Tdot

Toyota Prius Again Tops EPA Fuel Economy Ratings

On Oct 19 04:04 PM mcbain wrote:
> Is the Prius midsize? I thought it was smaller than the Fusion.

That has actually been one of the ongoing arguments. When Ford began advertising that the Ford Fusion Hybrid was the most fuel efficient "midsize sedan" on the market, beating the Camry Hybrid, Toyota challenged that assertion, saying their midsize Prius was more fuel efficient, and that it qualifies as a five-seat sedan, just like the Fusion. Whether the Prius qualifies as a five-seat "sedan", or if it is more of a five-seat "five-door hatchback" is perhaps debatable.

What cannot be debated is the weight difference. The Fusion Hybrid has a curb weight (before passengers etc.) of around 1690 kg (3726 pounds), compared to the Prius' 1380 kg (3042 lb). Fusion used the Toyota Camry as the competitive benchmark (beating it handily), and largely ignored the smaller Prius and Honda Insight.

Toyota Prius Again Tops EPA Fuel Economy Ratings

Hold it - the article opens with observation that runner-ups Ford Fusion Hybrid and Mercury Milan Hybrid each get 39 mpg combined.

Then in the "Midsize Cars" segment (which would be where Fusion and Milan belong) we see as the "Fuel Economy Leaders":

Toyota Prius Hybrid (automatic) – 51/46
Hyundai Elantra Blue (manual) – 26/35

The midsize Fusion and Milan Hybrids, with an EPA label of 41/36, got dropped from the "Fuel Economy Leaders" - to make room for the less efficient Elantra?

What's up with that?

Ford: Popular Fiesta Hatchback Coming to the U.S.

Ford introduced the European Fiesta in the US in 1978, selling it alongside the rear wheel drive Pinto. Both were discontinued in 1980 and "replaced" with the larger Escort. Ford returned to the subcompact market in 1986 with the Korean-built (Kia) Festiva, redesigned and renamed as Aspire in 1994 through 1997.

The bottom line was the bottom line. These subcompact cars were never particularly profitable for Ford in the US, except perhaps briefly during the occasional oil crisis, when the retail price of gasoline would jump and American would start to buy up small cars again to replace or supplement their big heavy sedans, sports cars, trucks, and wagons.

The new Euro-style 2011 Fiesta represents Ford's third attempt to take a mighty swing at the subcompact auto market, looking primarily to younger buyers and those seeking an environmentally friendly car for daily commuting. The main difference from past attempts will be in the content. Traditionally the subcompacts were stripped down to the very basics, with slow performance characteristics; and options included an air conditioner and an AM/FM radio with (maybe) a cassette. The new subcompacts will have virtually the same base content and performance as the larger, sportier cars, with a lot of additional attention to styling and features to captivate the crowds.

Close on Fiesta's heels will be the redesigned Euro-styled compact 2012 Focus, which slots between the Fiesta and mid-sized Fusion, which should be due for another significant redesign around 2013.

Top 10 Auto Manufacturer Websites: September 2009

OK so add #1 "Ford Vehicles" with #10 "Ford Motor Company" and you get a score of 9.91 combined.

Now add #2 GM with #7 Chevy and you get a 9.09 combined. Much closer than it looks at first.

Then add the Buick, Pontiac, Saturn, etc web hits to GM, and Mercury and Lincoln to Ford ... might still be very close.

Is the Auto Industry Stuck in Reverse?

On Sep 24 10:26 AM Douglas Korthof wrote:

> As far as China goes, they can SEND money into China, but never get
> anything back except cheap cars; perhaps they can sell them out side
> of China for actual cash, but they can never take hard currency out
> of China. So, really, all those "China operations" are purely an
> illusion, nothing of value at all unless they are planning to flood
> the market outside China (which would hurt them even worse).

----------------------...

Actually China has bought up tens if not hundreds of billions of US Dollars and Treasury notes, not to mention other US Debt and assets, so it has plenty of US currency to use for international trade and payment purposes. If Ford's "APA" (Asia-Pacific and Africa) regions becomes highly profitable, then some "dividends" could certainly be returned to the "parent" company in the US. But Ford would first make sure there is adequate re-investment in the APA to continue to grow those markets and sustain profitability.

When Ford reports a profit or loss in the Annual Report, it is for the Global operations, including China and the rest of the Asia-Pacific and Africa, in addition to North America, South America, Europe, etc.

Is the Auto Industry Stuck in Reverse?

Keep in mind the wild claims of "200-300 mpg" for coming cars are only for extended range plug-in type hybrid electric vehicles. There is no "magic" here. You get a few tens of miles of electric-only range on a mild weather day, but once the battery is depleted, you are back to around 30-40 mpg in gas/electric hybrid driving mode, as in the current non-plug-in hybrids.

If your daily commute or shopping trip is less than 20-40 miles in mild conditions, and you keep the vehicle plugged in all the time when parked, then yes, you will essentially get "infinite" miles per gallon, since the gas engine may never need to come on. But it remains to be seen whether employers, municipalities, restaurants, theaters, churches, strip malls, and shopping centers will provide free or fee-based 240-volt 30-amp plug-in battery charging stations, in parking spaces especially prepared and marked for your type of car.

Ford: Profitability Projections

I think Ford is thanking their lucky stars, and all the known gods of the very diverse workforce and the rest of the universe, that they did NOT accept government bailout money late last year. Ford saw what happened to GM and Chrysler when the government came to "help".

What started off as a request for few billion in "lunch money" loans exploded into a full house dinner bill for something approaching 100 billion, with both companies forced through bankruptcy, and a massive change of ownership. If the companies, shareholders, congress, and taxpayers had any idea last year what the ultimate tab would be on that party feast, the very idea would have been rejected as absurd.

Of course there still might have been a massive change of ownership - perhaps Fiat would have bought Chrysler outright, and GM might have been bought up by, say, Volkswagen. But it would have happened in the Free Market, and the Taxpayers would not have footed the bill other than through unemployment and other temporary benefits and "entitlements", but that is happening regardless!

What Ford needs is a level playing field, and a hold on unfunded government mandates. When the Local, State, and Federal Governments make up regulations out of thin air on CO2 and fuel economy mandates, which cannot be achieved profitably with current affordable technologies, then the same Governments need to foot the R&D bill and help set up the production facilities. T

he automakers will not survive unless the business of building automobiles is profitable. Once the automakers are able to sustain profitability, then the Government can back off on the "assistance" (technology and energy loans, etc.), and then gorge on the income and profit tax revenues.

Was Cash for Clunkers Worth It?

On Sep 03 08:46 PM a. palmer jr. wrote:

> Why take my future tax money and spend it on my neighbor's new car
> and auto workers that I don't know so they can have temporary jobs?
> I say temporary because after this initial buying spree, nobody else
> will want to buy a new car. Anyone thinking about a new car would
> have bought one during this program or forgot about it.

-------------------------

Maybe not. There are still a LOT of folks currently locked into 2, 3, and 4 year leases that will be expiring in the coming months. They can either buy these millions of automobiles currently on the road outright, or they must turn them in - most likely trading them in for something new or lightly used (perhaps someone else's former lease car).

But most of the "clunkers" were older cars, long since paid off, and worth much less in trade and Blue Book value than the CfC cash. These were most likely automobiles that were being retained for occasional use (perhaps by a young driver in the family), or were "daily drivers" that were used for commuting, school, chores, etc., but had essentially zero trade in value relative to a new replacement.

Interestingly most of these "Clunkers" were probably minimally insured for "liability only", while the Replacements will be fully insured with "comprehensive" coverage, to protect the lien holders. One might even predict a bump in Insurance Company profits - or at least higher receivables.

Top 10 Auto Manufacturer Websites: August 2009

On Sep 04 01:21 PM spawn44 wrote:
> What the difference between Ford Motor and Ford vehicles

-------------------

As others stated - Ford Motor most likely reflects the Corporate web site, which is where folks end up if they navigate themselves to Ford.com - or perhaps arriving there through a search engine. Information on the vehicles sold under the Ford brand (in the USA) are at FordVehicles.com - commonly arrived at either through clicking ad links, or when google-searching for a specific Ford vehicle. There are similar web sites for the Lincoln, Mercury, and Volvo brands. But since the Ford brand represents some 85% of vehicle sales, with Lincoln, Mercury, and Volvo coming out at about 5% each, the web site traffic is probably roughly proportional.

In any case, one could probably combine the "Ford" and "Ford Vehicles" data into a single 10.22%, on the basis that the vast majority of visits to Ford.com are really for seeking vehicle information, as opposed to, say, corporate news releases and such.

GM's Volt Could Earn a 230 MPG Rating

On Aug 11 04:45 PM roaddog861 wrote:
> Does it really matter what the MPG is when the price tag is $40,000?
> Sure there will be tax breaks and incentives but who wants to drop
> $40,000 on a vehicle that is very small and has no room at the time
> of purchase. That's going to be the problem with these so called
> "green cars". The price tag will be too high for anyone to afford.
> And if the cars don't sell, we'll be right back where we started.
> (non green cars). Until they can make a "green" car that is very
> affordable (I would say around $15k - $20k) they will not sell and
> will eventually be not worth producing.

Fair points, but consider: If the daily usage comes close to the 40-mile electric-only range, then the monthly gasoline bill drops dramatically, to nearly nothing - as long as you can keep plugging in. A decent 25-mpg car with a 40-mile daily commute goes through about (40 / 25) = 1.6 gallons a day, nearly $5 worth per day, or about $100 a month. The electrical consumption works out to something like tens of cents per day, a savings of around 90%.

Anyway that roughly $100 a month savings could be sort of "subtracted" from the monthly car payment (considering "total cost of ownership"), making that $40,000 car with essentially no gasoline bill roughly equivalent to a $35,000 car with a gasoline bill. This is of course before any "government" paid purchase incentives and rebates.

Of course, some 30 years ago, $40,000 could get you a brand spankin' new Ferrari, but that's the way it goes.

GM's Volt Could Earn a 230 MPG Rating

On Aug 11 11:27 AM fireball wrote:
> what is going on with the reverse split? i have traded gm twice for
> some nice quick gains but am leary of holding any as an investment
> because of the predicted reverse split.

GM (General Motors Company) doesn't have any outstanding shares of stock for public trading. An IPO for "GeMoCo" or something might be issued later next year.

If you are trading something - it is probably MTLQQ.PK - Motors Liquidation Corporation, which is the (still) bankrupt "old GM" which has a mountain of liabilities, and precious little real assets. It is being liquidated, and any proceeds will be going to various and innumerable creditors, in a sort of feeding frenzy. Nothing but nothing will go to stock shareholders; probably not even the "nominal" penny-a-share for the cost of the printed certificates. GM and independant investment firms and advisors have repeatedly warned against the bizarre trading of these worthless stocks. Of course you are free to do so anyway - you are essentially trading Antebellum Confederate Dollars, which have no actual value beyond that established by fools, collectors, and speculators who simply try to make a few cents off other fools, collectors, and speculators, as the artificially floated price swings up and down a few cents. Good luck with that though!

GM's Volt Could Earn a 230 MPG Rating

It all comes down to the fantastic things that happen when dividing numbers by zero, or nearly zero.

The Volt is claimed to have a fully-charged 40-mile range in Electric mode. No gasoline would be consumed for 40 miles, and the miles per gallon for a 40-mile commute then is (40 / 0) = infinite. You can claim a fantastic 1,000,000 miles per gallon if you wish.

But let's say you have a 48 mile commute. The first 40 miles are gas-free, only the last 8 use gasoline. A decent guess might be that the car "cruises" at 40 mpg with the gas engine running and burning up fuel after the battery is depleted. The gallons consumed in 8 miles then is (8 / 40) = 0.2 gallons. The trip mpg is then (48 / 0.2) = 240 mpg. Bingo, QED.

But wait. Now you want to go cross-country on a highway trip. You fill the tank with fuel, and charge up the battery overnight, and set out on your journey. The first 40 miles are "free". Then you get, say, 40 mpg while cruising on the highway, with the gas-burner recharging and sustaining the battery charge. A 15-gallon gas tank will get you 600 miles of gas range, plus the initial 40 miles of electric range, for 640 miles total - and (640 / 15) yields 42.67 mpg. No where near the presumed "label" claim of 230 mpg, and not nearly the "gigantic leap" that it sounds like.

Sure the Volt woul be a terrific commuter car, for daily commutes of under 40 miles total. It would only cost a few (TBD) kW-hrs of electrical bills from overnight and/or daytime recharging. One wonders if it will become commonplace (or legislated) for Employers and Supermarkets to provide free or fee-based plug-in outlets for electric cars on a nationwide basis...

Popular Mechanics Gets It Wrong on Buick Hybrid

OK true - the wheels of the Chevy Volt are in fact driven exclusively by the electric motor with energy from the battery. The battery itself is recharged en route from a combination of regeneration (when coasting and from use of brakes), and from the 1.4L gas engine that provides up to 53 kW of recharging / sustaining power. The vehicle can also be plugged in for recharging when parked.

The confusion comes in defining "Hybrid". There are in fact several types. One kind of Hybrid combines the power from the Battery and the Engine through a mechanical transmission to deliver power to the wheels from either source or both (eg: Ford Fusion). Another kind combines the power from the Battery and Engine electrically within the Battery itself before sending it to the wheels (Chevy Volt).

It is true that the Volt is a different "breed" of Hybrid, and perhaps might better be called a Plug-In, Extended Range Hybrid Rechargeable Battery Electric Vehicle (or something to that effect) to try to segregate it from the other hybrids out there. That said, it is almost universally referred to as a Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicle for simplicity.

Many of the other Plug-In Hybrids coming along are of the other type (or rather, another of many types) that start off (after On-Plug Charging) driving like a full Battery Electric Vehicle, and then when the battery nears depletion, converts to a Full Hybrid mode using both the Gas Engine and the Battery Motor, either one or both, in combinations for optimum fuel economy and range.

Yes it is complicated for the general public to try to wrap their brains around - Hybrid systems and whatnot. Frankly most can barely understand how a modern conventional powertrain operates, with variable cam timing, Atkinson vs Diesel vs Otto cycles, transaxles, planetary gears, etc etc etc. What they do understand is purchase price (in particular relative to conventional engines), monthly gasoline and electric bills, resale value, and total cost of ownership, and to some extent now, their relative "carbon footprint".

And that is the point that the Auto Companies would do well to start emphasizing in comparing vehicles these days.

The "simple mpg" formula has almost no meaning for Electric and "Hybrid" vehicles that have some electric range. Hybrids get essentially "infinite" miles per gallon, for the initial all-electric segment, which is why you see lots of 100+ mpg claims and estimates - dividing anything by zero does that sort of thing. For example, the Ford Fusion mentioned earlier has an EPA Label of 41 mpg in "city driving". But the Engineering Team managed to just about double that - 81.5 mpg - ranging nearly 1450 miles on one tank of gas - by scrupulously managing the energy usage from the Gas Engine and the Battery Electric system.

Popular Mechanics Gets It Wrong on Buick Hybrid

Huge misunderstanding shown by the author. As stated by others, the word "Hybrid" in Hybrid Electric Vehicles, for example in the acronym "PHEV" (Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicle) ALWAYS implies there are (at least) two power sources combined together, to provide locomotion for the vehicle. In this Hybrid case, a Battery Electric Motor combines with an Internal Combustion engine through a transmission that sends power to the wheels. Now, there are varying degrees of proportion.

"Mild" hybrids use the Battery power relatively little - perhaps just allowing the ICE to shut down briefly during coast-downs and stops. Most of the driving power comes from the engine. "Full" hybrids have more powerful batteries and motors, which can allow the vehicle to also operate as an Electric Vehicle for short distances. Plug-In or Extended Range hybrids allow the vehicle to operate more as an Electric Vehicle for longer distances, at least until the battery needs to be recharged by the onboard engine, or by plugging it back in.

A full Battery Electric Vehicle (BEV) has the sort of non-hybrid powertrain that must be plugged in (eventually) to recharge, since it has no other engine or power source to back it up.

Auto Inventories: Cycling Down or Up?

US auto companies have "learned" that bloated inventories at too many sales outlets cannot make a long term profitable business case. Uncontrolled dumping of unwanted vehicles into the market results in low sticker prices, and forced rebates, incentives, and discounts to move the product, especially when model year change-out time comes.

But this has been the basic (or fall-back) business model for nearly 30 years, since Lee Iacocca started offering $100 test drive payments, and then whopping $500 rebates on K-cars. It worked then, and still does to an extent in terms of creating demand, but consumers have becomed conditioned to expect multi-thousand dollar rebates now, or "no deal".

Another factor in the past has been fear of strikes. In Contract Renewal years, the automakers would work overtime to quietly build up massive 6-month inventories of vehicles, as insurance against strikes and factory shutdowns. They would park them in lots for months, and wait for dealership orders, or pushing product with discounts and incentives when the lots were too crowded.

Basic supply and demand suggests that sustained profitability comes when there is a sweet balance in supply and demand, and slightly in favor of the manufacturer. A 60-day supply seems about right for most vehicles, and that is what automakers work towards these. It is true that going from 180 days to 60 days is a 2/3 reduction in inventory. But getting 120 days of deadweight inventory off the books becomes a huge cost savings. This should not be alarming - at least for the manufacturer. The downside is upward pressure on net pricing for the consumer (fewer rebates), and a higher risk of shortages in shutdowns due to supplier interruptions or strikes.

It should not be surprising that inventories have fallen. Manufacturers are working hard to re-balance the supply and demand equation, in order to stop losing $billions due to bloated inventories, with delayed sales, and absurdly low net pricing after rebates and incentives, due to pushing essentially unwanted product into a "full" and reluctant market.