Perfect example of why I think Ford should have NOT said anything about volume. Fact is the Ford Group will probably have MORE hybrid applications than they considered last year, though the total volume projections for the lot of them may be less than the 250K a year that was committed to last year. The company can control how many different offerings they develop. The marketplace will determine how many units will be built and sold. It was waaaaay too early last year to even pretend to know what all the market place influencers would be (What is price of petrol? How will FlexFuel be received? Will the diesel after treatment problem be solved? Will EV make a revival? Will there be any key pieces of legislation proposed that tilt the playing field?) Without some key insight into those and MANY other issues, quoting a volume for end of decade is guesswork at best.

Peace,

Martin

 

"...American perception of diesel cleanliness"

I'm not sure it's just perception...from what I've read (most diesels rate 1/10 on the pollution scorecard on the US govt. websites) and from what I see (newer Jetta TDIs that smoke and smell...just not as bad as older ones)...that perception is a reality.

I want cleaner air, too, not just better efficiency. That's where HSD comes into play. And IMA. Hopefully all other hybrid mfgs can claim cleaner vehicles when using the hybrid term...I'm having my doubts with BAS.

Cheers,

Curt.

 

good imput.

I know theres so many factors that i dont understand from a financial point of view . I guess we should just make the best of the decisions big players make .

cheers

 

True, we all grew up with diesels being noisy, smelly, and dirty. But with the switch to low-sulphur diesel, isn't now the time to hop on it? Hey, buy this now, and you can run biodiesel when it's readily available! Detroit would have something to market besides "Hey, this new G6 looks just like the Grand Prix your sister had 16 years ago!"

I don't think Ford not going whole-hog on hybrids is that bad, in and of itself. We all know gasoline hybrids are just a stepping-stone. The problem is that he touted FFV's instead. Sure, you build a vehicle that *can* use E85, but if no one decides to use it, you've accomplished nothing. How about "We're going to make everything an FFV, and in markets that E85/E100 are readily available, we'll offer some ethanol-only models that have higher compression ratios?"

 

A major point of E85 is it gives the consumer the economic choice without paying extra for the flexibility in the cost of the car. You don't have to pay $1,500 - 5,000 like you do for a diesel or a hybrid, but if the cost of petrol goes way north, and the cost of E85 stays relatively flat (since only 15% of the cost base is impacted by petrol pricing) the customer can choose if and when he ever uses E85)

As for the attached pictures, I get your point, but I can't let ya get away with the comparison. Somebody might actually believe it is an accurate comparison.

1990 Grand Prix 4 door


2006 G6 4 door


Peace,

Martin

 

"but if the cost of petrol goes way north, and the cost of E85 stays relatively flat (since only 15% of the cost base is impacted by petrol pricing)"

I'd say that's a nice simple way to look at it...but growing corn, watering corn, harvesting corn, processing corn...all for ethanol production, takes...ding, ding...petro.

If ALL those inputs could be ignored, then we'd have something...we can't ignore them and we don't have anything but a big fat petro-suck, all to save petro...

Cheers,

Curt.

 

gang

the thing i dont like about ethanol is the fact the cars can conviently go use regular gas if no ethanol is avail. Also, the ethanol may cost less, but the mpg suffers so whats the diff? Most of all, there isnt going to be an ethanol station every 2 blocks because not every car manufacturer is going to go all out ethanol.

In the end, what is then stopping ethanol from going up to $4 per gallon due to whatever reason they want to justify at the moment. Just like gas right now.

 

I stand corrected. I was thinking of the 1992 Grand Am. I was 2 years and one model off.



And no, it doesn't look exactly the same, but you have to admit that it's not radically different, either. Can't you guys let the people who did that cool Caddy roadster try their hand at some of the other brands?

(For the record, 16 years ago, my sister was driving an '87 Mustang.)

According to J.D. Power, our cars aren't appealing. Maybe it's because we've seen it before.

But back to the point, I do think it's a grand idea to convert your whole product range to FFV's, but Ford didn't say that. Converting SOME vehicles to be E85-capable isn't really taking the bull by the horns, now is it?

Besides, Martin, shouldn't you be sitting back and gloating when people take a turn at bashing Ford for a change?

 

Right now, today, 1 gallon of ethanol costs $1.20 to manufacture.
This includes buying the corn, transporting the corn, and buying natural gas or other petrol to cook, ferment, and distill the corn. $1.20 per gallon is the BOTTOM LINE!

( the petrol used to grow the corn is included in the price of the corn )

Another way to look at it:
We use 4 gallons of petrol products to make 10 gallons of ethanol.
Net gain, 6 gallons of product.

Who wants to spend $4 ( or $4 billion ) today and make 10 tomorrow?

Oil companies FAVOR ethanol production, and are starting to invest in it.
There's a higher potential profit margin than crude oil refinement!

 

thats a VERY good point. You are right. This is why they are so gung ho on ethanol.