Slashdot Mirror
Ford Launches First American Hybrid
Ford has finally rolled out their Escape hybrid SUV. Ford's website has more information. Ford will use Toyota's first-generation hybrid technology in the SUV (the 2004 Prius is Toyota's second generation technology). Best of all, the Escape is street-legal in residential areas. Update: 08/06 22:31 GMT by M : A reader points out that GM will be selling a hybrid pickup soon, but it isn't available for sale to the public yet, so Ford is still the first.
At least it doesn't look weird like those hybrid cars with half the rear wheels covered by the outer body.
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I - I took the one the bus load of girls just went down.
My mom needed a new car, and being an enviromentalist in a snowy area, she wanted the Escape. The only problem is that the waiting list for any Escape was 9 months- not counting customized options. Would be nice if they improved their production, because it looks like people want big cars that do not require $80 to fill the gas tank.
.. because I'd love to buy one of these. The only thing americans wont buy this for in many cases is the higher price.
Toyota has been in the hybrid game longer than Ford and is licensing it's technology to Ford. My take is that Toyota will know how to implement it better.
http://www.detnews.com/2004/insiders/0407/31/c01-
"Case in point: Toyota Motor Co.p. and Ford Motor Co.'s new Escape Hybrid SUV. Last March, the companies said they had concluded "licensing agreements for hybrid systems and emissions purification patents" -- lawyerly language that soon gave way to talk that the first hybrid SUV from an American automaker was actually powered by Toyota.
Even if it wasn't. "
If you really want an energy-efficient sports utility vehicle, try a bicycle.
----- Vegans don't send SPAM.
The point is to have a hybrid that isn't fugly. And has AWD for those of us that want to go skiing without borrowing our friends Subaru.
But seriously, I've wondered how long it'd be until somebody sued an SUV driver for running into them in a car which they bought specifically because it would give them a higher survival rate. I can see the prosecution lawyer now: "Now let me see, you bought this car specifically because you knew it would kill the occupants of the other vehicle, and not your own?"
Anyway, got me thinking again.
Its not a car, its an SUV. This is something that I just dont understand.
Why release a hybrid SUV? I am willing to bet that most people that would be interested in a hybrid vehicle would not want something that big. If I wanted a fuel-efficient hybrid car, I'd want something that didnt have to heave around 3000lbs of weight. It just seems like the "hybrid" and the "SUV" just cancel each other out.
.
It's a question of perception. Many people - particularly Americans it seems - equate the size, weight and inverse of performance with desirability in a car.
The rest of us think you look absolutely risible perched up in a 3 ton hunk of shit trying to negotiate a supermarket parking space. We stop laughing when you run over your dog/cat/child/grandmother because you can't fucking see out, though we perk up again when it snows and you slither into a ditch because you "off-road" vehicle is left standing by a 4WD Fiat fucking Panda.
"Why release a hybrid SUV?"
I'd venture that some folks--like myself--that would be interested in a hybrid vehicle, might live in places that *nearly* require a four wheel drive vehicle during certain (seemingly endless) times of year.
Right now, I'm forced by my financial situation to drive a light, front-wheel drive car. Once winter hits, I loathe the thought of even having to cross this town (which NEVER plows their *#$@! streets) with my wife and infant in a puny front-wheel drive vehicle... Let alone drive the 300 miles to the grandparents' house!
I'll take you to the ball, Barbara Manitee!!!
I'm loathe to reply to anything that equates traffic weight laws to slavery, but here goes...
Opinionated as that article may be, there is a good point. No one is saying get rid of SUVs. But they do cause greater damage to roads than a smaller car, and as such they should have to compensate for that somehow... whether that be by not driving on those streets or by paying a higher tax.
You can't have your cake and eat it too... either take the tax cut, and avoid driving by my already pot-holed street or pay for the extra up keep.
