Comments on: Ford accelerates electric-vehicle plans

In its turnaround plan presented to Congress, Ford says it will invest billions in fuel efficiency and introduce a family of hybrid-electric and all-electric cars.

[danielwsmithee]

Ford seems to be putting together a reasonable plan. Of the 3 they are the only one that has shown promise in changing their failed corporate strategy. I'm fine with the government providing a loan but only if the interest rate is tied directly to the fuel efficiency numbers they sight here. If they can't meet the fuel efficiency numbers they claim they should be forced out of business under high interest rates for their government debt. We can't just give these guys money because they are saying what they know we want to hear.

[neonhomer]

I'm confused a little. They are asking for a $9 billion dollar loan, yet they're going to invest $14 billion in fuel efficiency. I'm assuming that the $14 billion will be over a period of years, but how do they intend to put that much towards research when they need $9 now?

I think the government shouldn't bail any of these guys out.

[wigmo]

They have existing cash reserves. They are asking for an additional 9 billion to assist their existing cash reserves in making this transition. The article didn't say they had no money and needed 9 billion, in fact of the three it said they were "far better off" than the other two.

[VernIverson]

I remember Walter Cronkite, yes Walter Cronkite from CBS news, the show was called "Tomorrow", interviewing all three CEO's about electric cars when I was in High school 30 years ago. ALL the CEO's at that time said it would be "less than 5 years and they would have a mass production electric car". So do we now give them the money when they have already had 30 years to make good on their promises? No way, we are fools if we believe them now. Maybe someone can get the interviews and replay them for the current CEO's

[Cheetahjab]

In all due respect 30 years ago, any decent electric vehicle would have had about a 35 mile range, battery tech wasn't up to the task at hand. Many other technology companies promised the world a lot more 30 years ago. Most of them don't even exist any more.

Cheetahjab: Had they made electric cars with a 35 mile range 30 years ago, when the average commute was much less than it is now, perhaps the infrastructure, battery technology and market demand would be in place by now, and we wouldn't need this conversation. Toyota pursued a very aggressive program to get the Prius out there in spite of low demand, to the point of losing money... and which Hybrid is the best seller now? Honda played it safe and kept production in line with demand, and is now playing second fiddle.
Henry Ford gave us the most valuable lesson: when the Model T rolled out, there were no gas stations or paved roads. The infrastructure followed demand followed the product. Then the American big 3 went after current profit instead of building for future growth. Now is the only time there is.

[willdryden]

thirty years ago there were electric cars with a 50 mile range, but would only do 50 MPH (Citicar). Very few people bought them because gas was 50 cents per gallon and the batteries needed constant watering. Ten years ago, there were 100 mile range cars using NiMH batteries, but the car companies did not want to continue. They could make more money selling SUVs than a reasonable electric car. Now they are begging for government help to do what they should have continued 10 years ago.

[jameslemay_dotmac]

Ford may have electrics in the works; for their sake, I hope they do. The CEO just gets $1 - that's silly. It is not up to us, or congress, to judge any company. It is up to the market. It is not up to us, or congress to provide a failing company money. It is up to the market.

The best thing congress can do for Ford, GM, and (more importantly) the country is to implement a very high carbon tax on fossil fuels. That may not answer this quarter's hot issue, but it will address the more important twin issues of 1.) global warming; 2.) funding petro-dictatorships from the pumps. These are the core issues we face, and must face NOW.

With higher gas prices, Ford's new electrics (and anyone else's in the free market) would thrive.

Isn't it funny that as the new administration comes in and is about to set policy, gas prices fall by 50%. Demand has not fallen, so these are not market forces, and we are being manipulated. The dealer has decreased the price of the drug, just as we were checking into rehab. Let us not be fooled again.

Don't give a failing car company money. Don't even give them orders to build a certain car. Raise gas prices with a tax, and let nature take it's course.

What about the small start-ups that are now, today, working on the car of tomorrow. What about the minds at MIT? To fund the failures is to block the alternatives.

I don't know the answer. Is it an electric, an electric conversion kit, a fuel cell? Or some other alternative that sits in a garage in California? I don't know. And neither does congress. Raise gas prices, and let's find out.

[Cheetahjab]

There's a strong possibility you would be able to survive that, unfortunately the other 90% of middle income families couldn't. When you have to choose between going to work, food, and health because your transportation bill , even for those with fuel efficient cars has now doubled and doubled again. I don't agree with a Tax or the Bail out, but taxing the middle mad isn't going to solve any problem , it'll only make them worse.

[Amyaz]

Ah, I see, it's okay for the government to manipulate markets in a way that you approve (raising gas prices), but not in ways that you don't approve (saving 10% of American jobs). Riiiight.

The downfall of the autocos would be Katrina and the finacial crisis all at the same time. We can address more than one problem at a time.

[simplelifer]

And if they can't achieve their targets, can we get our tax money back plus interest?

[forever4now]

This is the first time I have heard Ford state ANY plan to make electric vehicles. Unfortunately, it appears that none of their consumer models will be on the market until 2011/2012. Most of the foreign car companies expect to have electric cars available in 2009/2010...roughly 2 years before Ford.

How can they think that this strategy is a good business plan for success?

At least Chrysler made a little sense when they announced plans to retrofit three existing vehicles, instead of designing new ones (much like the BMW Mini E, Mercedes Smart, Toyota Prius, ...). If do-it-yourself shops can electrify existing models, I would think the original manufacturers could do it too.

[Amyaz]

Have you noticed that those do-it-yourself shops are not popping up all over the country? It's because they cost an arm & a leg. I drive a Ford Focus, which gets 35mpg and gives me no reason to spend more than the original cost of the car to electrify it. Just because you are not aware of Ford's internal work, doesn't mean it's not happening....

[afterhours]

Check out the history of GM's own EV1. It was the star of the 'who killed the electric car' movie a few years ago. That car was out a decade ago. Why did GM crush them? Why destroy the tooled plant that made them here in the US? Why bail out this company now with that kind of track record?

We are fools. Lead by fools. In 20 years, when all hell breaks loose because of the oil scarcity and we have a civil war in this country, we'll wonder why we didn't see it coming in 1979, or 1999, or 2009. We'll have a population bomb created by the breed-more religions, an energy crisis by the Reagan/Bush/Clinton/Bush years that couldn't see beyond next quarter's profits, paralysis of this country by a population saddled with worthless suburbia, a food crisis because we gave our souls to petro-agriculture and agribusiness food patents, a water crisis because we moved to the desert or brought it to us with lousy global stewardship, and a financial meltdown with hyperinflation thanks to W and his stoolpigeons, along with a buy-it-now society of complacent and spoiled americans. Lock and load, people, there's fun times ahead.

[RompStar_420]

If the government truly has some UFO technology, now would be a good time to let that loose. In the very least, how about a great and efficient hydrogen splitter of water.

I've been working on mine as a hobby, see profile for ray.

kodiaktechnical.com

I did it in my spare time with $100 bucks, not even that. My next cell will have a controlling circuit, a 10 plate design and something else that I am working on too. I did it while working full time and going to school.

I don't understand the need for so much money, these people need to be let go, they havn't a clue how to control costs.

[sanenazok]

Why do companies need money? *P*A*Y*R*O*L*L* the $100 bucks you spent on parts, do you think that the parts came from out of the ground? Nope, someone had to make the plates and whatever else you were using. I'm guessing that the water didn't come from a stream, too. When you factor the costs of clothing, feeding, and sheltering you while you were working on this project of yours...you would learn that it most likely cost thousands of dollars and involved hundreds of people.

[Manhattan2]

The Solar Transfer Car company will power their vehicles with the energy equivalent captured from the SUN. Ford and GM should take note. There is a way to power vehicles using the Solar Transfer Energy Capture solution. Mitch Govansky.

[RompStar_420]

The reason why I like hydrogen is because it's 100% clean, it can even be used to clean up polluted radio-active soil. But the nicest thing is that it will work in existing combustion engines... There would be no need to buy a new car, with small modifications you would be able to use your existing car.

I don't see the great efficiency ration needed to capture sun light to drive the heavy cars that we have, not unless it's some tiny plastic car, and those aren't very safe on our American Highways, an all fiber glass car is more expensive to produce than steel.

[afterhours]

The only way this works is to promote the use of cheap solar PV. Use them as paving blocks for all the square footage of highway. The high-eff PV is too brittle -- it won't work. Look to companies that can coat cheap substrate. You don't need 14% conversion at $100/sq meter. You need 1.4% conversion at $1/sq meter. Standardized paving sheets for every parking lot and highway -- make that your electrical grid, along with every rooftop in the country. Have it power the electrolysis stations for your H2 refill. Have the excess feed the grid for the rest of the country. Learn to drive slower (driving at 60 saves ~14% of your petroleum than at 70 mph... but we're too self-absorbed to see the benefit of that).

[Manhattan2]

Your getting close. Either your being sarcastic or someone finally gets it. But we go one step further. We also have a solution that can fix the errors that companies are making by putting these solar panels on their rooftops. If you are not happy with the return on your investment into solar email us at [e-mail] Remember the CO2 cost to produce the solution also has to be taken into consideration.

