Autoblog

It is good to see that Ford is finally coping up to the terrible fuel effeciency they have engineered for the last two three decades. Now if only GM would come out and admit it as well instead of advertising how great their effeciency is, like the commercial I heard on the radio claiming that the H3 was a "super effecient vehicle" through better engineering.

I hope that GM and Ford can get past the "no replacement for displacement" and start utilizing more forced induction systems like the Germans and to a lesser extent the Japanese have done. Just because American's want enough power to get around without keeping the engine reved out for a passing maneuver doesn't mean you need to slap a V8 into everything, or even a V6 or I5.

Reply

↓↑report

They started out by saying "We focused too much on vehicles no one wants." And yet the only thing they could talk about were what they were doing with those same vehicles no one wants. A hybrid SUV and a Hydrogen bus isn't going to solve their problem. They seem to be running even faster toward failure.

Proof positive that they're not getting it is the statement "We don't care what they vehicle runs off of - as long as as long as it's clean and contributing to a companywide plan to get us off oil and to cut global warming polution."

But if you create a vehicle that is clean only if it runs off of something for which there is zero infrastructure then it will be a failure. And if that 'clay model' meant anything they would have said something. Like the Shelby it was a meaningless filler that simply made them look even more foolish. Sadly the bold move seems to be off a cliff.

Reply

↓↑report

Ford has always used B.S. slogans to try to suck the public into buying their junk products, remember the slogan " FORD, Quality one" Ford should be sued for false advertising.

Reply

↓↑report

"Just because American's want enough power to get around without keeping the engine reved out for a passing maneuver doesn't mean you need to slap a V8 into everything, or even a V6 or I5."

a 7 liter v8 in a zo6 gets the same milage as a four cylinder in an s2000. there is not a mathmatical relationship between displacemant and milage. the biggest factor determining milage is the weight of the vehicle not the size of the engine.

Reply

↓↑report

So from one side of Detroit you get "Bold Moves"... and from the other you get "An American Revolution"... American marketing policy seems to dictate that random sounding slogans yields high sales. Either their right, in which case you all are corn-kernel brained nimwits, or else its just plain and simple that Detroit sucks at making cars. Something tells me that you all should drop to your knees and pray its the latter.

doglet - I was surprised to see that you were actually right. At first, I was like "what corner of thin air did you pull that out of?". But EPA does confirm that you are... in a vague sense... correct.
Corvette Zo6: 16/26. S2000: 20/26. However, it must be said that EPA's system is outdated and as such fairly unreliable, and so we can only hope that these ratings get corrected, come 2008. On the other hand, arguing that mileage is a direct result of weight, while inherently correct, undermines your arguement when taking the S2000 vs. Corvette example. Which individual, in his sane mind, can argue that the S2000 is a heavy vehicle?

So there, now that ive gotten my irritation over American marketing out of the way, I can say that I am fairly happy to see Ford making some traction in the field of alternative fuels. And in fact, busses and SUVs are a good place to start. Both busses and SUVs consume massive quantities of gas. Neither busses nor SUVs are notable for their acceleration or top speed. So, drop a hybrid drivetrain into these vehicles, and all of a sudden you have a vehicle that... while still slow, atleast gives the vehicles a significant jolt in fuel economy.

and thats just my 2 cents.

Reply

↓↑report

glacia00 - The quote you reference ("We don't care what they vehicle runs off of - as long as as long as it's clean and contributing to a companywide plan to get us off oil and to cut global warming polution.") was by Richard Kasser, who is on the Natural Resources Defense Council (http://www.nrdc.org/). His name and title were shown on the screen while he was talking earlier in the episode. So that was not a statement made by Ford.

So don't assume they don't get it; they're trying to show points and counterpoints, and what that guy said doesn't necessarily reflect the company's view. I'm not saying I wouldn't like to hear more specific, directed comments in the videos, but you have to keep in mind that half of the people talking in any one of these are members of the press or other analysts.

Reply

↓↑report

Point taken about V8 fuel economy, certainly. But the Z06 owes much of its performance in EPA fuel-economy testing to its tall gear ratios--it's easy to net good highway figures when sixth is good for ~200 mph. The S2000, by contrast, buzzes along at 4,000 rpm at 80 mph.

The 'Vette's "first-to-fourth skip-shift" feature seems awfully well-suited to maximizing mileage in gentle EPA driving, too. It's certainly not there because owners have asked for it.

Anyway, I tend to agree with glacia00's appraisal of Ford's "green company" ambitions. If you want to catch the trend towards more fuel-efficient vehicles, you don't start by patching up your most gratuitous gas guzzlers--you roll out competitive products in the compact and midsize markets that fuel-conscious consumers are migrating to.

This is how Toyota manages to maintain its "green" image while selling Sequoias and Tundras that guzzle every bit as greedily as their rivals: They deliver class-leading economy in the vehicles whose buyers *value* it (Yaris, Corolla, Matrix, Camry, RAV4, Prius, et cetera).

Reply

↓↑report

"If you want to catch the trend towards more fuel-efficient vehicles, you don't start by patching up your most gratuitous gas guzzlers--you roll out competitive products in the compact and midsize markets that fuel-conscious consumers are migrating to."

You have to do both, especially when current revenues are heavily dependent on the large vehicles. New vehicle development takes much longer, so obviously tweaks to existing models will arrive first and their revenue stream supports the development of new fuel-efficient models.

Reply

↓↑report

infinihertz, if Ford is producing these videos filled
with viewpoints they don't share or perhaps even oppose then what is their point? I'm not saying you're wrong and perhaps they are simply throwing together
random video clips of talking heads. I would actually prefer to think the clips express their message, however obtuse and confused the message may be. Otherwise I'm even more embarassed for them.

Hydrogen is an interesting technology however it will not be viable for decades. And perhaps their investment in it will pay off for some other company when Ford goes under for lack of a product now.

If they have a plan forward they don't have the luxury of keeping it secret. For that they would need something to sustain them until some big announcement. And even they admit they have nothing.

I'm far from one of those people cheering on the demise of the US auto industry. But I make no excuses for them either.

We should expect the most from those things we choose to support. Otherwise why support them? I may once again be the odd man out here but my philosophy is why critisize a product you would never consider buying in the first place? I would say to Ford I've bought your product in the past and if you want me as a customer now get off your butts and do something now because a lot of people have given up waiting.

Reply

↓↑report

Did anyone notice that the clay concept shown in the video shows a really strong resemblance to the iosis concept (albeit more conservative). Still has a similar roofline, short trunk, and blunt front end. I tend to think that the more european (read: iosis based) cars will start to be put under the mercury brand. It would make sense for Ford. Think about it, the new cars that they've recently introduced post-way forward(Edge/MKX)have been ford/lincoln models. No merc models introduced. They could get away with using Merc as a european brand and just do a straight import because the models can go for a little bit more (one of the supposed reasons we don't have the euro-focus), will have a more european design that merc is supposedly edging towards (metro-cool), and create a distinct lower tier euro brand that can compete with VW, assuming they do it right. Plus it's easy to market is. Mercury is a flowing silver liquid-metal. Euro cars tend to be more flowing and less agressive than their american counterparts. I think it would make a ton of sense. Maybe this car could be the 'halo' car for merc that begins the re-branding.

Reply

↓↑report

"New vehicle development takes much longer, so obviously tweaks to existing models will arrive first and their revenue stream supports the development of new fuel-efficient models."

True, CH, but if Ford was being run with a modicum of foresight, they would have seen the trend towards fuel-efficient compacts coming five years ago. Enthusiasts, economists, the automotive press, and more efficiently-managed companies certainly did.

Reply

↓↑report