toyboxrv

Did I say there were incentives on the Escape hybrid? Never. How well did the Escape hybrid sell? What happens after 60 miles? The Fisker uses an engine to charge the battery. Your lack of understanding is fundamentally flawed.

GM had the dual mode and other manufacturers are using it. Lutz decided that going after what everyone else was doing wouldn't move technology forward, they needed something that goes to the next step. You're too foolish to recognize they accomplished that. Volt gets 40 mpg hwy. One complaint here has been it's lack of usefulness for other types of trips where gas would be used for most of it. A 1000 mile trip in a Cmax uses just over 21 gallons. Same trip in a Volt uses 25. Wow huge difference. GM found that 70% or more of commuters go 40 miles or less. I remember all the whiners complaining that wasn't far enough, but now 21 is. A huge number of people will have their needs met by 38 mile electric range. I would do better with a Volt than a Cmax. The Volt has a $7500 tax credit, the Cmax $3750. Net cost is $2500 difference. You haven't got a clue what amortizing is. Hundreds of millions were invested in the new system. The CVT functions differently. Costs are applied to vehicles sold and so far that is few. There are a lot more costs that will be applied over the next few years. I bought as much Ford stock as I could when it was near $2 and I did well. It was $2 because the company had been mismanaged, so yes I can recognize a mismanaged company. Ford would have been in the same boat if they hadn't mortaged their entire future before it was too late. Neither predicted the economic collapse. None of that has to do with whether their hybrid products makes sense or not, it just you thinking a cheap shot makes a point.

Test mules were Malibus. Saying can't is totally laughable.

GM offered low leases on 2012 Volts. Ford doesn't offer incentives on outgoing models? GM has never indicated it would give away Volts. Stupid to even make that claim. There is a lot of new engineering in the Cmax and Fusion hybrids and Energi models. Saying its all been amortized is you throwing out a big word you don't understand the meaning of. Capital costs are applied against sales, basic accounting principle of matching revenues and expenses. Come back when you know what you're talking about. Richard Jensen: GM has only one EREV planned? No other products that will come from that idea? Didn't know you sit in on GM board meetings. It's the beginning, not the end. My electric hasn't changed much in 10 years. My gas costs have been all over the map. What do you here on the news, spiking gas prices or electric rates? Gas was $1.50 to $2 back then, my electric was .11 and is now .13 and I can get .062 on an off peak rate. You didn't really bring up such a weak point as electric rates, did you? Ford built the Escape hybrid when? GM has had the Volt out how long? You gave Ford time to do something with the Escape and first gen Fusion hybrid and dismiss the Volt right away. Lutz, who was behind the creation of the Volt, said that hybrids won't be viable until gas prices are higher and so far he's been proven right. The Prius didn't do much until gas prices spiked around Katrina and again in 08. Used Focus? Is that all you got? Weak. JPD80: The 220 million was investment in the plant and tooling, not in the engineering of it. Millions in battery work. Atkinson version of the engine is not free. Changes to the platform to accommodate the different power train. Add it all up and the cost gets recovered by the sale of the product. Ford has just started doing that. Don't sell product and those costs never get covered. No one has shown the Volt costs more to get out the door than it's sold for. Selling fewer isn't going to cover the capital costs. It's now sold in Europe and Australia being produced in a US plant. From your link, 1000 engineers on the project. Must be cheap for Ford. Can't believe the wasted band width from you not answering my points with any substance. Volt isn't stand alone tech, it can apply to other vehicles in the future. Ford's hybrids have been evolving for years and the Volt for much less. You think it should be at the same point as far as family of products? It was already shown the Cmax with a bigger battery is more money than a Volt. GM did a survey and determined that most commuters drove 40 miles or less and that is why they chose their range and their battery size had some to do with the tax credit and some to do with battery life. Thinking the average mileage is 15k so the Volt doesn't work isn't paying attention to the variety of needs of drivers. There are plenty of people the Volt isn't the best choice. My wife is one, but the Energi isn't likely to be a good choice either for her. The hybrids will if I speculate on higher gas prices. Many people I know can benefit from one of those choices and many the Volt could be the best choice. As gas prices climb it will look better and better. It uses more cheap electric travel and less travel by gas. If used to its advantage its FE isn't much of a point, ask Jay Leno. Fan boys on a Ford site that can't see the benefits of a GM is so unheard of. I think the Energis and hybrids have a lot of promise and I'm not dismissing them like many of you dismiss the Volt. Anyone who thinks GM shouldn't have bothered with the Volt is an absolute fool. From what I've seen so far the Volt is the more practical choice for my situation. I could change my mind if some real facts and not fan boy propaganda shows me something different.

So you made up a number to prove a point, but didn't mention what that point is. Using $50k to claim GM loses money on the Volt doesn't prove anything. Even if the average is 15k per year, that's just over 40 miles per day, you do drive on weekends don't you? I drive well past 15k per year and a Volt would be viable for me. Of all the people I know that commute to work, most go less than 40 miles. People in rural areas, where I live, tend to drive more than those in the city and bring the average up. Try quoting median distance. Nothing wrong with Ford's options, but they don't come close to rendering GM's Volt irrelevant. How much did Ford sink into the hybrid and Energi platform? Since you don't know the cost of a Volt, why should I think you know this answer? GM has a Voltec version of the Orlando and the ELR. No flexibility? The Volt power train mules used a Malibu platform. As battery tech evolves the platform and packaging will change for everybody. Your 80/20 point doesn't seem to make one. You can't support what you want to believe. You don't know the cost of either the Volt or the Energi. Ford didn't sell many Escape or Fusion hybrids and you have no idea if they made money on them. The new products use a Ford designed and manufactured CVT that requires amortization. The changes to the platform do as well. The control systems are different from the past and you have no idea what that costs. You talk like GM spent too much and won't ever recover that investment, but can't compare it to Ford's new hybrids because you know nothing of sustance about them. The point of going to EREV vehicles, whether a Volt, plug in Prius or and Energi is to not use gas. All the math you present is irrelevant if one can meet that goal to use less gas. I could come close with a Volt in my commute to paying the long term added costs over a non hybrid or a hybrid. Many others I know could have similar results, but not all would have the Volt as the best option. Seems you believe that since it doesn't work for some, it doesn't work for ahy. At current prices a Volt would cost me .60 to .65 to charge and get me 38 miles based on EPA numbers. A Cmax hybrid would cost around $2.75 for the same distance on gas. An Energi model I would be guessing, since Ford hasn't said much about recharging, around .30 to .40 plus $1.30 for gas for the same 38 miles. If I can plug in at work at no cost, the Volt wins hands down. If gas rises to the astronimical levels everyone has promised, Voltec is a better solution. Ford's solutions look to be better than Toyota's are and if battery tech improves much, then Ford and GM have very viable options for the future, while Toyota needs to reinvent. You act as if GM's solution is too stupid for words and the only reason you could come to that conclusion is your blinders are too limiting. The Volt isn't going to be the only application of the technology and it won't cost huge sums to bring it to other products. My wife's current Fusion has 140k on it. A Fusion with a 1.6T might be a lower cost option now over a hybrid, but if gas goes up substantially that may be wrong. It's a matter of speculating on the future. You haven't convinced me you have a better grasp on it.

Show me proof that the Volt costs $50k to make. It is about my needs. Why would I buy a Ford hybrid or plug in when what I need is better met by a Volt? GM found that a large percentage of commutes were less than 40 miles. GM set up a 45 mile test loop and challenged media types and bloggers to see how well they could do with the Volt. They published the results and dozens did the whole loop on just electric. The best had 12 miles of range left. I've talked to two people that own one and their results are better than 40 miles on average. There are 11 people where I work that commute and only two of us commute more than 40 miles a day. It's not a niche vehicle, it's one that makes sense for a lot of average people. The future is likely much higher gas prices. The vehicle that can spend more time on electric will have a big advantage over those that don't. Better mileage isn't the long term solution, it's just what some of you are blinded by at the moment. Go run your calculations again on $5 or $6 gas and the Volt starts looking better. The Volt battery, which is the minimum size for the $7500 rebate is more than double. If the battery cost for an Energi raises the price $7k over the hybrid, then matching the Volt battery size would bring that price up another $8k and that is above the price of a Volt. Sounds like the Volt isn't off the mark as much as you are so blind to believe. The future is a smaller, lighter, cheaper battery with as much or maybe a little more range than the Volt, not less range. You see Ford making good decisions because that's what you want to see. I see both as good ideas that are taking different paths, but both having potential. You guys just want to hate GM and it clouds your thinking and rationalizations. I see the plug in Prius as the weakest. The Ford entries have yet to see real world use, but I see them as good products for people that go longer distances at times, but also have a shorter commute. Need to take advantage of the two different pluses it has. The Volt is more mainstream commuting and occasional trips. It would work better for me, but not everyone. Electrics to me are not even a solution. As gas prices go up I expect the Volt type power train as a better solution.

You know for a fact that an Energi model with a larger battery would cost the same or less than a Volt? Doubt it. You actually think that selling fewer Focus EVs keeps them from losing more money? If it cost $100 million for development and Ford sells 1,000, then development is $100,000 per vehicle. If sales go up to 10,000, then costs drop to $10,000. Sales at 50,000, then cost is $2,000. If GM sells more Volts in global markets, then costs come down, not up like you want to believe. GM is looking at the next gen of the Voltec system and is studying changes in battery tech. Thinking they're doing nothing would be a mistake on your part. Thinking they need an added cost powerplant to make more sense to you when the vehicle is targeted towards people using 40 miles or less in range daily doesn't make sense. Why increase cost when the engine is only used a limited amount of the time? Why pay the added cost of DI when it may only reduce gas use for less than 10% of the vehicle's time on the road? Maybe a big deal if the range was limited to 20 miles. If I bought one to replace my 08 GT, then 4 seats is obviously not an issue. You thinking I should buy a vehicle to meet someone else's needs is your issue. Right now there is a tax rebate on the Volt and whether or not there is one later isn't important. The Volt would meet my needs better right now than either a Cmax/Fusion hybrid or Energi. GM has emerged from bankruptcy 3 years ago. They make a profit now. They had work nearly done on the Volt and it would have been foolish to throw it away because of blindness like yours.

1) My 08 GT doesn't require premium, but gets better mileage using it. 2) Mustang's range using EPA numbers isn't any better. No electric to help out. 3) The Volt has a 40 mpg hwy rating that most of you conveniently forget. 4) It hasn't been a problem for me. Now where are all the Ford people to tell me I bought a stupid car? It amazes me how many people criticized the Volt for only a 40 mile electric range, yet no mention of that deficiency on the Energis.

Talk about being a troll. You come up with every little negative you can and exaggerate every one. The price of gas is not near the range it was expected to be to get the sales for the Volt. The economy still sucks. Projections for the Volt were made in 08 when both the economy and gas prices were different. The 60k number included global sales and Europe's economy sucks more than ours, yet sales are near 30k in 9 months. How well is that Focus electric doing? How much does it cost? Speak with people in the real world and FE of a Volt is 40+ as well as electric range. I have consistently averaged 26 - 28 commuting with my Mustang with an EPA of 23. The Fusion has done 33+ with an EPA in 07 of 31 and 29 in 08. I can plug in at work and have nearly my entire trip on electric. A Cmax/Fusion Energi would be half or less.Right now that would be $2 for electric and $2 for gas in the Volt. The Energi would be $1 or more, don't know how much it actually charges the battery yet, for electric and $4 for gas. that's more. Considering my boss would likely let me charge for free and I can get a lower off peak rate at home, my electric would drop more with the Volt. The point of any plug in is to use the electric as much as possible and leave the gas engine to occasional extra trips. The difference on my daily commute for the substandard FE rating of the Volt compared to the Cmax rating is maybe a tenth of a gallon. Long trips would be more, but likely wouldn't exceed 10 gallons in any recent years for me. Different people will have different needs that change the benefits of one car over the other. For me the Volt is a better choice. I currently have on 08 GT and it has less rear seat room than a Volt, but I didn't, so far, hear any comments on how lame that choice was. For my wife a Fusion hybrid might be a better choice than any of the gas only models, but a plug in isn't worth the added cost. Need to be a bit more realistic on figuring cost difference there RJ. The Volt is 40k before a $7500 rebate the Cmax Energi is 33k before a $3750 rebate. That's a little closer to 90% of the cost, not 75% and about 55% of the range of the 2013 Volt's 38 miles.Except we all know that mileage may vary. You could probably make a real point if you used real facts. Deanh: Not sure what your point of, "so now you need to own TWO cars when one could suffice" I already need two vehicles for my wife and I as we drive to different places at different times. I choose to have the bike and the Mustang, but need the truck for trailer pulling and other truck uses that no hybrid or plug in can do. What one vehicle would suffice for me?

Driving 25k miles each year to work like I do the Volt would completely own the Cmax hybrid or plug in. Last year I made one trip of 1500 in my F150, had to pick up a Harley, and one trip of 2000 miles on my motorcycle. Don't see why owning a car that does better on long trips I don't take is very important. I would look at what benefits me most for my situation and that would be a Volt over a Cmax/Fusion hybrid or Energi. It is nowhere near game over, it's just your irrational hate of GM. Just because the Volt only sits four is a weak argument. I can take my F150 Super Crew the few times and that kind of argument would mean my motorcycle is owned by a hybrid. Not likely. Trying to dismiss the Volt because it doesn't do as well on long trips or doesn't seat 5 is pathetic, get a real argument to support your point. If you think I'm just a GM lover, guess again. I have an 08 Mustang GT and my wife has an 07 Fusion besides the F150. I would consider a Cmax/Fusion hybrid for my wife as she has a long commute and no chance of plugging in at work. Don't think the Energi model would be a better choice, but I haven't seen any real world results for it. It would spend too much time on gas and may as well save the cost difference and spend it on gas instead of a little electric. Time will tell though.

After the tax credit for both, the Cmax Energi is only 2500 less than a Volt. With my commute I could get to work most days on electric with a Volt and halfway there with a Cmax. I'm interested in how the Fusion and Cmax Energis will work in the real world, but a lot depends on the situation they're used in.

Why compare the price of a diesel option on a HD pickup to a 4 cyl car? Does the diesel option on a VW TDI cost $7k - $8k more? Not even close. Fordmantpw, you have a diesel that got the worst mileage of any Ford diesel over the last 30 years. Did you see the mileage the 6.7L gets with a total of nearly 30k lbs? Did you see the mileage the same people got testing an F150 Ecoboost on many of the same roads with half the total weight? Can you imagine what a 3/4 ton that still weighs considerably more would get on the same trip pulling the same 9k lb trailer that the Ecoboost truck did? It's not just 20% more I'll bet. Probably more like 40% to 50% better. Put it in a lighter F150 and those numbers are very realistic. Put a 4.4L or even smaller diesel that can match the performance of the Ecoboost and the advantage grows. Tell us all what the huge upfront cost is, because on a VW TDI it is certainly not within a light year of what it is for a Ford SD. Go check the Range Rover UK site for verification Richard. They advertise 19 combined mileage on the V8 supercharged model and 30 on the TD. The US version supercharged is 12/17 and if the math works right that would mean around 23 combined for a US diesel. Range Rover claims lower co2 for the diesel model. How much more would a direct injected, twin turbo 6.2L cost than the one currently available? How much difference would there be between a 3.5l Ecoboost and a 3.5L TD on cost or on performance? Please continue your speculation without any proof, it's worked for you so far. The Cummins Dodge meets current HD pickup standards without urea. VW meets US standards with their diesel models. Why would you think it would be so much harder for a 3.5L diesel to meet US standards? I guess speculation is again your answer. I'd like to know where the $6k cost for a small diesel comes from jpd80? First you say we need high fuel prices to get buyers to go diesel and then you say they would walk away. Make up your mind. I see plenty of high end lifestyle trucks with 6.7L diesels in them. The last time diesel spiked so much higher than gas is when the dollar was lower than the Euro and it was advantageous to buy our diesel when they brought gas over here. There is a limit to how much extra they will pay and since the crude is costing the same regardless of currency values, it's only the cost of refining that varies and then there is the cost of shipping even if they are here to drop off gas in their tankers.

Diesels are more popular in HD pickups., even when they cost $7k - $8k more, which is nowhere near 1/2 the price of a Fusion. I've heard lame excuses for not wanting diesels, but that tops them all for failing to support a real point. . That does not mean that in 4 cyl passenger cars the price differential will be anywhere near that. It does not mean that in SUV's and 1/2 ton trucks that the price differential would be anywhere near that. A Land Rover 3.0L TD available in the UK has as much torque, but half the HP as a supercharged 5.0L gas motor. It has over 50% better fuel economy and 70% of the co2. The Ford 3.5L V8 TD used in Europe had more torque than the 3.5L Ecoboost does. A 6.7L diesel in a 1 ton dually pulling a 19k trailer gets similar mileage to a F150 Ecoboost pulling only 9k. The smaller V8 diesels that Ford and GM have ready to go will outperform their biggest gassers. It would take a 6.2L Ecoboost to match a 6.7L diesel. Pickuptrucks.com just did a test of the big 3 HD diesels and I'm sure none of you haters would bother to read it for fear of finding out how wrong you are. Please tell us all about the driveability problems and poor fuel economy. It wasn't revealed in the test. A diesel half the size would be able to match or exceed the performance of the Ecoboost with better fuel economy. It's not a matter of one or the other, there can be both options available. For my needs right now, the Ecoboost would make a better choice than other gassers, but if a small diesel was available it could be the better choice. Where I live there are plenty of diesels that aren't for commercial use. Had there been a 4 cyl diesel available when I bought my 07 Fusion, I would have considered paying $2k more and not been sorry about the choice. Oldwizard, my 94 GM diesel had an electronic throttle.

Bonneville is not in California.

Sounds like a plan, not an execution. If there is a tax on the co2 levels, then diesels, which produce lower co2, would be taxed less than gasoline counterparts. The majority of the HD pickup market in the US is diesel. Doesn't sound like fail to me. Just admit you choose to hate diesel and will conduct a campaign to convince others not to get one. Doesn't make you right. A much heavier truck pulling twice the weight of any half ton gets the same mileage. The 4.5 l GM and the 4.4l Ford diesels would likely smoke gassers in performance and deliver much better mileage. An even smaller diesel would match performance and get even better mileage for a smaller price penalty.

The cost listed in the 3 year old article was less than half the cost of a HD pickup diesel that is far more capable tha any passenger car engine. Two different studies referenced came to different conclusions and that was 3 years ago. Your other reference is 5 years old. Why not try using current information to make your case? The haters will never change their stripes.

The diesel haters will likely never change and it seems now the Ecoboost haters are no different. Comparing the $7k to $8k diesel engine cost of an HD pickup that can tow 20k lbs to a passenger car cost is foolish. PUTC has a test on the big 3 HD diesels and were pulling a 19k lb trailer to show what they can do. They did a similar test on the same roads on the Ecoboost F150, but used a 9k trailer. The F150 does well with the Ecoboost, but it's not even close to the capability of the HD trucks. The fuel economy of the diesels was slightly better than the Ecoboost despite the extra 10k lbs of trailer weight. After dragging heavy trailers over 2k miles neither Ford or GM trucks ran low on DEF either. So much for that expensive after treatment cost. I don't have the need to pull anywhere near what those diesels can and the Ecoboost could easily meet my needs while getting better empty mileage than other gas 1/2 tons can.

Your arrogance shows up again. Others have pointed out that your world class is only in your mind. Does someone need to live abroad to understand a vehicle at the top of it's category? Only to you I would imagine. I'd go with the F250. Nothing made elsewhere can compete with it's capabilities. Just because the Euros made their streets too narrow to be practical, doesn't diminish what an F250 is capable of. Europe's problem, not mine. I can use the capabilities of an F250 far more often than I could use the capabilities of a BMW. A Mustang is capable of going well faster than it should be going on public streets and highways without costing a ridiculous amount of money. I doubt you're aware that the Mazda 6 was designed with Ford's needs for platform sharing and had to be flexible enough to work into Ford's future plans and was designed with feedback from Ford to insure it met those needs. You conveniently ignored the fact that both V6's in the Fusion don't come from Mazda. You also ignored the 6 speed auto that Ford didn't get from Mazda. The Fusion was also 2" wider and had a 2" longer wheelbase than the Mazda 6. Plenty of Ford engineering in there. You act as if Ford couldn't have made it without being shown how. Another sign of arrogance. Whose engineers figured out how to build the Fusion? The ones in Mexico or the US? Is a BMW assembled in the US less of a vehicle and less German than one assembled in Germany? If I wanted to talk about mileage I could stick with a Fusion hybrid. Show me what is developed in Europe that really compares. Ford has a lot of global resources and has different engineering centers focus their efforts on specific products. You think that is a bad strategy? Ford and GM sell products in many countries and have set up production in those countries to provide jobs for people so they can buy those products. They have done that in Canada, Mexico and many other countries. When they entered the Euro market after WWII, they also set up design and engineering to make products for those specific markets. When MB, BMW, Toyota and Honda came to the US, they imported product and not until decades later did they bring production and then engineering here. Many of those early products from those manufacturers had limited acceptance because of their lack of suitability for the market.

How about those rusty early Accords that blew head gaskets right and left? I'm sure your dad never worked on them to be able to compare them to all of the Big 3 he did work on.

Gee, what an arrogant condescending jerk you are. Show us how many BMWs can beat the fuel efficiency of a Ford. Show us how many can beat the utility of a Ford. That's a measurement of better engineering. Just because some flyboys pay more to stroke their ego in a car that has more capabilities than they can ever use, doesn't make them or their choices any smarter. Who exactly designed the body and interior of that Fusion you call an import? Who designed the V6 engines and 6 speed autos in the Fusion? Who designed the class leading hybrid system on the Fusion? It's not Toyota, otherwise their Camry hybrid wouldn't suck in city mileage compared to the Fusion. How much of a percent is the final assembly of a car? What makes the Fusion a great car is the input of many Americans. Do you think that a BMW assembled in the US doesn't have enough German heritage to it? Name the manufacturers that make a truck as capable as your F350. It's likely a domestic. Toyota hasn't figured out how to make a world class HD pickup and they seem to be struggling to compete with light duty pickups. BMW and Mercedes have been smart enough to give up before getting started. Because the rest of the world doesn't or can't use a truck like it, doesn't mean it's not world class. Maybe other countries are not up to the same class as we are.

Show me a diesel that comes for both Europe and the US and makes substantially less torque with US emissions. The main difference is the after treatment of exhaust, hardly something to kill torque. The numbers for the 4.5L GM diesel were over 500 ft lbs and I doubt Ford would be so far behind. The 3.5 might be good on mostly flat ground for towing, but there is always places that aren't flat. My 6.5 1/2 ton did fine most of the time, only needing a little more in a few places. My towing needs are only in the 6k - 7k range, making an F150 capable of handling it. A 3.5 would be too little for the task. A 6.2 would do fine except on fuel and a 4.4 would be just right.

The 3.6L V8 is getting way more torque than a 3.5L Ecoboost. Do you think the 4.4L will do worse or better? Early numbers put out for the 4.4L had it well past 500. I used to have a 6.5L Chevy diesel that was modded to get about 450 ft lbs. and there's no way i'd take an Ecoboost V6 over that. When I have to struggle or rev over 4k for miles to get a 6k lb trailer up the high elevation grades of the SW with something like an Ecoboost, the cost becomes irrelevant. Get the right tool for the job. The 4.4L would be a great option in an F250, with the 6.7L for those with higher demands.

Another 100 - 150 ft lbs of torque and you don't think the diesel will be a much better engine for towing? Boosting a gas engine raises exhaust temperature and shortens engine life. Boosting a diesel doesn't have that problem as the increased air volume will lower exhaust temps. You don't know if Ford has worked on the manufacturing costs to keep the 4.4L at a reasonable level. You're speculating based solely on the price of an engine Ford didn't build. I'm sure it won't be cheap, but I'm pretty certain the Ecoboost will pale in comparison to the diesel from a performance perspective.

Cost estimates are just that. No one knows what it will cost. There is no sense comparing the Ecoboost to a diesel that will tow so much better. No amount of savings can make up for a weak engine towing under demanding conditions.

The Ecoboost V6 is nowhere near a substitute for the 4.4L diesel. I'd like to see where anyone can establish that a 4.4L will cost $8000 either. Sounds like more diesel haters trying to convince people not to have one. If you don't want one, don't get one.