Ford is starting to separate itself from GM and Chrysler, and in more than the oft-mentioned “they’re the only US company not asking for a handout way”, as important as that is today in fact and in perception. Even better, they’re showing conspicuous signs of a deep understanding of the challenges facing their industry in the coming years, not just this year or this quarter.
The latest example is evident as Ford readies mix of all-electric and plug-in hybrids (emphasis added):
Amid questions over the viability of General Motors and Chrysler, Ford will detail its fuel-efficient car strategy and show off an all-electric Focus and hybrid Fusion sedan on Wednesday.
Company executives are scheduled to demonstrate the cars and update its “sustainable mobility technology” plans at the New York International Auto Show. The company says it is on track to bring both all-electric cars and plug-in hybrid vehicles using a new generation of lithium ion batteries to market starting next year.
The company already offers hybrid vehicles that use a combination of a gasoline engine and a battery, charged by regenerative braking. Next year, it will release an all-electric commercial Transit Connect van, which is expected to have a range of 100 miles and top speed of 70 miles per hour.
Ford is also working with auto supplier Magna International to release an all-electric compact sedan in 2011, which will get about 70 percent better mileage than non-hybrid models. This car will be a Focus-size vehicle that will go 100 miles on a charge, said Greg Frenette, the assistant chief engineer of battery electric-vehicle applications at Ford.
Then in 2012, Ford expects to release a plug-in version of one of its current hybrid vehicles. The anticipated mileage will be about 120 miles per gallon for the first 30 miles and then the vehicle will get the mileage of a traditional hybrid–in the 40 miles per gallon range, Frenette said.
…
The obvious advantage of a gas-electric combination is a longer range since a person taking a long drive can refuel at a gas station.
But a raft of companies, including Nissan, Mitsubishi, and start-ups Tesla Motors, Detroit Electric, and Miles Electric, are developing pure electric cars, betting that a car with a roughly 100-mile range will appeal to consumers.
In Ford’s case, it expects that its battery electric sedan will primarily fill the role of a household’s second car in North America. The battery, supplied by Johnson Controls Saft, will be able to store about 20 kilowatt-hours, said Frenette.
“People will find in a course of week that using a battery-electric vehicle not only saves costs on the fuel bill, but it also makes a positive statement about their concern about the environment, the global warming issue, national energy security and the convenience of not going to a gas station,” he said.
On a regular U.S. 110-volt outlet, a battery that size would require a 12-hour charge to replenish. Although it’s not necessary, people could install a 220-volt outlet at home to cut charge time in half or plug in at public places, like malls or offices, Frenette said. He said ultimately, two-hour charges are possible and safe.
Excuse me while I leap to my feet and yell, “BINGO!!!”[1]
Ford has posted details of their plan on their web site, and there’s plenty to like.
The key point is something you’ve all heard me talk about endlessly–the usefulness of a 100-mile range EV as a second car. Once customers get a little taste of owning one of these vehicles, and they see that (1) they save a lot in gasoline and maintenance expense, and (2) they almost never have to drive all the cars in their household over 100 miles on any given day, they will absolutely love these cars. I commented the other day that Nissan will find the proverbial knee in the curve with their EV offerings; it’s looking like Ford will be joining Nissan, Mitsubishi, and other companies in that club.
The 12-hour recharging time sounds bad, but that’s for a full recharge of an empty battery.[2] If you drive 33 miles on a given day, which is much closer to the norm, our recharge time is only 4 hours.
At this point, I have no idea how the GM and Chrysler train wrecks will sort out. But I do know that, as with almost any major disruption of an existing economic situation, there will be winners and losers and more than a few surprises as the problem and our responses to it unfold. Right now we’re seeing the worst of the downside, thanks to all the unemployment and uncertainty caused by the banking, housing, and car company messes. But eventually we’ll awake from this nightmare to find a landscape that’s very different in some ways, yet still very recognizable.
Let me anticipate and respond to some of the e-mail I expect to receive about this post:
“We need to kill off the car culture in the US! The problem is we travel too many miles!” No problem. Show me how to get from where we are, in terms of the physical layout of cities and suburbs (you know, those places outside of cities where so many homes and businesses and schools and religious institutions and medical facilities and government offices, etc. are), to a model where a big chunk of our current travel is no longer necessary, and in a time frame that reduces the oil and carbon intensity of the US economy quicker and cheaper than electrifying cars, and I’ll sign up for it in a heartbeat. Ditto for the “light rail is the answer” crowd; show me how it works within the real world constraints of geography, current development, and the economic pressures squeezing every level of government in the US, and I’ll be a tireless proponent.
“But we get half of our electricity from coal! And coal is evil! EVIL!!!” Yes, coal truly is evil. You’ll get no argument from me on that point. But the pressure of climate chaos ensure that we have to clean up our electricity generation (and update the grid) regardless of how we fuel our cars, so electrifying cars means that as we fix those other problems the installed base of PHEVs and EVs will only get cleaner. By comparison, relying on non-plug-in hybrids or CNG puts a relatively high floor under the CO2 emissions from personal motor vehicles. And we won’t be able to clean up our electricity generation as quickly as we’d like, so wasting triple the kWh/mile on hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (compared to an equivalent EV) will be an unaffordable luxury.
“You’re just a corporation-loving economist!!!” Oh, please. No one, and I mean no-bloody-one, has to remind me of the horrors that corporations (or governments or religious institutions or any other concentration of power) have visited on the innocent. So go ahead and rant all you want, but the bottom line is that we’ll need both government and business to work with individuals to help us all get through the current economic challenges and then deal with peak oil and climate chaos. As I said above: If you can make a case for a different and better way to achieve the same goals, I’m very eager to hear it.
[1] Actually, I yelled something I care not to repeat on a family-friendly web site. Use your imagination.
[2] 20kWh charging over 12 hours requires 1,666 watts, which at 110 volts is 15.14 amps, about the maximum current you could safely require.
I hope Ford comes through on these plans, we’ll have so many choices of EV vehicles I won’t be able to stand it. That said, Ford has a more recent history of sitting on the sidelines and letting others lead the way. While they said many different things when the EV1 was on its way – in general Ford did not want electric vehicles and did what it could within the battery consortium (with GM and I think Chrysler) to delay things, in the end they had to buy Think because they weren’t really delivering what they said they had planned on doing.
All that said, Ford is led by a guy from Boeing who knows how to point a company to use technology – I hope this is all real. (I think I’ll still be saying that as the cars roll out in the show rooms)
This is all very good news.