backtop

Print 22 comment(s) - last by superstition.. on Jun 15 at 8:15 PM

Ford C-Max Hybrid

Ford Focus Electric
Ford will not bring 7-passenger C-max to U.S.

The move is on to more fuel-efficient power trains for vehicles of all sorts. New, smaller and more efficient engines aren't only coming to compact cars; they are also coming to larger full size trucks and other vehicles. Ford is one of the manufacturers at the forefront of the tech push to make all of its vehicle models more efficient.

One of the most popular and interesting of the fuel-efficient vehicles is the Ford F-150 truck with the EcoBoost V6 engine option. A very significant number of those trucks are being sold with this powertrain. The impressive thing is that while the EcoBoost is more efficient, it also has similar power output as the V8 trucks offer.

Now Ford has announced that it will up the yearly production of hybrid and electric vehicles from 35,000 yearly to 100,000 yearly. Ford will focus on the five-passenger C-Max Hybrid and the all-electric Energi. This move will make the C-Max/Energi the only vehicles in the Ford fleet that aren’t offered in gasoline engine-only versions.

Jim Farley, Ford's vice president of marketing said, "The way we're executing our electric vehicles is a little different than other companies. We're not electrifying a certain vehicle and making a science project for a few people. We're electrifying our core (models)."

The increase in hybrid and electric vehicles also includes the current hybrids Ford offers like the Fusion, Lincoln MKZ, and the Escape SUV. Ford also recently announced that it would be making an increased investment into three plants in Michigan of $135 million and added 220 jobs to help build five new electric models by 2012.

The Detroit News reports about 170 of the 220 new jobs will be in the Rawsonville factory where the batteries for the EVs will be assembled.

In addition to the new C-Max and Energi, Ford will also add the all-electric Focus to the lineup next year. At this point, however, Ford is still not offering many details on the Focus electric with respect to how far the car will be able to drive on a single charge (100 miles would be a good guess). 

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
By superstition on 6/10/2011 7:34:31 PM , Rating: 1
Americans are paying a $7500 (vehicle) + $2000 (garage charger) per vehicle tax subsidy to prop up the electric toy car "industry", while much more reasonable fuel-efficient clean diesel cars are readily available in other countries.

Maybe this is so we can also prop up the energy vampire known as ethanol?

Look at the very high MPG ratings of so many cars, most of which are not available here: http://forums.tdiclub.com/showthread.php?t=319185

Even larger vehicles like the Passat are available with Bluemotion tech and get far better mileage than most small cars do here. There is something very very wrong with American fuel economy politics. (Note that Ford and GM are selling fuel-efficient diesels elsewhere, too...)




By superstition on 6/10/2011 7:39:10 PM , Rating: 1
I forgot to mention the absurdity of giving tax subsidies to electric and hybrid vehicles given the way the US chose to hand over the rare earths mining industry to China. Our mines are not operational and China has already threatened us with embargoes.

So, yeah -- let's force American tax-payers to subsidize batteries for these vehicles made with those rare earths from China. That makes so much sense! Meanwhile, our diesel fuel standard is substandard. Engine manufacturers say we should have a wear scar of no more than 460. All it would take is less than 2% biodiesel added to get us there. Our cetane standard is only 40. And, beyond the poor-quality fuel (and lack of inspections in most states), we have car policy that is crazy. Maybe electric vehicles make sense for people who live in large cities in areas that have no winter, but a lot of us don't.

Why not put some money into diesel-electric hybrids, if you really want the maximum in fuel efficiency?


By Philippine Mango on 6/10/2011 8:43:25 PM , Rating: 3
You seem to forget that clean diesels aren't popular with the united states or english government and for good reason.. A "clean diesel" car in the U.S is a tier 2 Bin 5 vehicle, the lowest emission standard currently allowed. Hybrids typically are PZEV now or tier 2 bin 3 and typically emit far fewer emissions in city driving than a diesel ever could thanks to the hybrid drivetrain. If you drive a Prius in London, you're not subjected to a congestion fee which says a lot about the shifting desires of various municipal governments.

