probably a decade while we're making a transition to better technology. Note that Mulally also said:

Then we move to more electrification with the hybrids as you mentioned, and we are very excited that the next step after that will be full electrification. Now we're tied into the grids, and we really have moved to an energy independence solution.

The move away from the internal combustion engine burning fossile fuels is not going to be a one step instant change. We have neither the mature, producable, reliable techology nor the infrastructure in place to support it... YET! In that context, he's right -- Improvements in efficiency of 15 - 20% are significant and important for the short term.

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Initial cost of $22,000 sounds great but what about battery replacements? There is additional cost on the owner to maintain the vehicle, no?

Not sure about battery replacements, but in a few years that should be a moot point. Google the scientist who just discovered how to increase lithium battery storage by 10.

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: SP33Demon
Look at what Ford's CEO said today:

Roberts: General Motors has got an electric car coming out. It's not going to come out until 2010, 2011. Does Ford have a fully plug-in hybrid vehicle coming?

Mulally: We are working on that also, but let me just share with you the Ford plan about that. Our No. 1 priority is to improve the internal combustion engine, and that's why the turbocharging, the direct fuel injection, we get a 20 percent improvement in fuel mileage and a 15 percent reduction in CO2, but we get that across all of the engines, across all the vehicles. Then we move to more electrification with the hybrids as you mentioned, and we are very excited that the next step after that will be full electrification. Now we're tied into the grids, and we really have moved to an energy independence solution.

Stupid fckstick says Ford is going to focus on combustion engines first and THEN Hybrids? Big NO vote to helping these POS's out. Especially when they HAVE the hybrid technology to go 30 miles on a regular charge with their PHEV's.

From the 2008 Washington Auto Show (wiki - PHEV):

Also on display at the show is a Ford Escape Plug-in Hybrid (PHEV) alongside the production Escape Hybrid. The plug-in research vehicle uses high voltage, lithium-ion batteries and can travel up to 30 miles (48 km) on battery power alone before switching to full hybrid mode, delivering the equivalent of up to 120 miles per US gallon (2.0 L/100 km/140 mpg-imp) for far fewer trips to the gas station.

Ford is collaborating with Southern California Edison in a unique partnership to advance the commercialization of PHEVs. This is part of Ford?s sustainability strategy, which also includes EcoBoost engine technology, announced at the 2008 North American International Auto Show.

Why the HELL wouldn't that technology be your top priority over combustion engines????? Bullsh*t. Utter bullsh*t IMO. What do you guys think.

Obama said step number 1 is conservation. This direction was probably decided on years ago. At this time, there is no reason to believe that the supply side of the market for crude is not going to control what direction we go short term.


Think again about what you are suggesting also. Trading gasoline use for coal use. What would be the point?

Common sense would tell you that even JUST coal use would help because it's a single focal point of pollution.

Simple Wiki search:

Increased pollution is expected to occur in some areas with the adoption of PHEVs, but most areas will experience a decrease.[102] A study by the ACEEE predicts that widespread PHEV use in heavily coal-dependent areas would result in an increase in local net sulfur dioxide and mercury emissions, given emissions levels from most coal plants currently supplying power to the grid.[122] Although clean coal technologies could create power plants which supply grid power from coal without emitting significant amounts of such pollutants, the higher cost of the application of these technologies may increase the price of coal-generated electricity. The net effect on pollution is dependent on the fuel source of the electrical grid (fossil or renewable, for example) and the pollution profile of the power plants themselves. Identifying, regulating and upgrading single point pollution source such as a power plant?or replacing a plant altogether?may also be more practical. From a human health perspective, shifting pollution away from large urban areas may be considered a significant advantage.[123]

 

[dphantom]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

1) When you're pleading for a government handout, only a moron would say they're prioritizing their current technology over their new.

2) Chinese company is releasing a full electric plug-in for $22,000 with a 68.5 mile range. Why can't our government subsidize THAT instead of Ford's bullsht? Link.

It's a fcking outrage that China is beating us to the punch on this, while we have dipsht CEO's like Ford's talking about prioritizing combustion engine efficiency. That money should be going to hybrid technology...

Does that Chinese car provide acceptable driving characteristics? (acceleration, etc.) Does it meet US safety standards? Does it provide the sort of amenities that US drivers require in a car over $20,000 that they would purchase? I'm guessing the answer to one or more of these questions is a resounding 'no'.

You're asking questions that aren't know yet, and even IF the answer is a resounding NO; with the investment of the amount the Big 3 are asking for, safety could be easily ameliorated. Amenities would just raise the price beyond $22K, but at most it would amount to $30K.

All in all, if a relatively unknown sht company in China is NOW releasing a prototype, why don't we have an economically feasible (finished) product?

And you're making an assertion that may not be realistic. We have no idea how much "amenties" would cost nor do we have any informaiton on the vehicle meeting US safety standards. The design of the vehicle may be such that adding the amentiies and bringing it up to safety standards means the base design is hopelessly flawed.

We simply do not know enough at this point. Quite frankly, automakers need to continue to focus on the IC engine while exploring other alternatives that can be delivered in a cost effective manner.

A car with a range of 40-70 miles is simply impractical for a very large segment of the driving public. The market may not be large enough to profitably sustain such vehicles. By way of example, my commute is 15-20 minutes or about 20 miles one way - all freeway. If I do any side trips or errands, I am pushing the practical range of te vehicle.

These will work great in heavily built up urban areas where commuting is short range perhaps.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

You're asking questions that aren't know yet, and even IF the answer is a resounding NO; with the investment of the amount the Big 3 are asking for, safety could be easily ameliorated. Amenities would just raise the price beyond $22K, but at most it would amount to $30K.

All in all, if a relatively unknown sht company in China is NOW releasing a prototype, why don't we have an economically feasible (finished) product?

Well my point is that it might be a bit premature to be outraged about something that we don't know those answers to. It's easy to say that safety is easily taken care of, but what if the other materials required to do it kill the gas mileage? What if they are using some ultra toxic (but cheap) batteries that would do terrible things in an accident?

I bet you if you asked GM or Ford to design an electric car that goes 70 miles to a charge, and informed them that they could ignore all safety and environmental regulations to do so... you'd have a car in no time.

I totally agree with you that those statements you quoted seem to show a company that's still trying to play the game they already lost at, and I think it's stupid too. Just saying China's probably cutting a few corners we don't want cut on our cars.

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Why the HELL wouldn't that technology be your top priority over combustion engines?????

The internbal combustion engine is the technology we have, now. Unless you're prepared to underwrite and deploy a replacement technology, immediately and universally, we're stuck with it for probably a decade while we're making a transition to better technology. Note that Mulally also said:

Then we move to more electrification with the hybrids as you mentioned, and we are very excited that the next step after that will be full electrification. Now we're tied into the grids, and we really have moved to an energy independence solution.

The move away from the internal combustion engine burning fossile fuels is not going to be a one step instant change. We have neither the mature, producable, reliable techology nor the infrastructure in place to support it... YET! In that context, he's right -- Improvements in efficiency of 15 - 20% are significant and important for the short term.

First off, the PHEV FORD technology is already here. Mass producing it could easily be done with any government loan. This will guarantee that they will be profitable by investing in technology that we all want.

Second, I agree: it's not going to be a one step change. But I don't see why you cannot prioritize hybrid/electric technology FIRST instead of focusing the majority of your investment in a dying technology. I agree, improvement are needed. I just think he's a moron for his prioritization of old over new.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: dphantom

And you're making an assertion that may not be realistic. We have no idea how much "amenties" would cost nor do we have any informaiton on the vehicle meeting US safety standards. The design of the vehicle may be such that adding the amentiies and bringing it up to safety standards means the base design is hopelessly flawed.

We simply do not know enough at this point. Quite frankly, automakers need to continue to focus on the IC engine while exploring other alternatives that can be delivered in a cost effective manner.

A car with a range of 40-70 miles is simply impractical for a very large segment of the driving public. The market may not be large enough to profitably sustain such vehicles. By way of example, my commute is 15-20 minutes or about 20 miles one way - all freeway. If I do any side trips or errands, I am pushing the practical range of te vehicle.

These will work great in heavily built up urban areas where commuting is short range perhaps.