"If we knew what we were doing, it wouldn't be called research." - Einstein
Because its a 15% fuel effciency gain which is not bad at all. Heck why not get the crazy people that drive military grade vehicles to commute to work to use less gas? Better than building some little thing that rarely anyone will drive. If noone drives the effcient cars then what does it matter that they get 75mpg when people would rather drive 15mpg monsters. At least if those monsters get 19mpg (thats aboutw what they should be at if I remember) we still save that 4mpg and since maybe more people would drive them its more savings than the non driven models.
"You can now flame me, I am full of love,"
I have to say, as a (very new) rescue technician and EMT, that it's not just your decision to drive that SUV - because you're driving it in a community full of other people.
It's when you're riding 60 mph in a 25,000 lb truck, the wrong way down the Beltway, in order to shove yourself through shattered glass and twisted metal and jaws-of-life some blood-spattered libertarian out from under his dashboard (and bag up the kids in the Focus that he killed,) that you begin to wish that people had actually read the Wealth of Nations all the way through to the end, where the caveats are.
Economic decisions don't occur in a vacuum, and we don't usually have (or have the money to get) enough data to fuel the marketplace appropriately, (e.g. I am happy to wake up and go do the above, but I sure would like some extra cash into the firehouse for every Expedition in our first-due area, because man do they make a lot more work,) so we make laws. All together - ideally, a democracy lets us generally agree on the solutions to problems the marketplace can't get a handle on.
Too much of this "let every individual decide" BS is really based on faith statements...
Now, post-rant, clearly this is just a misfired law; the problem is, when you go to make truck routes so that they don't, e.g., run through elementary schools, cul-de-sacs and nursing homes, that it's hard to get a handle on what is and isn't a truck. So they went for weight - which is a pretty good proxy for danger to others, noise, and road damage, the things that we as a society were really hoping to minimize the cost of.
The author is certainly correct that it is the SUVs that have changed, not the law. But what about slavery? Slavery used to be legal, and it was the people in America who changed and started believing slavery was wrong, not the law. So would the author be in favor of slavery back then because 'It's the people that have changed, not the law'. In my opinion laws in a democracy should change, to benefit the people living in the country. Just because a law is already a law does not make it sacred.
Sorry, the laws of physics are somewhat sacred, and don't change over time. 6000 lbs. 50 years ago is the same as 6000 lbs. now, and is still doing more damage to the roads than a 2500 lb car. The only way to rectify this is for SUVs to lose weight, or for residential roads to be built to handle that weight. Morons like you apparently want the largest vehicle possible, so if we're going to go with option #2, then someone needs to pay for it. Since you're the one with the huge vehicle, why don't you pay for it through higher taxes, instead of getting a tax break. I don't see why I should subsidize your penis extension.
This comment is totally elitist, totalitarianistic, and harsh. How about rather than regulating everything you don't like out of existence, just leave me alone? If I want to drive a vehicle that has a higher risk of rolling over, then LET ME. Why do you care if I kill myself? I know what is best for me better than you know what is best for me.
Because when your overweight vehicle hits me because you were too busy talking on the phone and screaming at the kids to pay attention to the road, I'm the one who will die. It's called living in a civilization: actions you take will affect other people. Because some people are too stupid to take responsibility for their own actions, government has to step in and regulate their behavior.
I'm amazed how you quoted parts of the article to completely misinterpret the meaning, while advancing your own agenda. Here is the core of his argument:
It's no accident the automakers churn out so many SUVs that break the 6K barrier. By doing so, these "trucks" (and that's how they're classified by the U.S. Department of Transportation) qualify for a huge federal tax break. If you claim you use a 3-ton truck exclusively for work, you can write it off immediately. All of it. Up to $100,000 (in fact, Congress raised the limit from $25,000 just last year). Heavy SUVs qualify for similar state tax breaks in California (up to $25,000) and elsewhere. These vehicles are also exempt from the federal "gas guzzler tax" because they're trucks. (And you probably know that many SUVs are exempt from the tougher gas mileage and safety standards of cars because they're classified as trucks, but that's another story.)
Tax advisers actually warn their clients to make sure they buy vehicles that are heavy enough to qualify for the tax breaks. Some offer helpful lists of which SUVs will tip the IRS's scales.
(California's Legislative Analyst's Office estimates the average L.A. driver pays $700 a year in vehicle repairs because of crummy roads.) Yet despite the increased road wear their vehicles cause, heavy SUV owners can take tax breaks that mean they pony up much less to the tax system that funds street maintenance.
As it stands now, big-SUV drivers have it both ways: They use their trucklike status when it benefits them, yet they ignore the more onerous restrictions that "real" truck drivers face.
So you can buy a monster truck/SUV if you want to, no problem, but you damn well better pay the same taxes I do to buy a vehicle, and you damn well better pay far, far more toward road repair than I do. And that is the common sense that most people seem to lack.
It doesn't hurt to be nice.
I'd say the SUV is probably one of the best market to implement a hybrid system.
1-SUV are gaz guzzlers.
2-Americans (and Canadians and many others for that matter) buy lots of SUV. Those customers are unlikely to switch to a prius or a civic, at least in the short term. SUV are more popular than ever.
3-30% better fuel economy in a SUV results in bigger fuel savings than in a small car on an absolute scale.
4-The added weight and size of the batteries matter less in a SUV than in a car because the SUV is bigger and heavier.
5-The price premium of the hybrid system is less of a deterrent to SUV buyers because they save more fuel (in absolute terms) and because SUV are tipically more expensive vehicules.
So, I'm not saying everyone should go out and buy a Hummer, I'm saying that people will not realistically give up their SUV any time soon. Since they won't mind as much paying the premium for an hybrid system, then they are a very good market.
Also, it pays for the R&D, which in turn will improve the performance of the hybrid systems and hopefully reduce the price.
To me, a hybrid SUV is a great short term compromise.
We stop laughing when you run over your dog/cat/child/grandmother because you can't fucking see out, though we perk up again when it snows and you slither into a ditch because you "off-road" vehicle is left standing by a 4WD Fiat fucking Panda.
I own two vehicles, My first is a 1986 Camaro. It gets really shitty gas mileage, but when I bought it, that didn't really matter. The cost per gallon of gasoline was less than $1.00/gallon. Things changed a few years ago. That's why I bought my second vehicle, a 1993 GMC S-15 Jimmy. It's a 4WD SUV, and it gets better MPG than my Camaro. It goes great in the snow. It doesn't always stop that well, but what vehicle does on a sheet of ice?
I'm not likely to trade either vehicle for a hybrid, a big part of the reason is because I can fix them both myself. Fuel or combustion problem? No problem, I can fix that. Suspension problem? No problem I can fix that. In a decade or so when the parts are more readily available for the hybrids, I'll probably switch to one, but until then I'm happy with what I have.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
"One but i hate to break it too you: American cars are just as well engineered as Japanese cars"
No way. Read the "Lemon Aid" books sometime, especially regarding trucks and SUVs (I bought a Pathfinder a little while ago). Overwhelmingly, the Not Recommended vehicles are American, while the Recommended ones tend to be Japanese. This is on the basis of safety, reliability, and performance, all backed up by lots and lots of recall records and so forth.
Every time I see one of these articles about alternate feul sources for cars, or ways to make cars more efficient as a way to reduce our dependency on fossil feuls, I can't help but think that we're really missing the point. The depletion of our natural resources is just one symptom of the much larger problem of a society built for cars, and it's time we stopped looking for a way to make cars more efficient, and started looking for a way to reduce our dependency on cars in general.
Currently, suburban sprawl, ridiculous zoning laws, and poor city planning have created an American society that cannot function without cars. In most cities, suburbs, and towns, the places where people live, work, and shop are so far from each other that walking or biking are not options. Even if people did want to bike or walk, and lived close enough to do so, many suburban streets are designed in such a way that it is dangerous or difficult, due to traffic moving at extremely high speeds, intersections that are 6 lanes wide, or freeways that act as virtually uncrossable barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists, in a sense dividing the town into two separate parts. Mass transit systems are virtually non-existent, or so inefficient that it doesn't make sense for most people to use them. In many places that have mass transit systems, the stops are so far from where most people live that they have to drive just to get to the stations. Malls are intentionally built on the outskirts of town where land is cheap, far from the places where people live or work. In my town, even the nearest market is a few miles from my house, meaning that even something as simple as picking up a quart of milk requires me to take a trip in my car.
