backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 112 comment(s) - last by AE3Wolfman.. on Nov 6 at 1:26 PM

Chevrolet Silverado Hybrid

The Dodge Durango was one of two Chrysler SUV hybrids to be recently discontinued due to closure of the plant that makes the base model. Ford was quick to seize on the news and blast its competitors efforts to produce large hybrids as a "stunt".   (Source: Green Car Advisor)

The Chrysler Aspen (hybrid and baseline) was the other model discontinued.  (Source: Green Car Advisor)

Ford also appears to frown on electric plug-in hybrids, such as the Chevy Volt seen here, though it has not publicly blasted them like it has large hybrids, as of yet. It is the only large automaker with no announced plans to release a plug-in.  (Source: GM)
The manager of the struggling automaker Ford's truck division is not opposed to tossing a bit of sand in its competitors eyes in the wake of Chrysler's hybrid truck losses

One seemingly forgone conclusion in the automotive industry is that dwindling and insecure oil supplies mandate us to adopt more effective hybrid solutions such as biofuels, hydrogen combustion, fuel cell, or electric cars.  DailyTech recently reviewed the hybrid flex-fuel GMC Sierra which can run on regular gasoline or E85 ethanol.  With trucks still an extremely popular sales sector, GM and Chrysler are racing to make more fuel efficient hybrid trucks.

Ford, who manufactures the consistently best-selling F150 truck, has remained apathetic to “greening” the full-size truck market with hybrids.  Car and truck news site Automotive News recently interviewed Doug Scott, Ford division's truck marketing manager for insight into why Ford was neglecting this market segment.  They inquired whether the launch of full-sized hybrid pickups from GM and Chrysler later this year indicated a market for the trucks.

Mr. Scott harshly blasted his competitors’ efforts saying, "It is a publicity stunt."

He continued, "It is no different than what you are seeing with their large SUVs. They are not selling any Tahoe and Yukon hybrids. It's about something to advertise."

Ford claims its EcoBoost technology, which uses traditional gasoline, trumps GM and Chrysler's hybrids.  EcoBoost is a direct-injection technology, which Ford claims delivers 20 percent better fuel economy and 15 percent less CO2 than larger displacement engines.

"In our case, we chose to have a democratization of technology like EcoBoost. Get more fuel efficiencies out there in mass and volume to as many people as you can, rather than focus all this energy on a very limited application that isn't going to be really appealing to many people," Mr. Scott stated.

GM has similar efforts, but looks to top it off with even bigger gains from hybrid technology as well.  Ford, however, is convinced that direct injection is good enough, and that its customers don't need more fuel efficiency than that.

All of the automakers are struggling to survive a declining economy.  While green cars have generally been safe from the model cuts that have been occurring of late, the Chrysler Aspen and Dodge Durango hybrids were discontinued when it was announced that the plant making them and their non-hybrid SUV counterpart would be closed.

Despite being 40 percent more fuel efficient, according to the EPA, the defunct Aspen and Durango hybrids are being blasted by some as a sign of the death of truck/SUV hybrid industry, an industry which is labeled as bloated, ineffective, gimmicky, and unwanted by its critics.

Some have instead blamed the HEMI engine for the downfall of the hybrid and non-hybrid Durango/Aspen lineups.  The HEMI is very powerful, but notoriously inefficient.  Despite the big boost that the hybrid design gave them, they still struggled to compete in the increasingly efficiency-craving market.

Chrysler is undeterred and says it plans for hybrid SUVs and trucks will continue, stating, "We can't disclose forward-looking production plans, whether we can meet them or not.  There are strong indicators that there's a market for full-size vehicles, so we look forward to the Dodge Ram coming and obviously we'll have further hybrids down the road."

One thing that is clear by Ford's latest attacks -- the auto industry is bitterly divided on the topic of large hybrids with GM and Chrysler supporting the majority opinion that they are necessary, and Ford taking a hard stand as the minority opinion that they are unwanted and a waste of resources.  Ford also seems to be disapproving of the upcoming electric-car market, as the only major U.S. automaker with no plans to release a plug-in hybrid.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
By Cerin218 on 10/27/2008 10:06:25 AM , Rating: 5
I live by a Ford plant that produces the Ranger. They will stop production and close for a month due to lack of demand.

Two years ago I watched the Detroit auto show where an exec from GM was showing off the Tahoe was asked if he GM had any plans to slow SUV production in favor of smaller, more efficient cars. He said that GM didn't see an end to the demand for SUV's. Two years later with gas at 4 or 5 dollars a gallon and all of a sudden that tune changed and now we have the Volt and if you have an SUV you can't give it away.

Chevy and Ford have lost billions while Prius and Camry sales have gone through the roof. Maybe it's time for the auto makers to quit playing to Americas love of excess and start paying attention to what people are interested in buying. We have been asking for more fuel efficiency for years. Sounds like Ford really isn't interested. Maybe after a few billion more dollars lost.




By ebakke on 10/27/2008 10:55:10 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
As I said before, and I'll keep saying - there isn't a hybrid on the planet that will pay for the $5-10k difference in fuel savings vs. a non-hybrid.
Agreed.
quote:
Hybrids currently are a waste of money unless the buyer is buying smug.
I don't know that I'd go that far. Some people (admittedly, not me) genuinely believe that humans are destroying the earth at an alarming rate, and driving a hybrid allows them to produce less earth-killing emissions. For some, that warrants $5-10k. For others, it doesn't. Personally, I don't think hybrid vs non-hybrid makes a bit of difference in the big picture, but my difference of opinion/values doesn't make the other person 'smug', stupid, or anything else.


