dmpaul

A few responses: 1. I wish we could all tell the future like you could. But I am buying a car today, not 10 years down the road. I suspect we will have ICE cars 20 years from now. 2. The maintenance issue is still overblown. PHEVs use regenerative braking also. I own a hybrid, and understand the technology but thanks for the definition. I already conceded the annual oil change, but I said it is not the hurdle many say it is. This is not the 60's where we had annual tuneups and oil changes every 3k miles. 3. I will concede this point. With battery supplies limited (and government mandates hanging over their head) manufacturers will maximize profit and strive to look as green as possible. But I am concerned for entry level buyers. I don't think the regulators care if cars are affordable. Less cars on the road is a feature, not a bug to them. I think you assume that I am an anti-electric, but I'm not. I just don't think the value is there yet. BEVs may be the future, but they don't fit my needs today. That aside, in the grand scheme of things, if the goal is to lower overall fuel consumption and GHG we should encourage more HEV and PHEV along with the BEV. Let's not let the perfect get in the way of the good. And as an aside, most of my commuting is on an electric bike, so in a sense I am living the future already. Though is an e-bike considered a hybrid, as it uses human and electric power?

Of course the PHEV has higher emissions than a BEV, that's not the point. The point is PHEV's can allow overall emissions to go down because we can put more PHEVs on the road because: 1) they are currently less expensive, and 2) due to limited battery supply, we can put more PHEVs on the road than BEV. And the maintenance argument is weak. Some of those lines don't even apply (inspect rear axle and u-joints? the PHEV escape isn't available as AWD), the only real difference is an annual oil change and an occasional air filter. I don't see that as terribly burdensome. I find a PHEV a great fit. I can do all my errands and commuting on battery (I only have a 10 mile commute one-way), yet still have a high mileage car for occasional road trips. Plus I am spending roughly 35k (after rebate) for an Escape PHEV instead of 60k+ for a MachE. This is why I am puzzled by the enmity shown by many to PHEV; it seems a great solution for many people, and a terrific bridge to electric cars while battery chemistry and supply is worked out.

I understand that it's fairly simple to install a 240V outlet, which is what I told salesman that downplayed PHEV. But I've wired entire houses in the past and am not intimidated by DYI projects. But if the average person has to hire an electrician, it could be pricey. And the charging station and cable Ford sells to homeowners is around $1300. So there are costs involved even if you do your own install.

Back to PHEV. My daughter-in-law doesn't like PHEV because she sees it as "dirty" with lots of maintenance. I think it's irrational, a PHEV with 40-50 mile range is a great solution for most drivers. And modern ICE car maintenance is not much beyond an annual oil change. But that's the perception manufacturers have to address, I fear the PHEV has a tough road ahead in spite of it's obvious benefits.

Not to hijack this thread, but my C-Max (~90k miles) has a camera that sometimes doesn't work. Did you fix yours, and if yes what was the issue?

This is true. I priced out an Escape HEV vs PHEV, and after rebate they are roughly the same price. So it is a no brainer to get the PHEV. The Escape PHEV seems to be in extremely short supply though. I had one salesman trying to talk me out of the PHEV Escape because he claimed I would then have to pay a bunch of money for a 240V charging station. He ignored the fact that you can charge a PHEV on standard 110V outlet. That may be another possible reason why some aren't charging their PHEV, they may have been told they need to buy the charger. Just speculation on my part.

https://www.lithiumamericas.com/usa/thacker-pass/ There is at least one lithium mine being built in US. It's received heavy opposition of course. https://www.hcn.org/issues/53.3/indigenous-affairs-mining-nevada-lithium-mine-kicks-off-a-new-era-of-western-extraction/

It does seem like that, except with pickups. Even then, there were some that dumped on the Ranger even though it's competitive in my opinion. Part of it may be the CEO. A big part of the CEO is to woo investors and spin a good story, maybe Hackett isn't very good at that. Ford also has a unique stock structure that gives investors less clout. Also by Ford not doing the government bailout/bankruptcy route may have put them at a disadvantage regarding debt amongst other things. Ironic because it was good PR at the time.

I recall looking at the Escape Hybrid at our local auto show. It's interior is nicer than the SE, especially the instrument panel. The base one does look cheap (plain?) in comparison. Not that it's bad, I just think we are used to a lot more bling in our instrument panel. Makes for good initial impression. I thought the Escape compared well with the RAV4 which was right next to the Ford's display. I like the simpler and cleaner style of the Escape but I may be an outlier. I also noted in article that this car was pre-production FWIW.

I have always felt the best way to encourage more efficient cars was to raise gas tax. From an economist point of view it's also the most efficient, far more efficient than CAFE and other schemes with their high administrative load. But, a gas tax is politically hard to do so it won't happen. I also don't like the hyperbole from opponents of this move. Statements like Trump gutted the standard is a little over the top. Moving from 5% to 1.5% annual increase in mileage is a rollback but not exactly the end of the world.

After hearing all reviews of the Explorer, I expected the worst. After seeing it at an auto show, I thought it was fine. Maybe not as good as the Telluride, but easily on par with other manufacturers. There is indeed a level of hyberbole in the reviews. Personally I think it used a lot of gray and black while the Telluride had more variety of colors and bright work. Biggest difference is the Telluride does a nice job of integrating the display into the dash, rather than the ipad on top of dash look that is widely used. Didn't drive so didn't comment on that, but I think the platform design is solid. Likely just needs some fine tuning. I'm assuming production quality bugs are being resolved.

If you are considering the hybrid, make sure your driving style is right. I have a 2016 C-Max hybrid that does great in city and commute where highway speeds are in the 60 to 70 range. I usually average in the high 30s in wintertime and high 40s rest of year. However, on long road trips where speed limit is 80, gas mileage is no better than non-hybrid. Low to mid 30s. Also, short trips in wintertime are mpg killers because the engine runs more to warm car up. Having a garage would help, or maybe a block heater (everyone in Canada has them, right?). The Escape is new and improved but I suspect same caveats hold. Power train appears similar.

The profile isn't too bad, but the door detailing and grill are not pleasing. Hopefully the Kia version (Forte) looks better. I have tended to like the Kia styling over the Hyundai. I'm paying more attention to other manufacturer's small cars since the demise of the Fiesta/Focus. I've had Escort, Fiesta, Mazda Protege, and Focus as small cheap commuter second cars over a long period. I currently own a 2017 Fiesta that I picked up new for 14k. I'm a little biased against Korean cars since my son had a 2005 Kia Rio. An awful car to drive, but it was cheap and fairly reliable. They have improved immensely though.

True, but a gas tax would presumably target automobiles while a CO2 tax would hit a variety of energy consumers. I understand that, I was just saying that the fight is over fuel economy standards (formerly CAFE), not the other emissions. Fuel economy standards didn't originally fall under EPA purview, but by pulling CO2 under their regulatory umbrella it allows EPA to regulate fuel economy.

And I might add I think government dictating fuel economy standards is the wrong way to encourage fuel-efficient cars. A gas tax is the most efficient way to reduce gas consumption. By efficient, I am referring to an economists point of view where taxes should be done with the least amount of overhead and burden to the economy. A gas tax avoids all the byzantine rules and regulations around CAFE, and puts the marketplace in control. It would be politically unpopular though.