The costs of this car-centric design for cities are astounding. Not only are we burning through our natural resources at an alarming rate, polluting the air we breathe, and doing extreme harm to our environment, but we are building a society that's unfit for people, and designing ourselves into a corner that may require a complete demolition of our cities to repair. As all transportation is dependent on cars, the freeways become more congested, causing unbelievable traffic jams. Widening freeways and installing carpool lanes are stop-gap solutions that do nothing but delay the problem, but the problem will come back, and we will reach a point where freeways can't get any wider. Even traffic on surface streets can be unbelievable at times. Many people spend over an hour per day in their cars, just commuting to work and back. Sitting on the Interstate in bumper to bumper traffic every day is a horrible way to spend your time, and yet, we willingly do it every day, because there is no alternative.
In addition, the cost of building and maintaining streets, freeways, traffic signals, etc. are a huge burden on the taxpayers. The constant roadwork that is being done to support our car infrastructure is an endless drain on federal, state, and local government funds, and one that is never going away as long as we depend on those roads to get around. Early in the automobile's history, the car companies lobbied for the government to build the road system, while privately run mass transit companies had to build and maintain their tracks themselves. As a result, most privately run mass transit could not remain profitable and couldn't compete with cars, and therefore went out of business, making cars the only way to get around, creating an ever-increasing need for roads, which our tax dollars still pay an exteremely high price for. Had the car companies had to pay for the roads, there is no way they could have competed with the more efficient mass transit systems at the time. Even today, building a quality mass transit system would likely be cheaper than all of the roads we have to maintain.
Besides the cost to taxpayers for the roads, individuals must incur the cost of owning and operating a personal vehicle. The cost of owning a vehicle is extremely high for an individual to pay. Everyth
This comment is totally elitist, totalitarianistic, and harsh. How about rather than regulating everything you don't like out of existence, just leave me alone? If I want to drive a vehicle that has a higher risk of rolling over, then LET ME. Why do you care if I kill myself? I know what is best for me better than you know what is best for me.
Because when you roll over, there is a good chance that you'll land on somebody else. What's worse, you'll end up causing a huge traffic jam. I don't care whether you want to kill yourself or not, I just don't want to be there to suffer the consequences of *your* actions.
Feel free to do whatever you'd like to do to yourself as long as you don't affect other people.
I love deadlines. I love the whooshing noise they make as they go by. --Douglas Adams
becasue it's easy to take your dog, 3 kids, and pull you boat from a Bike.
I could count on one hand the number of SUVs I see per day that have more than one person in them.
I think the most important part of the story is that people are trying to play both ends against the middle. On one hand, they're buying vehicles over 6000lbs ON PURPOSE for the tax break. When they're told that they can't drive a vehicle that large on the road, they claim that the gross weight may vary by a bit, and their vehicle is just slightly UNDER 6000lbs. So, the people that do the MOST damage to the roads are getting a tax break for it!
That's just wrong. If I lived in the states I'd be furious. As it is, I'm pretty aghast at it.
Did the car reviewer also review the normal one they compared it to or just took the number from literature? I found that in pretty much ALL car reviews they get lower than sticker MPG because it's not their car and they drive it pedal to the floor and try to "test performance" instead of saving fuel.
Then at the end of their run they calculate the MPG and, OH SURPRISE, it's fairly low.
Treehugger? Treehugger... Treehugger!
Heck, tax 'em more if they cause more accident damage...
I would bet insurance companies have already beat the government to it. SUVs cause more damage in accidents (higher liability insurance rates), and they cost more to repair (higher comprehensive insurance rates). Seriously, more people should consider Subarus or just the plain ol' family sedan, and, then, rent a darn truck when they need an SUV. They'd save a ton of money (and probably a ton of gas, too, literally).
-- "Makes Little Debbie look like a pile of puke!" - Moe Szyslak
There's something wrong with a 160lb person (average) driving a vehicle for day-to-day use that weighs almost 40 times more than they do, unless they are doing so to earn a living (delivery truck, dump truck, etc.). Think about it: this is 6000lbs of raw metal and technology just to haul their lazy ass around town, when a decent sedan is well under 4000lbs and often under 3000lbs.
-- "Makes Little Debbie look like a pile of puke!" - Moe Szyslak
Why not toughen emissions standards? The people that bitch and whine about that it would kill small business & farmers can just STFU. Those vehicles would still be available, one would just require them to be owned and tagged as commercial vehicles. Big deal. Farmer Brown doesn't own the machinery costing well in excess of $100K that he uses to operate his farm now. The little corporation that he set up does. The same goes for most small busineses. People that legitimately need them would still have them and the soccer moms can go back to their mini-vans or station wagons. The problem is that car companies are using an exemption that is supposed to be for commercial vehicles to sell lots of high margin vehicles (aka macho station wagons) for use as passenger vehicles even though they do not meet the safety standards.
I would imagine that once a company builds a full-sized hybrid, then you might see some cab companies try them out. I guess it depends on your corner of the world, but I've never seen a taxi that was a small or mid-sized car.
the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
Screw 4000lb sedans, most people need nothing more than a Smart car, or at the most, a Hyundai Accent (~2300lbs). They get along fine in Europe like that, anyway.
Hell, lots of people could use a freaking bicycle, and it would have the benefit of making their fat asses a little less fat!
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
No, the main drawback is that they don't handle worth a damn. They won't turn (they can't due to CG problems; if the tires don't skid they roll) and they don't stop too well either (heavy, crap tires). SUVs, in general, are jacked up station wagons that are bought by people who are too stupid or naive to know the difference. Don't believe me? Take a look UNDER a typical so-called SUV some time. See those shock mounts hanging down under the rear axle? See those little vaccuum lines hanging in space that engage the "four-wheel drive"? Stump bait. Never mind that even if a stump or rock doesn't rip that tiny rubber hose off, the typical SUV is two or one wheel drive as soon as it get slippery. Most of them don't come with locking differentials. I haven't seen one marketed to yuppies in a LONG time with manual locking front hubs. These are truly useless vehicles. And no, I'm not an environmentalist; I've never owned a "practical" car in my life. And I have owned trucks. But at least I bought the damn things for a reason (Corners well, fast in a straight line, hauls lots of stuff, I can jump it and not bend some cheesy little unbody, whatever other feature I really need... things like that). Every time I get behind one in traffic and I can't see what color the light is because my windshield is filled with a Suburban tailgate with a soccer ball sticker on it I want to beat somebody with a cluebat.
A Hummer is simply a pointless abomination. At least the Hummer II. A Hummer I is just about acceptable, if your daily commute really covers 60 miles of unmade terrain - but even then you'd be better of with a Landrover, because you wouldn't look quite as much of a prat.
Using "environmentally friendly" technology in an SUV is a bit pointless - you know, like painting your coalburning firestation a pleasant shade of green.
Anyway, Ford actually do do some nice cars (Volvo, Jaguar, Aston Martin and (oops) LandRover). Now a hybrid V70 I would consider buying.
no taxation without representation!
Just because the vehicle has three people and a dog in it once a year means it's sensible to drive two tons of metal menace around the rest of the time.
;)
Granted, that is likely
no taxation without representation!
So while it may look better to not have to put $80 dollars in gas into the car weekly it is only because you prepaid it through the premium of buying a hybrid car.
Until they cost the same as a similarly equipped vehicle these only are good for CAFE and feeling good about yourself (while ignoring the obvious fact you lost money on the deal)
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
And the funny hting is, the Japanese cars are built in the US, and the US cars are built anywhere else. The moral of the story is that if you want safetly, reliability and performance, buy a car built in the US...
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!