If I remember correctly more than 80% of Americans drive less than 40 miles a day (total) so a 40-70 mile limit would work pretty well. I think the biggest obstacle in that respect is a marketing one where you have to convince people of the reality that they only drive 40 miles or less per day. I still think that indicates pretty well that there is a market segment for a car that can go 40 miles for less than a dollar.

 

[TraumaRN]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon
Look at what Ford's CEO said today:

Roberts: General Motors has got an electric car coming out. It's not going to come out until 2010, 2011. Does Ford have a fully plug-in hybrid vehicle coming?

Mulally: We are working on that also, but let me just share with you the Ford plan about that. Our No. 1 priority is to improve the internal combustion engine, and that's why the turbocharging, the direct fuel injection, we get a 20 percent improvement in fuel mileage and a 15 percent reduction in CO2, but we get that across all of the engines, across all the vehicles. Then we move to more electrification with the hybrids as you mentioned, and we are very excited that the next step after that will be full electrification. Now we're tied into the grids, and we really have moved to an energy independence solution.

Stupid fckstick says Ford is going to focus on combustion engines first and THEN Hybrids? Big NO vote to helping these POS's out. Especially when they HAVE the hybrid technology to go 30 miles on a regular charge with their PHEV's.

From the 2008 Washington Auto Show (wiki - PHEV):

Also on display at the show is a Ford Escape Plug-in Hybrid (PHEV) alongside the production Escape Hybrid. The plug-in research vehicle uses high voltage, lithium-ion batteries and can travel up to 30 miles (48 km) on battery power alone before switching to full hybrid mode, delivering the equivalent of up to 120 miles per US gallon (2.0 L/100 km/140 mpg-imp) for far fewer trips to the gas station.

Ford is collaborating with Southern California Edison in a unique partnership to advance the commercialization of PHEVs. This is part of Ford?s sustainability strategy, which also includes EcoBoost engine technology, announced at the 2008 North American International Auto Show.

Why the HELL wouldn't that technology be your top priority over combustion engines????? Bullsh*t. Utter bullsh*t IMO. What do you guys think.

I think you are flailing around with this post. Mulally is being realistic. As others have posted, hybrid, plug in electrics etc sure they are great but the tech is TOO expensive right now. Owning a hybrid is more or a status symbol/I have money to burn. Right the internal combustion engine is the way to go until they can get the cost of electric cars, batteries all that down. And hey at least they are reducing emissions and improving fuels economy along the way. And oh by the way they are STILL working on the alternative techs but not rolling it out til it's economically feasible.

What do you think they are made of money? They are being forward looking but realistic because they don't have cash to burn on expensive new technology that wont sell in high amounts because the initial price is too high for the average Joe on the street.

Think about it this way, in essence he's saying lets perfect the internal combustion engine as best we can with current technology, maximize performance, emissions, MPG, etc. Then take that engine that is super efficient etc and tie it with an electric motor as the cost of entry of electric motor hybrids goes down. Seems fairly reasonable and allows you the most bang for your buck in the long run.

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: dphantom

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

1) When you're pleading for a government handout, only a moron would say they're prioritizing their current technology over their new.

2) Chinese company is releasing a full electric plug-in for $22,000 with a 68.5 mile range. Why can't our government subsidize THAT instead of Ford's bullsht? Link.

It's a fcking outrage that China is beating us to the punch on this, while we have dipsht CEO's like Ford's talking about prioritizing combustion engine efficiency. That money should be going to hybrid technology...

Does that Chinese car provide acceptable driving characteristics? (acceleration, etc.) Does it meet US safety standards? Does it provide the sort of amenities that US drivers require in a car over $20,000 that they would purchase? I'm guessing the answer to one or more of these questions is a resounding 'no'.

You're asking questions that aren't know yet, and even IF the answer is a resounding NO; with the investment of the amount the Big 3 are asking for, safety could be easily ameliorated. Amenities would just raise the price beyond $22K, but at most it would amount to $30K.

All in all, if a relatively unknown sht company in China is NOW releasing a prototype, why don't we have an economically feasible (finished) product?

And you're making an assertion that may not be realistic. We have no idea how much "amenties" would cost nor do we have any informaiton on the vehicle meeting US safety standards. The design of the vehicle may be such that adding the amentiies and bringing it up to safety standards means the base design is hopelessly flawed.