By Chaser on 10/27/2008 12:23:38 PM , Rating: 3
They don't need to buy a hybrid to significantly reduce emissions. Most ULEV and SULEV certified vehicles can be found on traditional gasoline engines and many performance oriented vehicles.

But small hybrids do make for a good spot to stick their "I care" bumper stickers on.


By RobertAnderson on 10/27/2008 12:28:27 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I don't know that I'd go that far. Some people (admittedly, not me) genuinely believe that humans are destroying the earth at an alarming rate, and driving a hybrid allows them to produce less earth-killing emissions.


Yes because those batteries are so much better for the Earth then the emissions.


By ebakke on 10/27/2008 12:48:30 PM , Rating: 3
I assume you're taking about the production?

If so, I also assume you're not including the oh-so-popular nickel factory in Canada that was (falsely) used in many stories to claim that battery production is much worse than car emissions. And since we're talking about the production of fuel sources, I also assume you're factoring in the environmental cost to produce gasoline (that was probably shipped from the other side of the globe). And we know the middle eastern countries aren't exactly environmentalists to the core.

Feel free to justify your (indirect) claim that batteries are equal to, or worse than gas.


By ebakke on 10/27/2008 1:36:59 PM , Rating: 2
Are you trying to say (rather poorly, I might add) that batteries are worse than gasoline because you can't just throw them in the garbage (and I guess by contradiction, that you can do that with gas)? ...I'm not following the point you were trying to make.

I didn't say batteries had no impact. I asked for proof that their impact is worse than gasoline's.


By ebakke on 10/27/2008 4:01:21 PM , Rating: 2
You'll have to ask an environmentalist for that one. I don't have the stats because I don't really care about the environment (and what pollutes it to what degree). Mick? Someone else?

Though, the argument was made to me with no proof that batteries are at least as bad as emissions. Thus, I feel the burden lies on that person to dig up some facts supporting his claim. It shouldn't be my responsibility to disprove an unsubstantiated claim.


By Spuke on 10/27/2008 4:31:31 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
It shouldn't be my responsibility to disprove an unsubstantiated claim.
Put that way I would have to agree.


By 67STANG on 10/27/2008 2:57:32 PM , Rating: 3
Why would you throw money in your garbage can?

You use your old battery (which will be reconditioned, by the way) as a core to get a new battery (which has a pretty good chance of being someone else's old battery).


By Alexvrb on 10/27/2008 7:24:28 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You use your old battery (which will be reconditioned, by the way) as a core to get a new battery (which has a pretty good chance of being someone else's old battery).
That must be something they did before my time, because I hear this occasionally from old timers. I don't mean to come off as insulting here, either. I hear this now and then, and at least for me, it has never been true.

The batteries I sell are never reconditioned. Turn in a battery core at my store, and they recycle almost 100% of it. They don't recondition batteries and send them back out. I don't think any respectable battery supplier does that (anymore?). They use recycled/reclaimed materials, but they certainly don't sell you "someone else's old battery". It's completely new construction.

East Penn has a neat mini tour of their recycling process.

http://www.eastpenn-deka.com/default.aspx?pageid=3...


By Slaimus on 10/27/2008 1:30:57 PM , Rating: 2
The chemicals in spent rechargeable batteries can be recycled. That is why all NiMH/Lion batteries have an icon on them that tell you not to throw them out.


By AE3Wolfman on 11/6/2008 1:26:32 PM , Rating: 2
Its not just that, but the fact that lithium violently in the presence of water(or high humidity). Its to keep the batteries out of landfills where they have the potential to start fires.


By The0ne on 10/27/2008 1:15:33 PM , Rating: 2
Because it's a global recession, not just an environmental decline.


By lagomorpha on 10/27/2008 3:07:40 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe if you're in elementary school science class. If economics don't allow for an environmentally friendly approach then it won't happen.


By stryfe on 10/27/2008 3:08:06 PM , Rating: 2
You're misunderstanding. Because of the declining economy people are buying fewer cars across the board. It's not that people who were going to buy a hybrid are now buying a regular gas powered car instead, it's that they aren't buying a car at all.


By Spuke on 10/27/2008 3:26:18 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It's not that people who were going to buy a hybrid are now buying a regular gas powered car instead, it's that they aren't buying a car at all.
I understand and I have even said that myself in other threads. But there are people that have posted here (and are absent interestingly) that said saving the environment should not be about money and that it's time we all make that sacrifice. Well, here we are in a economic crunch and NO ONE is spewing that BS.

I understand that collectively we have short memories but I find it hilarious that I'm the only one calling these retreads out.


By ebakke on 10/27/2008 1:39:20 PM , Rating: 2
Unless of course, their sacrifice is not owning a car...


By stryfe on 10/27/2008 3:09:54 PM , Rating: 3
Very good point. What's better for the environment than a hybrid? Not driving a car.


By Spuke on 10/27/2008 3:28:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Very good point. What's better for the environment than a hybrid? Not driving a car.
Or living in a house or buying clothes or eating.


By stryfe on 10/27/2008 3:57:39 PM , Rating: 2
That's not true, all of those things can be done with minimal environmental impact if done properly.


