Ford Motor Company FLIP-FLOP on Hybrids?

FoMoCo honcho William Clay Ford, Jr. ("'lil Billy") e-mailed the Glass House gang and other FoMoCo execs Wednesday, drastically revising Ford's fuel economy strategy. FoMoCo released the e-mail to the press on Thursday (29 Jun 06). According to the Automotive News, Lil Billy decreed: "Our strategy going forward is not to wed ourselves to a single technology . . . The strategy doesn't focus on one catch-all solution but offers a flexible array of options, including hybrids, clean diesels, bio-diesels, advanced engine technologies and E85 ethanol"

Automotive News further reports "Ford backed away from a commitment made last fall to build production capacity for 250,000 hybrid vehicles by the end of the decade, calling that goal "too narrow." . . . Ford, which has faced criticism for lacking a consistent vision for its product development strategy, had heavily promoted its commitment to hybrid technology."

Undoubtedly, Ford's latest course correction will remind some of FoMoCo's brash "commitment" to increase SUV fuel economy by 25% no later than 2005. Reality, of course, set in on that idea, perhaps just as it has on Ford's hybrid boast.

Although Ford's flip-flop will be viewed negatively by some of the "true believers" in the international environmental movement, it in fact suggests refreshing maturity and sober judgment. Thus far, gasoline-electric hybrid technology has amounted to little more than a public relations gimmick. Even at today's high fuel prices, the economic break-even point for the expensive, complex hybrids is more than five years. Lifetime cost-per-mile still lags their gasoline counterparts. See http://www.thecarconnection.com/Auto_News/Daily_Edition/Daily_Edition_Apr_3_2006.S173.A10227.html Moreover, some argue that hybrids have a NET NEGATIVE impact on the environment as compared to more conventional alternative because of the increased impacts of creating and disposing of TWO drive systems.

Clearly, the diverse American market cannot be satisfied by forcing everyone into a tiny hybrid electric microcar. Regardless of what the radical environmentalists dream of, millions of Americans will continue to need large vehicles to haul big groups, pull large boats, horse trailers, RV trailers, construction equipment . . . and even racing cars! Despite all the doomsday handwringing, millions of Americans will continue to seek high performance sporting machines as personal transportation. Notwithstanding all of the guiltmongering, nothing will change the fact that America is a huge place with vast expanses which won't be served by any reliable public transit system in the foreseeable future.

Lil Billy's e-mail seems to acknowledge this obvious reality.

The open question, however, is in FoMoCo's execution of this more reasonable strategy.

Susan Cischke, Ford vice president of environmental and safety engineering, testified at a Senate Energy Committee hearing on U.S. energy security that "we need a strong, long-term focus on policies that increase U.S. ethanol production and accelerate E85 infrastructure development."

She also testified that "U.S. automakers have produced almost 6 million flexible-fuel vehicles. If they all ran on E85 fuel, over 2.5 billion gallons of traditional gasoline could be saved."

BUT THE BIG PROBLEM CISCHKE MISSES IS THAT FORD AND OTHER "DETROIT 3" BUILDERS HAVEN'T PRODUCED E85 VEHICLES WHICH INHERENTLY GENERATE DEMAND FOR THE HIGH OCTANE FUEL!

The current flexi-fuel fleet is generally comprised of forgettable, fleet-type vehicles which run about the same on E10 (or E-ZERO!) as E85. So, excluding a few environmentalists, farmers and trendy politicos, nobody really demands more E85.

However, if Ford were to exploit the high performance characteristics of E85 (such as was once-upon-a-time hinted in SVT's "Superstallion" flexi-fueled concept car. See http://www.supercars.net/cars/717.html ) then market forces would undoubtedly demand increases in E85 retail infrastructure. Just as GM led and stoked market demand with higher performance Kettering V8s after WWII, Ford should sell its customers "hot" cars that run quicker and faster on E85.

Simply put, Ford should push the E85 market with high performance flexi-fueled products. SVT's GT500 should be a flexifueled vehicle with a more agressive E85 tune. The flaccid, boring Five Hundred should be pumped up with a flexi-fuel blown V8. The '03-'04 SVT Cobra 4.6 should be retooled for flexi-fuel use in PIs (to fend off the Police Charger's huge performance advantage in the Michigan cop car tests) and for other "premium" applications. Marketing a powerful, forced-induction flexi-fueled Duratec should be a top prioity for all of Ford's volume subcompact and compact lines.

If buyers see a serious performance advantage with E85, they will demand oil companies start carrying it (and even at a higher price point than current E10 premium!).

Energy security and environmental handwringing won't get E85 to the mass market anywhere near as fast as creating real demand with a real market feature such as higher performance on E85.

While Susan Cischke might ought to focus more on salvaging the imploding safety reputation of the Fusion (apparently you'll possibly become a candidate for FUSION if you get into a side or offset frontal impact in one), perhaps she's got a little spare time to hook up Lil Billy with the few engineers left who understand what a real performance car should be (not the wimp-city heaps like Five Hundred, Fusion, Thunderbird (RIP), Escape Hybrid . . . .)--then maybe we'll FINALLY see E85 applied to its highest and best use in something Ford buyers actually might care about!


"But wouldn't it be better to just build cars that you didn't have to pay someone to be excited about?" -- John Colletti, Chief Engineer, SVT (retired)
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Columns/articleId=109512