Hybrids are great for city driving, no question about it, and considering a lot Americans are the type that do not like the M/T version of cars but the automatic, do everything for me while I fall asleep at the wheel but wake me up when I'm about to hit something, I'd say the Prius is a very suitable vehicle. Believe it or not, the majority of driving done by Americans is done at city speeds..


By StealthX32 on 6/10/2011 8:47:54 PM , Rating: 1
Diesel hybrids.

Did your mind just get blown?


By superstition on 6/11/2011 3:00:06 PM , Rating: 2
I know... I had already mention diesel hybrids. Those have the best of both worlds: city efficiency from the hybrid tech, and highway efficiency from the diesel.

America is a big place, and diesel makes a lot more sense.


By Spuke on 6/11/2011 12:21:28 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
do everything for me while I fall asleep at the wheel but wake me up when I'm about to hit something, I'd say the Prius is a very suitable vehicle.
I disagree, we're FAR too busy yapping on the cell phone to fall asleep.


By Bad-Karma on 6/13/2011 3:17:04 AM , Rating: 2
Did you know that if you're driving a Prius and you put your hand out the window it will turn.......


By drothgery on 6/11/2011 11:26:36 AM , Rating: 2
I'd note that said chart says nothing about whether or not those cars are capable of meeting US emissions standards or safety standards; very fuel efficient cars not available here routinely fail one or both of them.

Not that I think much of the tax incentives for electric cars or the ethanol mandate, subsidies, and tarrif on imported ethanol (none of which make any sense).


By superstition on 6/11/2011 3:04:23 PM , Rating: 1
Vehicles in the UK are equipped with the DPF (diesel particulate filter).

Furthermore, by being so fuel-efficient, they lead to lower emissions.

Diesel hybrids are likely to be even better in that respect.

Sites like greencar rank vehicles by their environmental impact, and these diesels do a lot better than so-called fuel-efficient small gasoline cars we have in the US. I also don't think coal from coal plants to power all-electric vehicles rate all that well, especially if you like fish that's not tainted with mercury.


By cruisin3style on 6/11/2011 2:35:48 PM , Rating: 2
Just keep in mind that that list says it is using Imperial MPG which is less than US MPG...but still impressive numbers.


By FishTankX on 6/12/2011 9:45:54 AM , Rating: 3
I'd like to point out that the prius gets 65MPG combined highway/city in the UK, due to the changes in measuring the gallon, and the different cycles they use to measure in contrast to the EPA's measuring methodology.

If you add an extra 20% (diesel contains 20% more energy than gasoline per gallon) you get a highly respectable 78MPG. That would get second place in the list you just linked to, while probably providing more space than the SKODA Fabia Estate listed at #1.

Not to mention releasing less particulates as well.

What i'm generally trying to say is, you can't directly compare European numbers and American numbers, because of different testing methodology. A Jetta TDI hits 67 on that list, but barley scrapes 35 here.


all well and good...
By DrApop on 6/10/2011 9:26:35 PM , Rating: 3
For those wanting diesel that is all well and good but it is still a hydrocarbon fuel from the ground. It is a short term, near sighted approach to the petroleum problem. EV and hybrids are the way to the future IMO....along with mass transit.

What really gets me is how all the car companies (and the neo-conservatives) bemoan the CAFE standards as too harsh. Go and look at the history. CAFE started in the 70's and had car companies attain an average of 17 mpg for their fleet. In the 80's it was......17 mpg for their fleet. In the 90's it was.......17 mpg for their fleet. In the early 2000's it was ......17 mpg for their fleet. It wasn't until 2008 or so that it jumped to 27 mpg for their fleet.

And if you look at the history of car companies, all that really has occurred until 2008 was that the companies went from 8 cylinder to 6 or 4 cylinder engines for their cars in order to attain the 17 mpg rating. 30 freakin years of nothing of real consequence and now they are b*tching and moaning.

Anyway, I see hybrids and cheaper (non-tax payer supplemented) EV as the future. Give me a decent no frills EV for 10-12 K for tooling around town. But 30-40K is idiotic




RE: all well and good...
By Solandri on 6/11/2011 2:55:22 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
For those wanting diesel that is all well and good but it is still a hydrocarbon fuel from the ground. It is a short term, near sighted approach to the petroleum problem.

Here's the latest breakdown on U.S. electricity production for 2011:
http://www.eia.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/table1_1....

44.7% coal
20.7% natural gas
0.4% petroleum coke
0.3% other gases

20.5% nuclear

8.2% hydro
4.7% other renewable (mostly wind)
0.3% other (mostly methane from landfills)

So even if you buy a 100% electric vehicle, 2/3rds of its energy still comes from hydrocarbon fuel from the ground. If you don't like nuclear as well (which seems to be the predominant opinion among environmentalists, though it baffles me why), only a little more than 1/8th of the electricity is coming from "green" sources.

quote:
And if you look at the history of car companies, all that really has occurred until 2008 was that the companies went from 8 cylinder to 6 or 4 cylinder engines for their cars in order to attain the 17 mpg rating. 30 freakin years of nothing of real consequence and now they are b*tching and moaning.

This is a gross oversimplification, based on extreme ignorance of how far automotive engineering has progressed. The 1983 Ford Crown Victoria LTD had a 5.0L V8 engine which generated 145 hp and 265 ft-lbs of torque. It had a curb weight of 3700 lbs and got 14 mpg combined. The 2011 Crown Victoria has a 4.6L V8 which produces 239 hp and 281 ft-lbs of torque. It has a 4100 lb curb weight, yet still manages 19 mpg combined.

The number of cylinders has dropped since 1980 because you can now generate the same amount of power from a smaller engine. Simple as that.

The CAFE average hasn't moved up much since then because when given a choice between getting a faster car or one which gets better fuel economy, the vast majority of people buy the faster car. Simple as that.

It's not an automotive industry conspiracy. It's simply people buying what they want. I suppose you could force the automakers to build cars which people don't want to buy (raise the CAFE standard), but that type of supply-side manipulation usually turns out badly (unsold inventory, depressed economic activity, etc). A better approach is to manipulate demand so that people instead will prefer fuel economy over power. e.g. Increase fuel taxes.


RE: all well and good...
By superstition on 6/11/2011 2:57:58 PM , Rating: 1
Telegraph:

"Studies have estimated that the cost of the accident at Fukushima may rise as high as $250 billion over the next 10 years.

The nuclear fuel in three of the reactors at the Fukushima Dai-Ichi nuclear plant has melted through the base of the pressure vessels and is pooling in the outer containment vessels, according to a report by the Japanese government.

The findings of the report, which has been given to the International Atomic Energy Agency, were revealed by the Yomiuri newspaper, which described a 'melt-through' as being 'far worse than a core meltdown" and "the worst possibility in a nuclear accident.'"


RE: all well and good...
By Solandri on 6/12/2011 3:52:22 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
"Studies have estimated that the cost of the accident at Fukushima may rise as high as $250 billion over the next 10 years.

The world produces about 2500 TWh of electricity from nuclear power per year.
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/uploadedImages/w...

Average electricity prices worldwide are about $0.15-$0.20/kWh.
http://www.eia.gov/emeu/international/elecprih.htm...

2500 TWh * [0.15 to 0.2] $/kWh = $375-$500 billion. The world gets $375-$500 billion worth of electricity per year from nuclear power. Over the last 40 years, nuclear power has generated about 52,000 TWh, or $7.8-$10.4 trillion worth of electricity. You're suggesting we should throw all that away because one of just two catastrophic nuclear accidents in 60 years might cost $250 billion?
quote:
The nuclear fuel in three of the reactors at the Fukushima Dai-Ichi nuclear plant has melted through the base of the pressure vessels and is pooling in the outer containment vessels, according to a report by the Japanese government.

The findings of the report, which has been given to the International Atomic Energy Agency, were revealed by the Yomiuri newspaper, which described a 'melt-through' as being 'far worse than a core meltdown" and "the worst possibility in a nuclear accident.'"

If you google my name here, on slashdot, and on the mitnse.com, you'll see I'm not one to downplay the dangers of nuclear accidents nor radioactive substances. If people are downplaying the risks, I will call them out on it (mostly seems to be happening with the danger from Cesium-137). I do, however, try to put those risks in proper perspective. Statistically, for nuclear to become as dangerous as wind (the second safest power generation technology), Fukushima would have to kill on the order of 10,000 people.

Nuclear is one of those very, very safe technologies (the safest power source man has invented, statistically), which has the occasional very rare, but very bad accident. Consigning it to the trash bin because of those rare accidents (only 2 in history thus far) would be like banning commercial air travel. It too has the best safety record in its industry and accidents are very rare, but each accident kills a lot more people than most other transportation accidents. Consequently, some people develop an irrational fear of flying.


RE: all well and good...
By BansheeX on 6/12/2011 4:20:15 PM , Rating: 2
How much money has been spent going to war to keep oil priced in dollars? That includes all the costs of war, from the equipment, to the salaries and benefits, to the overpaid contractors, to the medical care for returning wounded. Trillions.


RE: all well and good...
By kattanna on 6/13/2011 12:32:10 PM , Rating: 2
you know.. i am getting REAL tired of idiots treating what happened there as a failure. 10's of thousands of people died and entire towns were washed away by a tsunami that no one thought was possible, yet the nuclear plant survived intact for the most part.

it wasnt a failure, it was a raging success.

from the IAEA themselves..

http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/2011/japanmiss...

quote:
"Our entire team was humbled by the enormous damage inflicted by the tsunami on Japan. We are also profoundly impressed by the dedication of Japanese workers working to resolve this unprecedented nuclear accident," said team leader Mike Weightman, the United Kingdom's Chief Inspector of Nuclear Installations.


you people need to remember that this was not brought about by human or tech failure, like chernobyl. this was brought about by the 4th largest recorded earthquake in history, and a tsunami that was a 40 foot+ tall wall of water.

maybe you should go read what the IAEA actually has to say about the whole thing instead of "studies" cherry picked by a newspaper to make catchy headlines


RE: all well and good...
By superstition on 6/15/2011 8:15:27 PM , Rating: 1
Why don't you go help out the workers at the plant? Maybe if you start dying from radiation exposure you'll have less energy to waste calling people idiots.


Infrastructure Anyone?
By th3pwn3r on 6/12/2011 10:51:08 AM , Rating: 2
What's going to happen as more Americans plug in their vehicles at night? Won't we overload are already failing circuitry and power suppliers? I honestly don't know TOO much about the current state of our electrical suppliers and their plants but to my knowledge these power plants already have issues. Increases the load/demands will only cause more failures and things are already looking grim. I'm not exactly for or against Hybrids but I just have thoughts about this because to my knowledge we already need upgrades across our nation.




RE: Infrastructure Anyone?
By shiftypy on 6/13/2011 7:16:39 AM , Rating: 2
At night overall consumption is much lower, so its not much of a problem. Its even beneficiary to balance the day/night load.

But in the long run more production capacity must be installed. And if it isn't nuclear, its not helping much.


RE: Infrastructure Anyone?
By th3pwn3r on 6/13/2011 11:41:17 AM , Rating: 2
Talk about timing, the U.S. Government just had a presentation on their Smart Grid Plan which would help with some of the issues I had mentioned.


Auto Insurance
By dorisscott on 6/11/11, Rating: 0
"If you look at the last five years, if you look at what major innovations have occurred in computing technology, every single one of them came from AMD. Not a single innovation came from Intel." -- AMD CEO Hector Ruiz in 2007











botimage
Copyright 2013 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki