Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Ford Motor Reneging On Pledge Of 250K Hybrids A Year By 2010

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU
 
hatrack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-29-06 12:42 PM
Original message
Ford Motor Reneging On Pledge Of 250K Hybrids A Year By 2010
Ford Motor Co. Chairman and CEO Bill Ford Jr. is backing away from his much-publicized commitment to produce 250,000 hybrid vehicles a year by the end of the decade, saying the company intends to pursue a broader environmental strategy that focuses more on other alternative-fuel vehicles.

With timing perhaps intended to blunt criticism of the move, Bill Ford announced the strategic shift in an e-mail to employees Wednesday, the same day he and the CEOs of General Motors Corp. and DaimlerChrysler AG's Chrysler Group sent a letter to Congress promising to double their annual production of alternative-fuel vehicles to 2 million by 2010. Critics decried the back-pedaling on hybrids as another broken promise by the automaker to build more fuel-efficient vehicles.

Bill Ford's hybrid pledge, made last September, was the centerpiece of a national advertising campaign touting the company as an environmental and innovation leader. "What I didn't foresee at the time was how rapidly other technologies would evolve," Bill Ford wrote in the e-mail, obtained by The Detroit News. "Now, I am convinced that the objective we had set earlier to build capacity for 250,000 hybrids at the end of the decade is too narrow to achieve our larger goals of substantially improving fuel economy and CO2 performance."

Bill Ford said the company will now focus more on other fuels like ethanol, clean diesel and bio-diesel, as well as advanced engine and powertrain technologies.

EDIT

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060629/AUTO01/606290380/1148
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
amandabeech Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-29-06 12:52 PM
Response to Original message
1. I have read elsewhere that Ford is having difficulty obtaining
certain portions of the hybrid drive train from Japanese suppliers. The components are in high demand, and Ford just doesn't have the "ins" to get what it wants.

The solution would be for Ford and its suppliers to figure out how to mass produce the components here instead of looking to Japan. Wouldn't that be a new thought?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nickinSTL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-29-06 01:25 PM
Response to Original message
2. and Toyota and Honda will
dominate the hybrid segment, leaving Ford floundering.

If they could develop their OWN hybrid...they wouldn't have to rely on the Japanese suppliers...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Javaman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-29-06 02:19 PM
Response to Reply #2
5. What's interesting is that (I'm not defending) they have tried...
In an article I read about 3 years ago, it stated that most of the drive trains that are in hybrids come from Toyota. Why? Because the engineers at both ford and GM tried designing their own and found that they were basically coming up with the same exact design as toyota. So rather than build it themselves they thought about licensing the tech, but apparently they didn't.

But then again 3 years is a long time in the tech world and someone should have come up with something original of their own by now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
phantom power Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-29-06 02:49 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. As I understand it, it was the load-balancing algorithms they duplicated.
There may be IP implications. Finding algorithms that work as well, but don't infringe on patents, could be problematic. Sometimes, assuming you can always play "catch-up" turns out to be dead wrong.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Javaman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-29-06 03:22 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. Thanks, I'm not a scientist, I just play one on TV. ;)
That's it exactly. Thanks for the info.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NastyDiaper Donating Member (806 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-29-06 09:24 PM
Response to Reply #5
10. Independent research, convergent design.
Edited on Thu Jun-29-06 09:25 PM by NastyDiaper
Sux to be second.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NastyDiaper Donating Member (806 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-29-06 02:00 PM
Response to Original message
3. This makes me angry. I believe that Ford is lying..
..about the reasons for slower-than-expected sales. Of course the product won't sell well, even with incentives, if the only place you can find an "Escape Hybrid" at a dealership is in the brochure rack.

I agree it's probably supply. Just as I thought the five year ownership cost was finally tipping in favor of the escape hybrid, with the consumer market buzzing about MPG, they announce what reads to me not just as backing away from a unit promise, but the technology as a whole.

I bought an 06 Escape hybrid last year, I was so happy with it (still am in fact) I bought stock thinking F undervalued.

ReutersUSCompanyNews - "But Ford has to resort to sales incentives to sell its Escape Hybrid and Mercury Mariner Hybrid models, a sharp contrast to the success that Toyota has seen with its sold-out Prius hybrid."

Hard to move exactly what product? The lots are empty of the Escape Hybrid all over Florida. Plenty of guzzlers. No Hybrids on the lots that I can track even to collect dust.

I find it hard to conclude anything other than Ford is damping sales intentionally to avoid exposing supply problems. And this E85 thing is the perfect hand wave. As though they were competing technologies. Looks like Toyota's success with the Prius will be met with a smack in the face regarding an expansion past 60k. I was hoping for some patent relief from them in exchange for an expansion. Guess I live in a dreamworld.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Strelnikov_ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-29-06 02:18 PM
Response to Original message
4. IMHO A Big Mistake
My feeling is that, while biofuels will be an important source of energy dense liquid fuels, there will not the quantity to supply the masses for personal transport. The future of personal transportation is electric, again IMHO.

Most of the liquid fuel supply will be needed for infrastructure (transport, construction, etc.) that will not lend itself to electrification, with the balance available for extended PHEV trips.

To me, the Toyota Synergy drive represents the logical progression from HEV to PHEV (IC) to PHEV (smaller IC/trailer mounted?) to EV w/ fuel cell plug in for range extension.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Strelnikov_ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-29-06 02:26 PM
Response to Original message
6. Maybe He Believed The Latest 'International Energy Outlook' Report
The Peak Oil Crisis: Our Government Forecasts the Future

http://www.energybulletin.net/17735.html

. . .

Unfortunately, however, from a peak-oil-is-imminent perspective, one is forced to say that many of this report's projections are so far from reality that the EIA must be talking about some other world. Early on the report makes it clear the government is not buying into imminent "peak oil." While acknowledging that oil prices have been climbing rather unexpectedly in recent years, the report places the blame on the lack of sufficient investment by the "oil rich" countries to increase production and not on any shortage of supply.

The authors assume that "for the period out to 2030, there is sufficient oil to meet worldwide demand." "Peaking of world oil production is not anticipated until after 2030." They also assume there will be no long-lasting disruptions to the steady growth of oil and other forms of energy production for the next 25 years. The report says flat out, "A business-as-usual oil market environment was assumed. Disruptions in oil supply for any reason (war, terror, weather, geopolitics) were not assumed." For many of us, these statements alone are enough to question whether we are dealing with a serious effort to project the future of the world's energy situation, or whether the projections contained in this report have a foundation in reality.

. . .

The underlying assumption that the administration's policies are working like a charm, the Middle East is not on the verge of devolving in chaos and that unprecedented period of peace and economic prosperity will endure for the next 25 years does certainly not square with the daily news.

. . .

The preamble to the IEO says that it is published pursuant to the Department of Energy Organization Act of 1977 and is intended to be used by "international agencies, Federal and State governments, trade associations, and other planners and decision makers." Given the preposterous assumptions the report posits and the reams of evidence that world oil production is almost certain to peak well before 2030, this report does not appear to be particularly useful for planning anything beyond a few years from now.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NNadir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-29-06 03:01 PM
Response to Original message
8. This is why "by such and such a year" promises are so unsatisfying.
There is this MBA mentality that plays a game in which setting a goal is the same as doing something.

What happens is when the goal post is not reached, everyone declares a new goal. Hybrids, no, biofuels, no flex fuels, no hybrids by 2010, 2020, 2050.

Percent wind.

Percent solar.

Renewables by.

2100.

2020.

With ten years.

In thirty years.

Inevitably.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon Apr 29th 2024, 02:17 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC