Autoblog http://www.autoblog.com Autoblog http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.autoblog.com/media/feedlogo.gif Autoblog http://www.autoblog.com en-us Copyright 2009 Weblogs, Inc. The contents of this feed are available for non-commercial use only. Blogsmith http://www.blogsmith.com/<![CDATA[EDITORIAL: Attention <i>Wall Street Journal</i> - Ford does <b>not</b> use Toyota's hybrid system!]]>http://www.autoblog.com/2009/07/05/editorial-attention-i-wall-street-journal-i-ford-does-b-n/http://www.autoblog.com/2009/07/05/editorial-attention-i-wall-street-journal-i-ford-does-b-n/http://www.autoblog.com/2009/07/05/editorial-attention-i-wall-street-journal-i-ford-does-b-n/#commentsFiled under:


2010 Mercury Milan Hybrid - Click above for high-res image gallery

In a recent op-ed piece published in The Wall Street Journal, Alan Reynolds of the Cato Institute starts by making a few decent points about fuel taxation and fuel economy rules. Unfortunately, he undermines himself with some blatant errors and misinformation. In discussing how Detroit automakers will deal with new fuel efficiency requirements, he makes the all-too-common mistake of referring to Ford's hybrid system as licensed from Toyota ("Similarly, Ford has the Toyota-licensed hybrid Fusion and will soon produce the European Ford Fiesta in Mexico").

The reality is that Ford independently developed its own hybrid system at the same time Toyota was masterminding its own. The basic architecture of both systems is the same and both are based on the concepts developed and patented by TRW engineers in the late 1960s. When Ford introduced the Escape Hybrid, Toyota went after the Blue Oval for infringing on its patents. Ford had patents of its own on the technology that Toyota was using. Eventually, the two companies reached a cross-licensing agreement that gives both companies the right to build their own systems. Such cross-licensing agreements are common in these kinds of cases, but Ford did not use the Toyota hybrid system. The only other company that uses Toyota's system is Nissan for its Altima hybrid, and they actually buy hardware from Toyota. We continue deconstructing Reynolds' arguments after the jump


Gallery: Review: 2010 Mercury Milan Hybrid


[Source: Wall Street Journal]
Photos Copyright (C)2009 Sam Abuelsamid / Weblogs, Inc.

Continue reading EDITORIAL: Attention Wall Street Journal - Ford does not use Toyota's hybrid system!

EDITORIAL: Attention Wall Street Journal - Ford does not use Toyota's hybrid system! originally appeared on Autoblog on Sun, 05 Jul 2009 15:10:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink | Email this | Comments]]>alan reynoldsAlanReynoldscafecorporate average fuel economyCorporateAverageFuelEconomyeditorialfuel taxfuel taxesFuelTaxFuelTaxesgas taxgas taxesGasTaxGasTaxeshybridhybrid patenthybrid patentsHybridPatentHybridPatentshybridssmall carSmallCarwall street journalWallStreetJournalSun, 05 Jul 2009 15:10:00 EST<![CDATA[GM responds to Boston Globe critique]]>http://www.autoblog.com/2006/09/19/gm-responds-to-boston-globe-critique/http://www.autoblog.com/2006/09/19/gm-responds-to-boston-globe-critique/http://www.autoblog.com/2006/09/19/gm-responds-to-boston-globe-critique/#commentsFiled under: , ,



Earlier this month, an editorial writer for the Boston Globe wrote a piece entitled the 'Folly of automakers' in which he lambastes Detroit's big-two-point-five, and specifically GM, for producing too many large SUVs and generally ignoring the trend towards smaller, more fuel-efficient vehicles.

GM, not content with being denigrated in public, wrote a retort, which was not published in the Boston Globe, due to their policy of not printing op-ed responses. However, the Miami Herald, who also published Derrick Jackson's column on the automakers, did allow a portion of GM's response to be published in their 'letters to the editor' section.

As is often the case, the General wanted their side of the argument voiced in its entirety, and so, GM's Fast Lane Blog enters from stage left.

General Motors' veep of Global Communications, Steven Harris, took Jackson's column to task, pointing out that reading four columns about the auto industry does not an analyst make and going so far as to list off all of GM's accomplishments towards reducing fuel consumption and America's reliance on foreign oil. Most of his points are well made, although their claim of making more 30-MPG vehicles than any other manufacturer can be debated, as real world experience has shown that the EPA's estimates are "optimistic."

Our interest is mainly centered on the argument and how each party makes their case. Your thoughts, as always, are welcomed.

[Source: Boston Globe, GM Fast Lane Blog]

GM responds to Boston Globe critique originally appeared on Autoblog on Tue, 19 Sep 2006 07:10:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Read | Permalink | Email this | Comments]]>boston globeBostonGlobederrick jacksonDerrickJacksoneditorialfolly of automakersFollyOfAutomakersgeneral motorsGeneralMotorsgmsteven harrisStevenHarrisTue, 19 Sep 2006 07:10:00 EST<![CDATA[Flint dissects GM and Nissan/Renault joining]]>http://www.autoblog.com/2006/07/04/flint-takes-magnifying-glass-to-gm-and-nissan-renault-pairing/http://www.autoblog.com/2006/07/04/flint-takes-magnifying-glass-to-gm-and-nissan-renault-pairing/http://www.autoblog.com/2006/07/04/flint-takes-magnifying-glass-to-gm-and-nissan-renault-pairing/#commentsFiled under: , ,

With Kerkorian's proposal of a General Motors and Nissan/Renault merger still sending shockwaves throughout the auto-sphere, auto curmudgeon Jerry Flint steps up to the podium to give his thoughts on 'Global Motors'.

Flint immediately sees a conflict between the automakers over who would be top dog. He sees no 'merger of equals' here any more than the DaimlerChrysler union was and, worse for GM, the world would not expect Ghosn to take a back seat. GM would be run by Ghosn and Nissan/Renault, not Detroit.

He also doesn't see the money savings in the merger, which analysts state is the long-term goal. Which manufacturing plants, for example, would be closed? In France? Detroit? Germany? And how would the brands be dealt with? Rebadge Tennessee-built Nissans as Chevys? Close the French design staff and have GM's designers in Germany develop new Opels? Even before these questions are answered, the involved automakers would need to deal with GM's union contracts and legacy costs that make the original Nissan/Renault merger look like a cakewalk.

Flint concludes his thoughts on Toyota Motor Co., which many merger advocates point to support their idea. The world's second largest automaker continues its relentless march towards Number One and no automaker has come close to stopping it, especially not any domestic ones. Would a Nissan/Renault/GM company be able to even slow down the Japanese juggernaut? Flint points out that it took years for Nissan/Renault and DaimlerChrysler to begin profiting from their mergers, and there are carcasses aplenty of other former mergers (e.g., GM/Fiat; Studebaker/Packard, etc.) littering the ground of history. By the time Global Motors would resolve its issues, Toyota could be unassailable.

Your thoughts on Flint's thoughts?

Related:
Kerkorian: Merge GM with Nissan/Renault?
Toyota buys GM and other improbables
General Motors, more cuts now, says Kerkorian's advisor
Armchair management: what would you do to solve GM's problems?

[Source: Forbes]

Flint dissects GM and Nissan/Renault joining originally appeared on Autoblog on Tue, 04 Jul 2006 09:18:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Read | Permalink | Email this | Comments]]>editorialGhosnmergeropinionRenaultTue, 04 Jul 2006 09:18:00 EST