By ebakke on 10/27/2008 3:57:46 PM , Rating: 2
Spuke, you strike me as the irrational, highly emotional type of person that takes any argument to the extreme and as a result, prevent any rational discourse.

You are right, however. Not living in a house, buying clothes, eating, or even living for that matter, would be better for the environment. Though no one (except you) is suggesting that. The suggestion is that everyone can make whatever sacrifice they feel is warranted. For me, that's not much. For others, it's a hybrid car. For others, it's a bike. For others, it's CFL light bulbs. For some, it's having less children. For others, it's .... You get the point. It's an individual choice. So while you're correct, it's unlikely that anyone would be willing to sacrifice eating in the name of the planet.


By Spuke on 10/27/2008 4:11:31 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
For others, it's .... You get the point. It's an individual choice.
It took a bit but I now understand your position here. So many people here spout so much BS, it's difficult to know where people are really coming from. BTW, I'm ok. I sometimes read like I'm crazy.

Off topic slightly. Calm and cool doesn't necessarily mean rational or unemotional. It can simply be a tactic used to get people to listen to BS. What's being said should be the most important part of the conversation with delivery being second.


By ebakke on 10/27/2008 4:40:57 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
BTW, I'm ok. I sometimes read like I'm crazy.
The joys of communicating via a forum. :)

quote:
What's being said should be the most important part of the conversation with delivery being second.
I agree completely, though the delivery may greatly impact the number of people who are listening.


By wempa on 10/27/2008 12:29:08 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, it's funny how the hybrid versions of most vehicles only get about 2-3MPH more on the highway than the non-hybrid versions. The city mileage is much better, but so many people just assume that a hybrid version is automatically going to make their fuel consumption so much less. Not true.


By HinderedHindsight on 10/27/2008 2:03:39 PM , Rating: 2
In a lot of cases they can get 5-10 mpg better than their non-hybrid counterparts. But there's a lot to consider when it comes to purchasing a hybrid.

I've been on a waiting list for a hybrid that I'm about to purchase which gets 4 mpg better on highway, and at least 11 in city. This can constitute up to a 48% improvement in city milage, and the vast majority of my driving takes place in the city.

Also, consider the fact that hybrids come loaded with much much more equipment than non-hybrid equivalents. This helps to offset the extra cost of a hybrid powertrain.

Consider also that with an intelligent transmission setup, the hybrid engine actually complements the gas engine providing more power than the gas engine alone. Also consider that accelerating from a dead stop provides more initial torque than an ICE engine.

Also consider that during a standard 5 year financing period, people dump up to 6 grand alone in terms of finance cost.

My overall point is that the extra 3-4 grand for a hybrid is not noticed as much given the extra features, equipment, and compared to the cost of financing, especially if you analyze your own driving habits correctly and make an appropriate purchase decisiont


By FITCamaro on 10/27/2008 6:03:23 PM , Rating: 2
Some people need a large vehicle. A family of 5 or more is pretty cramped in a Camry. And minivans don't offer much more fuel efficiency. There's some smaller SUVs now that will fit 7 but they do it by sacrificing the rear cargo area.

So for those families, a hybrid SUV that can cut their in city fuel economy can come in handy. My parents neighbor across the street has a family of 6. One of their daughters is a special needs child with down syndrome. They drive a Tahoe cause they need the space.

But people like Obama don't care about them. They think we should all be driving small cars and those who don't should be punished. Since they clearly have too much money.


By wempa on 10/28/2008 12:21:32 PM , Rating: 1
Granted, everybody's situation is different. For me, I currently own a 2000 Jeep Grand Cherokee and I'll need a new car soon. I looked at a number of hybrid SUVs and was not impressed with the improved fuel efficiency, given that I drive mostly on the highway. A crossover is a possibility but given that I probably won't be able to even give away my Jeep, I'll probably keep it along with whatever new car I buy. I'd love to be able to hold out longer until the Volt becomes available to the general public, but that's not going to happen. So, I'll probably end up buying a fuel efficient car and just keeping my Jeep for the times when I need to haul a lot of cargo and passengers.


By ebakke on 10/27/2008 10:57:26 AM , Rating: 2
Every car was down. But you can't argue that Prius/Camry have been doing better than the others. And prior to the credit crunch, Prius/Camry/Civic sales were increasing dramatically.


By Spuke on 10/27/2008 1:09:54 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
But you can't argue that Prius/Camry have been doing better than the others.
Actually, Camry (non-hybrid) sales aren't too bad compared to others but Prius sales are down in the crapper. Hybrid sales in general have taken a big hit. Prius sales were almost equal to Camry sales a few months ago. I guess when you have no money, the environment takes a back seat. What happened to all of the sacrificing we have to do?


By rcc on 10/27/2008 2:41:45 PM , Rating: 4
lol, as always, sacrifice is better if you can get the other guy to do it.


By ebakke on 10/27/2008 4:02:54 PM , Rating: 2
And when did those sales start to decline?


By Spuke on 10/27/2008 4:14:19 PM , Rating: 2
Good question. Right when gas prices hit their peak for most vehicles. Prius sales have been steadily going down most of the year because of supply issues but that doesn't explain why the other hybrids tanked.


By jaj22 on 10/27/2008 5:14:54 PM , Rating: 2
An alternate (or additional) explanation is that the cumulative weight of hybrid == smug propaganda has had a negative impact on sales. New car sales are heavily influenced by image.


By omnicronx on 10/27/2008 5:30:26 PM , Rating: 2
The Camry sales have been through the roof for 10 years... In fact I think it was the best selling car in North America from 2002-2006. This was long coming and gas prices were the final blow but not neccesarily the reason for the slow demise of the North American car industry. American car companies thought they could keep selling high margin SUV's and Toyota made the realization that economical and gas saving cars were the wave of the future. Not to mention the reliability, you don't hear about too many Camry owners that regret their purchase 10 years down the line.


By Spuke on 10/27/2008 6:41:46 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The Camry sales have been through the roof for 10 years... In fact I think it was the best selling car in North America from 2002-2006.
It's been the best selling car up until 2008 (with the Accord right behind it). It's still the best selling car but the Civic is hot on its heels.


Shoving words in his mouth
By SandmanWN on 10/27/2008 10:09:23 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Ford, however, is convinced that direct injection is good enough, and that its customers don't need more fuel efficiency than that.


Where do you quantify this statement anywhere in your article? The man said this was the correct step at the moment not that they would never need more efficient vehicles.

quote:
Ford also seems to be disapproving of the upcoming electric-car market, as the only major U.S. automaker with no plans to release a plug-in hybrid.


You need to read your own article again. Ford said they wanted to see where the market was going before producing their next alternative fueled vehicle. You have a mass of alternatives at play here; Hybrid, All Electric, Bluetec Diesel, Hydrogen, Flex Fuel, etc, etc, ad nausea. Do you really believe they don't at the very least have concepts and designs for each of these eventualities?




RE: Shoving words in his mouth
By JasonMick (blog) on 10/27/2008 10:26:21 AM , Rating: 2
I disagree. Money speaks louder than words. While Ford may be vocally blasting large hybrids, the more important point to realize is that it believes that both plug-ins and large hybrids are not practical enough yet to invest massively in yet. Ford has made it clear that it believes that its direct-injection technology it feels is sufficient in offering fuel efficiency gains, and that large hybrids are not needed.

While its true Ford may be researching hybrids as well, the money it spends compared to GM's massive investment in the Volt project or Chrysler's also significant commitment to its electric cars is much less. Money speaks, and I believe the phrasing in the article is entirely justified -- that is the business stance that Ford is adopting, based on how its investing its production and research money.


RE: Shoving words in his mouth
By ebakke on 10/27/2008 10:49:51 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
GM's massive investment in the Volt project
I'd like to know how much of that investment went into lobbying. A $7,500 tax credit essentially for one specific vehicle must have been hard to come by.


RE: Shoving words in his mouth
By Oregonian2 on 10/27/2008 2:06:37 PM , Rating: 2
I suspect that was trivial to get, or maybe the politicians even had to lobby GM to make the Volt. The tax credit to push a plug-in electric car is more powerful in terms of being a token green'ness than owning a prius. Politicans probably jumped over each other to get green-credits for themselves to spend in their re-election campaigns, double-credits because it's an American electric plug-in green car.


RE: Shoving words in his mouth
By ebakke on 10/27/2008 4:04:41 PM , Rating: 2
I don't think it was that simple. There are plenty of politicians on the other side of the aisle who put up a big fuss when the government gives handouts like this.


RE: Shoving words in his mouth
By Oregonian2 on 10/28/2008 1:25:16 PM , Rating: 2
I may have exaggerated a bit to make a point, I confess. But point still being that it probably didn't take much arm twisting.


RE: Shoving words in his mouth
By SandmanWN on 10/27/2008 11:02:43 AM , Rating: 2
You can disagree all you want just dont put words in the guys mouth. Nowhere did he say they were not needed.

quote:
the more important point to realize is that it believes that both plug-ins and large hybrids are not practical enough yet to invest massively in yet.

Wrong, they dont believe in massive investment into PRODUCTION. They still invest serious money in the R&D. From the R&D side the investments are similar, its only when you include production investments that you can quantify that statement.

quote:
and that large hybrids are not needed.

You misinterpret what the man is saying. He plainly said that mixing Hybrid and large displacement engines is bogus. You have to work on both sides of the equation. If you only focus on shoving batteries in a large truck then you get exactly what you are seeing now which is lots of tech that barely increases the efficiency of these vehicles. You can take a proven technology and make it just as efficient as these hybrid systems while you push the R&D side of battery tech until the results are worthy of production.

The mans whole point comes down to this:
quote:
EPA, the full-size Silverado LS 600h is rated at 20/22 mpg city/highway, while the half-ton Silverado Hybrid 2WD crew cab scores a morally superior 21/22 mpg city/highway.

1 FREAKING MPG. If Ford can give you even 1 more MPG without adding hundreds of lbs. to the vehicle then this guys statement completely vindicates the direction of Ford.


RE: Shoving words in his mouth
By JasonMick (blog) on 10/27/2008 11:56:07 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
You can disagree all you want just dont put words in the guys mouth. Nowhere did he say they were not needed.


I think calling a vehicle lineup a "stunt" and saying that the consumer does not want it is pretty much tantamount to saying its unneeded, last I checked...

quote:
You misinterpret what the man is saying. He plainly said that mixing Hybrid and large displacement engines is bogus.


If that's what he's saying, he's flat-out wrong. It obviously improves efficiency, that's a fact, plain and simple.

The Aspen & Durango were 40 percent more fuel efficient than their non-hybrid counterparts. I would say that vindicates GM and Chrysler's strategy -- unless Ford can deliver similar increases.

quote:
Wrong, they dont believe in massive investment into PRODUCTION. They still invest serious money in the R&D. From the R&D side the investments are similar, its only when you include production investments that you can quantify that statement.


First off, the amount of investment for such a rapid shift of production is likely much higher than the research investment for hybrid technologies. Secondly, production investments only follow heavy research investments. The fact that GM and Ford are production ready, almost, with electric, shows that they've been spending much more heavily than Ford across the hybrid spectrum.


RE: Shoving words in his mouth
By SandmanWN on 10/27/2008 12:30:12 PM , Rating: 2
Again, what you think and what he said are entirely different. You can Assume whatever you wish just don't put your words in another persons mouth.

quote:
If that's what he's saying, he's flat-out wrong. It obviously improves efficiency, that's a fact, plain and simple.

40% improvement is great until you quantify the numbers which you seem to have a lot of problems doing in this article. This 40% improvement brings the Durango "Up To 20MPG". WOW all that hybrid power and they can only match what the Chevy Silverado does on a plain gasoline engine. GIMMICK GIMMICK GIMMICK!

Using your own example this guys statement is absolutely CORRECT!

quote:
unless Ford can deliver similar increases.

They already have the SFE model that's out and tested for 2009. A Full sized F150 that will equal the hybrid Silverado's 21 MPG. And its not even a new Eco model engine.

It wouldn't matter anyway due to the fact that the hybrid systems involved in the Durango only brings this lame duck model up to the efficiency rating of LAST YEARS F150.


RE: Shoving words in his mouth
By joeindian1551 on 10/27/2008 1:27:22 PM , Rating: 2
You need to start comparing apples to apples.

The 2009 SFE F150 is rated at 15/21 the hybrid Silverado is 21/22.

GM has never advertised the Silverado hybrid as increasing highway economy only city.


RE: Shoving words in his mouth
By SandmanWN on 10/27/2008 2:15:41 PM , Rating: 2
Seems apples to apples to me. Its a Full sized truck that tows 7500lbs. The hybrid Silverado carries a non standard larger 6.0L engine and only makes it to 6100lbs. Its more of a truck than the hybrid silverado.

Ford's first EcoBoost engine is a 3.5L V6 340+ horsepower and 340 lb.ft. of torque.

"AutoWeek reported that Ford will allegedly be putting a supercharged 4.4L diesel V8 engine in the F-150 for 2009. Expect it to have around 330 horsepower and 520 lb-ft of torque!"
This should outright kill the competition and GM/Dodge know it. They have always been reported recently as scurrying to put a similar truck into market.

Hybrid doesn't work well enough for the large truck segment. Ford has the right idea here. They will push more efficiency in current designs until R&D can make a hybrid that does more than adding 1 crappy MPG to the overall package without killing 1000+lbs of towing capacity.


RE: Shoving words in his mouth
By SandmanWN on 10/27/2008 2:18:47 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
They [GM/Dodge] have already been reported recently as scurrying to put a similar truck into market.


Another Poor Choice of American Auto Makers
By snownpaint on 10/27/2008 10:53:22 AM , Rating: 2
It is amazing these car manufactures are building American Cars, when they don't have a clue about Americans.

Do truck owners want lower Power? No. Its all about hauling power.

Do truck owners want higher MGP? Yes, but they want the power when needed..

That is why Hybrids are junk in this capacity. Unless its Soccer Mom, with 3 kids in a hybrid SUV, going off road (dirt road) once a blue moon.
However, hybrids can not supply the hauling power, to move a couple tons of cement or haul a trailer.
Trucker owner want the power.. That is why I though shutting down cylinders was a great option for increased MPG, something that should be controlled by the driver, not a computer. The power on demand, like going from 2x4 to 4x4..




RE: Another Poor Choice of American Auto Makers
By axeman1957 on 10/27/2008 11:24:10 AM , Rating: 3
You are aware that electric motors produce initial torque while gas engines do not. Thats why gas motors rely on a clutch, they need to have spinning momentum to get initial motion. Electric motors have the potential for much more power than gas. Obviously development is still needed, but innovation does not exactly change over night.

With time and development, we could have plug-in trucks that can haul huge loads.


By Performance Fanboi on 10/27/2008 12:04:33 PM , Rating: 3
100% correct on the capability of electric motors - I hope everyone realizes that the freight trains you see are diesel/electric (read: Hybrid without a battery), they use diesel engines to produce power for electric drive motors. Most large mining trucks use the same tech - diesel generators and drive motors on each wheel. The only thing holding this technology bad is the batteries themselves - the more development undertaken the sooner we will see practical solutions. In my opinion none of the current hybrid 'solutions' are worth the extra cost and environmental impact (of the battery production/disposal) but we have to start somewhere.


By axeman1957 on 10/27/2008 12:39:31 PM , Rating: 2
Or we can get Tony Stark to hook us up with some sweet arc reactors.


By Jimbo1234 on 10/27/2008 1:44:14 PM , Rating: 2
You beat me to it.

I used to work for a mining truck OEM. Some of our customers hauled loaded downhill, and empty uphill. All the trucks used a pantograph (like an electric train) to either draw current or put it back in. You can probably see the efficiency gain from a mile away versus just having a mechanical truck (diesel w/o electric).

In case anyone is second guessing the pulling ability of an electric motor, look no further than a mining truck or railroad locomotive.


RE: Another Poor Choice of American Auto Makers
By joeindian1551 on 10/27/2008 1:47:09 PM , Rating: 2
The GM hybrid system uses the 6.0 as the base engine. Its rated at 330hp/365ft & 21/22mpg.

Order the 3.73s or 4.11s and you should be able to tow whatever you need to and still be able to enjoy your new found hybrid owning smugness.


RE: Another Poor Choice of American Auto Makers
By SandmanWN on 10/27/2008 3:19:52 PM , Rating: 2
wrong the hybrid silverado is rated at 6100 lbs.

The base model Silverado 5.3L has a 10,700 lbs towing capacity.

To put it into perspective a mid-sized Toyota Tacoma has a towing capacity of 6500 lbs.

The hybrid silverado can't even out pull a mid-sized truck.


By FITCamaro on 10/27/2008 11:49:59 PM , Rating: 2
For the majority of people though, 6100 pounds is more than enough. It's still enough to pull a boat or a decent sized trailer. Hell when I was in the Boy Scouts my parents Dodge Grand Caravan towed my troops trailer from time to time.


he has a point
By Gul Westfale on 10/27/08, Rating: 0
RE: he has a point
By aapocketz on 10/27/2008 10:11:17 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
i think GM, chrysler, and ford need to find partners here, not just for short term development of electric cars but for longer alliances; maybe the same way nissan and renault are working together.


Nissan and Renault work together because they basically own shares in each other in non-controlling ways. Its hard to imagine a GM/Ford partnership to this degree. However maybe its time? May as well partner with each other before the US government nationalizes the auto industry and forces them to work with each other.


RE: he has a point
By joeindian1551 on 10/27/2008 1:15:57 PM , Rating: 2
The Chrysler hybrid system was developed in conjunction with GM


RE: he has a point
By Sulphademus on 10/27/2008 4:13:03 PM , Rating: 2
Chrysler, GM, BMW and Daimler(Mercedes) IIRC.

http://www.theautochannel.com/news/2006/04/27/0050...
Yeah, something like that.

So basically, all 4 of these companies have access to the same hybrid tech.


RE: he has a point
By 67STANG on 10/27/2008 3:05:34 PM , Rating: 2
GM and Chrysler are going to be working very closely soon.... since they will be 1 company.


RE: he has a point
By Sulphademus on 10/27/2008 4:15:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
GM and Chrysler are going to be working very closely soon.... since they will be 1 company.


Which to me is like marrying the Titanic with the Lusitania.


RE: he has a point
By 67STANG on 10/27/2008 5:18:36 PM , Rating: 3
You know what they say: Misery loves company.


This necessary?
By Mitch101 on 10/27/2008 10:02:33 AM , Rating: 2
Is one struggling American auto manufacturer calling out another really necessary or professional at this point?

Plain and simple Ford your not moving with the times.

Also Ford When you sell a line of trucks that get the name Ford Exploder because you knowingly sell them with defective tires you deserve a kick in your rear end. It was your blatant disregard for safety that I wont buy a Ford because I have to wonder what else you will knowingly compromise that wont be found until after the fact.

I think I have $50.00 in my pocket today which would be enough Ford stock to become their next CEO.

Take a quote from the movie the Rock.
Your "best"! Losers always whine about their best. Winners go home and eff the prom queen.




RE: This necessary?
By rudolphna on 10/27/2008 1:40:03 PM , Rating: 2
im struggling to keep my temper with this. The fault DOES NOT lie with ford. It lies with Bridgestone, who spplied the said defective tires, you numbutt. Ford did not say "you know what, these tires are going to blow up on highway speeds, and we dont care how many people die they are cheap so we will sell them" you honestly think that? You need to go stick your head in a bucket of cold water if that is the case. BTW, ford is the 3rd largest auto maker in the united states, and they are miles better than GM and chrysler when it comes to sales and safety. I have owned many a ford car/truck/suv, and never had these problems you claim to have. My primary car is an 03 Ford Expedition. 60,000 miles. Runs great. good safety. (youtube search 2003 ford expedition crash test). Stop trolling, and get some common sense, please.


RE: This necessary?
By Mitch101 on 10/27/2008 2:03:36 PM , Rating: 2
Really?

Ford executive: Company knew about tire problems
http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2001-08-18-tir...

The Ford executive in charge of wheel engineering for the Ford Explorer testified at a trial here Saturday that the auto company knew about at least ten cases of possible tread separations in Goodyear tires fitted onto Ford Explorers a year before Ford chief executive Jacques Nasser told Congress and the media last September that it had "not one tread separation problem " in almost three million Goodyear tires.

http://www.articlesbase.com/law-articles/fordfires...

The agency found that there was an unusually high failure rate of Firestone tires on Ford Explorers and that Ford and Firestone withheld pertinent information from the public and from authorities regarding the deadly SUV/tire combination.

My Chrysler has over 161,000 miles on it. Preach to me when you get another 100k miles under your belt.


RE: This necessary?
By rudolphna on 10/27/2008 2:12:23 PM , Rating: 3
ok I admit, I forgot that, its been a long time since ive seen it brought up. Still, its bridge/firestone that is at fault, the cars do not make the tires fail. BTW I also own a 98 Ford Taurus with just over 200,000 miles.... No major failures yet (beyond the tranny that just died at 185,000 miles)


The numbers
By mmcdonalataocdotgov on 10/27/2008 12:41:25 PM , Rating: 2
Even though GM's so-called hybrid is a joke, I think I see some sour grapes here.

2009 Silverado 1500 5.3 V8
City/Hwy 14/20

2009 Ford F150 5.4 V8
City /Hwy 14/20

So even with Ford's ecoboost technology, they are doing no better than GM's regular injection?

This is the real joke:
2009 Silverado Hybrid 5.3 V8
City/Hwy 18/21 2wd




RE: The numbers
By SandmanWN on 10/27/2008 12:48:10 PM , Rating: 2
EcoBoost isn't out yet. It will be introduced in 2009 on the Ford Flex and Lincoln MKS.

The F150 will not receive it until late 2009 for the 2010 model year.


RE: The numbers
By Spuke on 10/27/2008 1:18:31 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
So even with Ford's ecoboost technology, they are doing no better than GM's regular injection?
Ecoboost is not available yet. Besides, ecoboost will not be used on V8 engines.


RE: The numbers
By joeindian1551 on 10/27/2008 1:23:39 PM , Rating: 2
The 2009 Silverado Hybrid comes with a 6.0L and is rated at 21/22 by the EPA.
That is a 50% increase in city mpg compared to the standard 5.3L 4 or 6spd auto Silverado.


The best green car
By Belard on 10/27/2008 4:15:50 PM , Rating: 1
With all the crap going on in the world, its about time that the USA stop making oil companies rich. Look at the technology of computers, TVs, manufacturing - yet the ability to move a car hasn't changed much in 25~40 years?

The light-weight air-cars are interesting. And may work since all that is needed is an air-compressor to refill the tanks. The car will drive for 100+ miles. But its kind of noisy.

The Hybrids... still not good enough. It may help a bit- but they are only a stop-gap.

Electric cars like the VOLT is in the right direction. But it still produces green-house gasses or nuke-waste since it needs charging from an outlet.

The articles here about NEW solar tech, that is getter far better and hopefully cheaper is the way to go, I think. Not so much Solar power on the car itself (donesn't usually look good or aerodynamic). But that if EVERY home has their own solar collectors to power the HOME and the car.

Then we DO the following:
- No dependece on the middle-east for oil. They can fight and kill themselves all they want.

- no greenhouse gasses or nuke-waste being generated, other than manufacturinf the solar collectors, of course.

- Reduced electric bill - or refund if you put the power back on the grid.

- newer and better batteries install in VOLT and other cars. The VOLT was rated with a 40mile range, yet new tech should allow it to reach 80miles by the time it hits the market (lighter batteries that hold more charge).

We can't protect the oil companies because "it'll cost people their jobs"? Okay, the guys who work in oil fields and oil platforms - they can now work on solar collector installations and repair (duh). The gas-stations become solar-storage stations... (How long does it take to recharge a VOLT car)

We can't be 100% oil free. Because oil is still needed for luberction for parts on electrical cars, windmills, manufacuring hardware. But that's a drop in the bucket compared to what our cars drink. Long-haul trucks maybe the last/only thing that would run on gas because of distance.

We need to change, we can change. We need to do this for the future of our children. Otherwise, what is the point?




RE: The best green car
By Spuke on 10/27/2008 4:39:04 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
We can't be 100% oil free. Because oil is still needed for luberction for parts on electrical cars, windmills, manufacuring hardware.
As well as plastics, ink, deodorant, paint, carpet, guitar strings, helmets, safety glass, PVC, pill capsules, shaving cream, antifreeze, and a few hundred other things.

Ever wonder why enviros stink, have massive body hair and their cars are always smoking?


RE: The best green car
By bhieb on 10/27/2008 5:28:17 PM , Rating: 3
You forgot to add.

- I am Barack Obama and I support this message.


Interesting
By bhieb on 10/27/2008 4:46:42 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Ford, however, is convinced that direct injection is good enough, and that its customers don't need more fuel efficiency than that.


So Ford actually said customers don't need more efficienccy, can you provide a link. If not you may want to remove such blatant personal opinion being expressed as fact. Their actions may indicate this, but that is far from saying that they are personally convinced. Sounds to me like they are just convinced that direct injection for 15-20% improvement is as good as hybrid for about the same. Which would be true, but my thoughts would be why not both.




RE: Interesting
By SandmanWN on 10/27/2008 4:55:21 PM , Rating: 2
There isn't a quote that verifies his statement.

I pointed out the same thing, but Mick apparently feels that whatever interpretation he concludes can be used to label the entire Ford Motor Companies future involvement in alternative fueled vehicle programs regardless of how much money they are currently putting into developing new alternatives that directly contradict his statement.


RE: Interesting
By bhieb on 10/27/2008 5:17:09 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah this crap drives me nuts. Go ahead and throw your opinion in, but make it obvious that it is just your personal opinion. This paragraph is clearly written as Ford actually saying these things. I love DT, and enjoy the heated debate Mick's articles bring, but sometimes I wish someone would sue their ass so DT would reign him in a little.

quote:
It appears Ford, however, is convinced that direct injection is good enough, and that its customers don't need more fuel efficiency than that.

vs.
quote:
Ford, however, is convinced that direct injection is good enough, and that its customers don't need more fuel efficiency than that.


Are 2 completely different paragraphs, one is the authors opinion the other is a false statement of fact that will one day get you sued for slander.


Editing?
By aph587 on 10/27/2008 10:02:23 AM , Rating: 2
Do you people actually edit before posting?
quote:
While green cars have generally been safe from the model cuts that have been occurring of late, the Chrysler Aspen and Dodge Durango hybrids were discontinued when the plant that made them and their non-hybrid SUV counterpart.

quote:
Despite the big boost that the hybrid design game them, they still struggled to compete in the increasingly efficiency-craving market.




Kinda sorta agree...
By Motoman on 10/27/2008 12:27:35 PM , Rating: 2
...while it's scary for me to agree with anything Ford says or does (I dislike Ford for no particular reason other than I do...well, and maybe the redneck stereotype of the people that drive them, but anyhoo)...

Here's the thing from my little slice of the world. I race motorcycles...I have a 23' enclosed trailer with a full complement of tools and parts, and may be hauling up to 8 bikes at a time in there. My wife breeds and trains horses - we have a 4-horse slant-load trailer with living quarters for that. Comparable to people who need to pull a decent-sized boat, or who work in construction or whatever and need to pull large loads around.

I don't have the slightest interest in any current or forseeable hybrid technology for my own personal truck. Right now I have a 2003 Dodge Ram 3500 quad-cab 4x4 with the high-output Cummins turbo diesel and a 6-speed manual transmission. That truck pulls either of my trailers, fully loaded, with ease and comfort and can do so for about 400 miles or so without having to stop for fuel. It picks up and goes from a dead stop without any issues, gains speed well, handles, brakes, and stops well. No complaints.

I cringe at the thought of giving up *any* power, torque, distance-between-tanks, whatever. And I have no faith at all in current or near-future technologies that at least one, if not all 3 and more of those issues would be compromized in a hybrid vehicle.

Not to mention that I'd have to shoot myself for buying a plug-in vehicle, considering how much damage I'd be adding to the environment. Or running on E85 - considering how much damage that does to the environment. Or soy-based biodiesel - considering how much damage that does to the environment. Regardless of how "clean" the electric/hybrid/biofuel vehicle is in and of itself, they're dirtier than my existing diesel truck by the time you factor in what happened before the electricity/biofuel got to that vehicle in the first place.




By cypherpunk on 10/27/2008 2:46:34 PM , Rating: 2
A startup at the Illinos Institute of technology has already built a splendid F150 Hybrid retrofit kit.
HEVT.com can convert fleet F150 or new dealer F150 trucks to be plug in hybrid. The display is just as nice as the Prius.
They add a motor to the back of the differential. The mod doubles milage and increases horsepower substantially, particularly at the low end. Quite the stump-puller!

Ford should buy the design. Heck, Ford Dealers should have HEVT upgrade their unsold inventory.




Obsolete Technology
By MarvyMarv on 10/28/2008 10:16:03 AM , Rating: 2
All this dithering over nothing, and smack talk about "enviros"- hate to tell you, but if you enjoy breathing air or drinking water, you're an enviro too. In the early '90s Unique Mobility made several prototype hybrid HumVees. Series-hybrid diesel-electric.
They were able to double the fuel economy while producing an eight-ton vehicle that could climb a 60% grade at 17mph- EV-only range of 25 miles. Keeping the public fettered in obsolete transportation technology purely for short-term financial gain is immoral and unethical, not to mention unsustainable in the long term. After the election, when gas goes back up to $5/gallon, we'll see who gets the last laugh.
We bought two Toyota RAV4EVs back when they were available. Charge them with solar panels on the garage. Haven't been to a gas station in six years. The two times a year I really need a truck, I go rent one. I think Toyota would absolutely clean up were they to produce a diesel-electric series-hybrid HiLux 4WD CrewCab. The day is coming...




Man those trucks are massive
By xsilver on 10/27/08, Rating: -1
By JasonMick (blog) on 10/27/2008 9:56:09 AM , Rating: 1
Umm not to detract from your point, but those are SUVs -- the Aspen and Dodge Durango -- towing the boats...


RE: Man those trucks are massive
By KingstonU on 10/27/2008 10:06:13 AM , Rating: 2
I love the aussie ute! It would be perfect for me. I just wish that North America didn't have this image that they are uncool.


RE: Man those trucks are massive
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 10/27/2008 10:16:09 AM , Rating: 2
The G8 Sport Truck is a great looking vehicle. However, I'm not so sure that it has a high enough towing capacity to satisfy many American buyers.


RE: Man those trucks are massive
By SandmanWN on 10/27/2008 10:29:18 AM , Rating: 2
should satisfy anyone who currently owns a Ranger, Colorado, Tacoma, or any of the other small trucks.


RE: Man those trucks are massive
By Samus on 10/27/2008 10:33:01 AM , Rating: 2
with smaller towing capacity come smaller tows. now the world expects us to downsize our 'boats' or whatever we tow. it could be building materials. so we need to build smaller.

none of that sounds very...American.

we like things the way they are. big. we just need to make it more efficient so we can start improving our energy envelope. telling people to size it down just isn't going to work. thats why the camry outsells all the smaller Toyota's combined (Corolla, Matrix, Prius, Yaris/Echo) because its the smallest size vehicle most American buyers are willing to adopt.


RE: Man those trucks are massive
By SandmanWN on 10/27/2008 10:37:41 AM