Plug-in hybrids remain a mysteriously contentious issue with automakers, despite the fact the public and many non-profit and for-profit organizations are pushing for the technology's mainstream adoption. At Ford's annual shareholder's meeting Bill Ford responded to a question about plug-in hybrids by saying "We have nothing to announce today, but yes, we are keenly looking at it." You may remember we foresaw Ford considering the technology earlier when Niel Golightly, Ford's Director of Sustainable Business Strategies, admitted the company was considering the technology.Hybridcars has posted a three-page letter sent to Bill Ford by Prof. Andrew Frank of UC Davis, the inventor of the plug-in hybrid, and Felix Kramer, founder of the non-profit California Cars Initiative, beseeching the man and his company to endorse the group's research and development of a plug-in Ford Escape Hybrid. You can read the letter here.
Again, Ford could score major PR points by being the first to mass market a plug-in hybrid. An Escape that could achieve 100+ mpg would certainly be front page news.
Many are speculating that liability concerns are what's keeping automakers at bay. Safety issues surrounding more batteries that are larger being stored onboard, the potential for sparks near gasoline vapor and even drivers pulling away with the car plugged in could be of particular concern.
[Source: HybridCars.com]
London 2008: Honda OSM concept roadster says, "Cheerio!"
London 2008: Lotus unveils the Evora
2010 Chevy Camaro - Official Details and Images
2010 Chevy Camaro - LIVE from the reveal
Volkswagen unveiling two-door Elise fighter in LA, new sports car
First Drive: 2008 MINI Cooper S JCW
In the Autoblog Garage:2009 Nissan GT-R
North American Exclusive First Drive: Alfa MiTo
First Drive: 2009 Kia Borrego
In The Autoblog Garage: 2008 Mercedes SLK55 AMG
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
bloggaru @ May 13th 2006 5:06PM
i have something against cars that "plug in"
jeff @ May 13th 2006 6:00PM
"100+ mpg"? Dude, you drive that thing the right way and you could never have to burn any gas at all. Its basically an electric car with a gas engine for back up when you need the extra power or extra range.
The driving away with the plug thing is so stupid. Do we worry about people driving away with the pump nozzle still in the gas cap? Wouldn't be too hard to have the car detect when its plugged in and prevent the car from moving.
Ford should really go after this.
Scott @ May 13th 2006 6:36PM
Hmm, let's not forget that the electricity going into the plug would very likely be generated by fossil fuels, so..
Kevin @ May 13th 2006 6:39PM
Usually big, all caps, words like CONFIRMED are accompanied by some hard news. Confirming that someone is considering an idea isn't really news. The same could probably be said for a lot of other automakers.
Daveinil @ May 13th 2006 6:54PM
I would think that the government will be against electrics until they can get road tax from your utility.
This is about more than saving gas. This is about money. Why do you think you see a big push towards ethanol? To keep you going to the pump.
SKluck @ May 13th 2006 8:46PM
Yes, brilliant. Let's use up all the easily accessible oil in the world, then when that is running low, start using up all the coal 10 times as fast.
J-Loc @ May 13th 2006 9:26PM
"Many are speculating that liability concerns are what's keeping automakers at bay."
That doesnt sound right. Theyre probably worried about what it could do to the auto industry...
John Smith @ May 13th 2006 9:39PM
And the same LIBERALS who clamored for the plug-in hybrids wil lnot only continue to buy the imports that they always have, they will also join i nthe lawsuits against Ford when someone sticks their hand in the socket and gets burned.
They won't be able to resist a chance to tear down a pillar of American industry & capitalism (to the extent that Ford isn't tearing ITSELF down with those nasty, HUGE, floaty, FRONT-wheel drive cars it likes to build).
They like to do that with pharmaceuticals (the only companies keeping them [liberal boomers] alive). Wait until they get their hands on Ford. They'll find SOMETHING else to complain about.
And get a load of the self-serving professor, asking Ford to endorse (use? pay royalites?) HIS "invention"!!
Hahaha!
And they said that with a straight face...
No conflict of interest there!
John Smith @ May 13th 2006 9:45PM
"6. "Many are speculating that liability concerns are what's keeping automakers at bay."
That doesnt sound right. Theyre probably worried about what it could do to the auto industry..."
------
Oh yeah Lori?
WHAT would it do to the auto industry?
WILL Maytag start making cars?
PLEASE!!!!
Another anti-BIG "something" rant eh?
also, I agree with this:
"3. Hmm, let's not forget that the electricity going into the plug would very likely be generated by fossil fuels, so.."
------
It only moves the source upstream. Maybe they want to then use renewable fuels to generate electricity. That woul d be noble, but sdon't be fooled. It's not about the environment. It's abotu government control of social behavior and the economy (they failed directly with the USSR, so they are trying indirectly).
Chris Edwards @ Nov 14th 2007 9:05PM
For starters, electricity even if produced by coal produces less pollution than gasoline. Also electricity can be produced by wind, solar, geothermal and nuclear. When gasoline hits $6.00 a gallon you will be able to pick up those big SUV's that used to cost $30,000.00 for $5,000.00. If the American Automakers do not change their ways and produce cars that can achieve 100 miles per gallon of gas using gas/electric plug in hybrids they will follow the demise of the dinosaurs.
jeff @ May 13th 2006 10:39PM
There are many parts of the world that produce electricity in a relatively clean way. Even if all the electricity came from coal fire plants, i'm willing to bet its easier to control the emissions of a huge stationary plant than it is for millions of tiny engines running all over the place.
"John Smith"... dude you gotta talk less. or at least use less caps lock.
Mal Fuller @ May 13th 2006 11:59PM
Any person claiming to be the inventor of the "plug in hybrid" is to be regarded with suspicion. The so-called "plug in hybrid" combines electric car technology and gas/electric hybrid technology, both invented long ago. Combining two existing technologies doesn't qualify as an invention.
Rene Curry @ May 14th 2006 2:38AM
Here is what I do not understand and correct any misconceptions I may have...
The present hybrid system utilizes the electric power to help during acceleration and load conditions and uses regeneration during braking to charge the battery. So the vehicle is presently configured to keep the battery in a charged condition, yes/no?? What is the advantage to charging the battery at home if it should already be in a charged state? Only someone that drives the freeway consistantly would need this charging system, then again they probably bought the wrong vehicle.
Campisi @ May 14th 2006 5:39AM
Wow... for once, GM beat someone to the punch! The SAAB hybrid 9-3 at the most recent automotive show (I can't remember the name at the moment) was actually a plug-in hybrid. For some reason, GM told them to put a cover over the socket, and rewrite the press release materials.
http://www.trollhattansaab.net/
2 wheels @ May 14th 2006 8:11AM
Doesn't matter to me which company starts pushing this garbage on us. What I'd like to know is just what kind of real world data they have to back up these claims? None or little I bet.
What I'm thinking is just how well will these POS's work in your average New England winter. It's dark, the roads are clogged and your 25 minute commute turns into 2 hours. Lights on, heat & blower at max, windshield wipers going, etc... How many KWH of battery does that trip take? I'd venture a bet the savings will be minimal maybe unmeasureable.
This could be a real business opportunity for flatbed wrecker owners.
Dan @ May 14th 2006 7:39PM
#14 - These cars still use gas-powered engines as back-ups and for acceleration. These are not strictly electric cars. This would just help to maybe put a even bigger battery source in there to use the gas engine even less.
Crazyjamaican46 @ May 15th 2006 1:25AM
# 3 that is not always the case. I currently Llive in Little Rock, Ar and ALL the power generated in this state either comes from a nuclear power plant in Russleville, Ar or from a Hydroelectric plant on The Arkansas River. Nuclear Power could and should be the future especialy with todays new and safe nuclear technologies (pebble bed reactors etc.... Also it is more effient and far more cost effective to produce power at a Fossil Fuel burning power plant than to burn gasdoline in todays gas guzzling SUVs.
MK @ May 15th 2006 7:49AM
I like this idea in concept. Any car that can run on 100% electricity for shorter trips and reduce our dependence on foreign oil sounds good to me. However, I have to question how this would work in the "real world".
Whether the electricity comes from fossil fuels or another source, it is not free. I question how many plug in hybrid owners will continue to plug in their vehicles every night once they see their electric bill?
Chris Isles @ May 16th 2006 8:57PM
Ford will never go ahead with it. About five years ago they bought a Norwegian company that manufactured electric cars, Th!nk Mobility. Ford imported 1,000 or so Th!nk Citys into the USA on a three year waiver from US DOT (they didn't have passenger side airbags), and leased them in the California and New York markets. The cars were two seaters, had a top speed of 55mph, and a range of anywhere from 25 to 50 miles depending on your driving style, terrain, accessory use, etc. They had NiCd batteries, and hooked into an Avcon charger that was installed in your house, or at train stations, malls, etc. They were rather short, and could squeeze into parking spaces left between two cars. After a successful round of leasing, Ford completely dumped the program. They sold Th!nk Mobility, re-posessed all of the cars, and sent them to be crushed. After a series of protests by lessors in California, Ford relented and sent about half of them back to Norway for refurbishment. Ford claimed that the experiment was a failure, and that there was no market for the car. Most lessors, like myself were enamoured by the cars, and many offered to buy them from Ford, but to no avail. Ford's claim about the lack of a market was surprising. Had anyone ever seen any marketing information on this vehicle? Ford has absolutely no interest in the environment. They probably have the worst environmental record of any manufacturer (except maybe Hummer). If they do sell cars with good milage it is merely to raise their CAFE so they can sell more of the larger, more profitable guzzlers. Beware of Ford and any claims they make about plug-in cars. It's a sham!
Chris Dixon @ May 16th 2006 11:25PM
I have written a good bit on the issue of electric cars for the NYTimes. There are several points to consider when I read some of these arguments against cars that run on grid or other sources of electricity. The first point is that an electric motor is inherently far, far more efficient than the most efficient internal combustion engine. Some new electric propulsion systems - especially ones that use "in hub" motors with no moving parts (ie, the wheel IS the motor) can be as much as 90 percent efficient - especially when they use regenerative braking. Google "Wavecrest Bicycles" for an example of this type of motor. This compares with 30 to 40 percent efficiency for the best IC engines, in which a great deal of energy is lost as heat - that's why you need a radiator. Electric engines also generate maximum torque from 0 to a redline that can be into the low tens of thousands - thus negating the need for a complicated transmission. There is also the claim that there would be more pollution coming out of smokestacks to power electric cars. This is certainly true, but it is also true that rather than millions of "non point" pollution sources which must each have a complicated exhaust emissions control system, you are moving the source of pollution to one far more easily cleanable place - a power plant. If one were to install solar (expensive for sure) or rely on hydropower, or (gasp) nuclear, the greenhouse gas emissions would be negligible. When you plug your car in at night, you are also paying off-peak KWhour rates. Owners of GM EV-1's I interviewed awhile back figured that with electricity taken into consideration, they were paying somewhere for the equivalent of 100 MPG if my memory serves. If you're considering the efficency of an electric motor, it's also logical to assume that you would be producing far fewer greenhouse gasses at the smokestack than a typical IC engine through its tailpipe. The argument about battery longevity has largely been disproven by the fact that there are a great many pure electric Toyota RAV 4's in fleet and private hands in California that have gone 100,000 miles thru full charge/discharges with little discernable loss of their battery holding capacity -- that is, the ones that had the very highest quality (and expensive) batteries installed.
I'm not saying that e-cars are a panacea, and I'm honestly not a raving advocate. They can be complicated, and are generally unproven and replacing batteries will cost a lot. But the concerns that I've read above are the ones I've been hearing for awhile and I've honestly researched the topic. Seems that a plug-in hybrid could be a good solution for a lot of commuters. I was also mighty interested in the Saab plug-in posting. Interesting...