We simply do not know enough at this point. Quite frankly, automakers need to continue to focus on the IC engine while exploring other alternatives that can be delivered in a cost effective manner.

A car with a range of 40-70 miles is simply impractical for a very large segment of the driving public. The market may not be large enough to profitably sustain such vehicles. By way of example, my commute is 15-20 minutes or about 20 miles one way - all freeway. If I do any side trips or errands, I am pushing the practical range of te vehicle.

These will work great in heavily built up urban areas where commuting is short range perhaps.

I understand what you're saying on the commute > 30 miles. But if you read my OP, it said that Ford's PHEV technology will still average 120 miles per gallon (after factoring in the initial 30 miles) after the PHEV switches over to gasoline. It's not a 100% plugin, it still uses gas as a backup past 30 miles.

Also, keep in mind that the PHEV technology gets BETTER mileage in areas you described as "built up urban areas" because it turns off at stoplights. For example, the Ford Escape Hybrid gets 33-36 mpg city and only 29 highway.

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: SP33Demon
Look at what Ford's CEO said today:

Roberts: General Motors has got an electric car coming out. It's not going to come out until 2010, 2011. Does Ford have a fully plug-in hybrid vehicle coming?

Mulally: We are working on that also, but let me just share with you the Ford plan about that. Our No. 1 priority is to improve the internal combustion engine, and that's why the turbocharging, the direct fuel injection, we get a 20 percent improvement in fuel mileage and a 15 percent reduction in CO2, but we get that across all of the engines, across all the vehicles. Then we move to more electrification with the hybrids as you mentioned, and we are very excited that the next step after that will be full electrification. Now we're tied into the grids, and we really have moved to an energy independence solution.

Stupid fckstick says Ford is going to focus on combustion engines first and THEN Hybrids? Big NO vote to helping these POS's out. Especially when they HAVE the hybrid technology to go 30 miles on a regular charge with their PHEV's.

From the 2008 Washington Auto Show (wiki - PHEV):

Also on display at the show is a Ford Escape Plug-in Hybrid (PHEV) alongside the production Escape Hybrid. The plug-in research vehicle uses high voltage, lithium-ion batteries and can travel up to 30 miles (48 km) on battery power alone before switching to full hybrid mode, delivering the equivalent of up to 120 miles per US gallon (2.0 L/100 km/140 mpg-imp) for far fewer trips to the gas station.

Ford is collaborating with Southern California Edison in a unique partnership to advance the commercialization of PHEVs. This is part of Ford?s sustainability strategy, which also includes EcoBoost engine technology, announced at the 2008 North American International Auto Show.

Why the HELL wouldn't that technology be your top priority over combustion engines????? Bullsh*t. Utter bullsh*t IMO. What do you guys think.

Obama said step number 1 is conservation. This direction was probably decided on years ago. At this time, there is no reason to believe that the supply side of the market for crude is not going to control what direction we go short term.


Think again about what you are suggesting also. Trading gasoline use for coal use. What would be the point?

Common sense would tell you that even JUST coal use would help because it's a single focal point of pollution.

Simple Wiki search:

Increased pollution is expected to occur in some areas with the adoption of PHEVs, but most areas will experience a decrease.[102] A study by the ACEEE predicts that widespread PHEV use in heavily coal-dependent areas would result in an increase in local net sulfur dioxide and mercury emissions, given emissions levels from most coal plants currently supplying power to the grid.[122] Although clean coal technologies could create power plants which supply grid power from coal without emitting significant amounts of such pollutants, the higher cost of the application of these technologies may increase the price of coal-generated electricity. The net effect on pollution is dependent on the fuel source of the electrical grid (fossil or renewable, for example) and the pollution profile of the power plants themselves. Identifying, regulating and upgrading single point pollution source such as a power plant?or replacing a plant altogether?may also be more practical. From a human health perspective, shifting pollution away from large urban areas may be considered a significant advantage.[123]

We can't supply the nation now with reliable electricity supply. We currently import more electricity than we export. Our government is going to push clean coal technology to it's legislative limits (expensive). Cap and trade plans floating around (more expense). Japan (contracters) are building a number of new coal fired power plants in mexico now. We have rail infrastructure, in place, (my profession), to supply them with coal. I see the math on the wall, and it doesn't add up to less parts per million of co2, and a shift away from fossil fuels.

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: DeathBUA

Originally posted by: SP33Demon
Look at what Ford's CEO said today:

Roberts: General Motors has got an electric car coming out. It's not going to come out until 2010, 2011. Does Ford have a fully plug-in hybrid vehicle coming?

Mulally: We are working on that also, but let me just share with you the Ford plan about that. Our No. 1 priority is to improve the internal combustion engine, and that's why the turbocharging, the direct fuel injection, we get a 20 percent improvement in fuel mileage and a 15 percent reduction in CO2, but we get that across all of the engines, across all the vehicles. Then we move to more electrification with the hybrids as you mentioned, and we are very excited that the next step after that will be full electrification. Now we're tied into the grids, and we really have moved to an energy independence solution.

Stupid fckstick says Ford is going to focus on combustion engines first and THEN Hybrids? Big NO vote to helping these POS's out. Especially when they HAVE the hybrid technology to go 30 miles on a regular charge with their PHEV's.

From the 2008 Washington Auto Show (wiki - PHEV):

Also on display at the show is a Ford Escape Plug-in Hybrid (PHEV) alongside the production Escape Hybrid. The plug-in research vehicle uses high voltage, lithium-ion batteries and can travel up to 30 miles (48 km) on battery power alone before switching to full hybrid mode, delivering the equivalent of up to 120 miles per US gallon (2.0 L/100 km/140 mpg-imp) for far fewer trips to the gas station.

Ford is collaborating with Southern California Edison in a unique partnership to advance the commercialization of PHEVs. This is part of Ford?s sustainability strategy, which also includes EcoBoost engine technology, announced at the 2008 North American International Auto Show.

Why the HELL wouldn't that technology be your top priority over combustion engines????? Bullsh*t. Utter bullsh*t IMO. What do you guys think.

I think you are flailing around with this post. Mulally is being realistic. As others have posted, hybrid, plug in electrics etc sure they are great but the tech is TOO expensive right now. Owning a hybrid is more or a status symbol/I have money to burn. Right the internal combustion engine is the way to go until they can get the cost of electric cars, batteries all that down. And hey at least they are reducing emissions and improving fuels economy along the way. And oh by the way they are STILL working on the alternative techs but not rolling it out til it's economically feasible.

What do you think they are made of money? They are being forward looking but realistic because they don't have cash to burn on expensive new technology that wont sell in high amounts because the initial price is too high for the average Joe on the street.

Think about it this way, in essence he's saying lets perfect the internal combustion engine as best we can with current technology, maximize performance, emissions, MPG, etc. Then take that engine that is super efficient etc and tie it with an electric motor as the cost of entry of electric motor hybrids goes down. Seems fairly reasonable and allows you the most bang for your buck in the long run.

While I agree that they are more expensive, how is China able to offer a pure electric for $22K? I think it's a scam, or the Chinese car is incredibly dangerous. But we won't know until it comes out to answer those questions about true cost.

Regarding your that going green later = best bang for your buck, how do you figure? New Priuses go for about $25K and get 50mpg and sell out like candy (have you seen the waitlist?). If Ford even remotely converted all their cars to a similar Hybrid technology, or PHEV (which they already OWN and use in the Mariner, Escape, and Tributes), how do you figure they would be more profitable off their regular line which wouldn't sell out? My simple math: Selling out all car lines > initial conversion investment on technology they already are producing.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
If I remember correctly more than 80% of Americans drive less than 40 miles a day (total) so a 40-70 mile limit would work pretty well. I think the biggest obstacle in that respect is a marketing one where you have to convince people of the reality that they only drive 40 miles or less per day. I still think that indicates pretty well that there is a market segment for a car that can go 40 miles for less than a dollar.

I drive about 25 miles most days I go to work, including there and back and lunch, but if I had a hard limit of 40, that would be a problem. It would mean I couldn't even drive an extra 20 to the mall and back on the way home or something similar, so although I drive within this car's confines _most of the time_, I don't always. That's why the volt is nice; I'd use its battery most of the time but it has an IC for longer trips.