[mbrianlyles]

A couple of points. First, Ford has stated (and this is not shown in this particular coverage above) that they may not need the bailout; Ford is doing due diligence now if it is needed. Second, Ford is in the middle of changing the majority of it's car line with smaller vehicles (Ford Fiesta, Mondeo, the european Focus) based on the global platform initiative, hence the 2011/2012 timeline. US Automakers have not been profitable in the small vehicle market in the past and Ford is hoping to change that, but it is requiring them to manufacture largely outside of the US to do so.

On the gas tax; increasing taxes on fuel is fool-hardy at best. Number one, do we want to give the government more money? They do such a poor job managing what they have today. Second, increasing the gas tax raises the price of all goods and services since that cost is passed on to the consumer. This affects the economy, consumer confidence, market values, inflation and unemployment. I support the idea of alternative fuel options, but I cannot afford to pay even more for goods and services since the inflation caused by higher taxes will consume what little expendable income I have left and companies will stop giving raises due to increased costs as well. This is a vicious cycle since it impacts the entire economy.

[chili_picante]

mbrianlyles, I have to respectfully disagree about the gasoline tax.

According to my Economics 101 text, raising taxes on gasoline is a sure way to decrease its demand. Recent experience shows that $4 a gallon will reduce consumption. And, they could offset this tax increase with a decrease on income and payroll taxes. Now, I don't want to give the gov'ment more money either, but they are running huge deficits, and I don't want to leave those for the next generation.

Keeping US gasoline cheaper than gasoline in the rest of the world has other disadvantages. Our gasoline dollars are going to a lot of countries that don?t like us and might even use that money against us, so it?s a security issue. It also means that there is little innovation in the US for fuel efficiency or alternative sources. So, when gasoline prices eventually rise, it will be the technology from other countries that will be in demand. So, it?s also an economic issue. And, it?s an environmental and health issue, since using less gasoline will (hopefully) mean that we emit fewer pollutants into the air.

[RompStar_420]

I never actually owned a Ford, so I can't comment, but I have owned a Chrysler, what a piece of junk!!!!!!!

Never again will I be fooled to buy that trash :- )

I think out of the 3 Chevy and Ford should survive, not sure about if I would even want Chrysler to survive, they are like the Fiats, crap!

[eeee]

useless comment;

[brettze]

Arent crossovers still gas guzzlers, anyway?? The rich and filthy are still not accustomed to subcompacts and they still think they are entitiled to sub 20 mpg cars.... If I were Congress, I would ask both GM and Ford what they will need to shut down all sub 30 mpg plants and start all over again ... Drop everything on the drawing boards that will deliver less than 30 mpg. It will cost more than $25 billion in bailouts, but this will ensure that oil prices will stay much lower and will save America many times over the bailout money given to GM and Ford... Congress had been wrong about being puffy and puffy on GM and Ford and their filthy and rich customers. Not all car buyers are alike and they are to be blamed for GM and Ford' problems as well.. I am not interested in hearing any pundits saying no to bail outs for GM and Ford while they still drive gas guzzlers of any makes.. I believe that GM and Ford need a bailout that will help GM and Ford make a 100% shift toward fuel efficient models... I PLAIN AS HECK DONT THINK CROSSOVERS ARE FUEL EFFICIENT BY ANY WILDEST IMAGINATION!! Just drop everything that guzzles gasoline.. We already have millions of gas guzzlers still rolling on the roads not counting more of them still in the used market... If the rich and filthy still want a gas guzzler, I have an used guzzler for them.... while they last... This is how our Congress ought to solve GM and Ford's problem and also our oil supply problem to go altogether... We cannot simply listen to GM and Ford saying they plan to improve fuel efficieny by teen numbers... I want 100% improvement every year until we get to 35 mpg and up for all cars!!!! End of discussion!

[brettze]

While Congress listen to GM and Ford,,, Big Oil is whistling in the dark!!!!!!!

[AppleSuxLeo]

I`m still waiting for EcoBoost. Where is EcoBoost ? What is taking so long ?

[sanenazok]

I can't say I like this one bit. In order to get a federal loan, Ford must make let the government pick the winner of the next car technology (i.e. plug in electrics). What if the Obama administration makes it hard to build new power plants? Didn't Obama promise to drive the coal power industry out of business? Ford shouldn't be forced to adopt a technology that the market doesn't want (otherwise other makers would have these cars on the road) just to get federal funds. The cost of power is going to skyrocket and plug in cars will make power far, far more expensive. Big surprise, the government isn't pressuring Ford to drop those gawdawful $70/hour union contracts. Wonder why... (hmph democracts hmph) Instead, let's a adopt a new and untested technology as a cure-all!

[forever4now]

The electric utilities have said that the current grid could currently handle it, if 70%+ of the cars suddenly became electric (assuming predominantly night time charging). Considering it will take MANY years to get to that many electric cars on the road, the electric grid should not be a problem in the foreseeable future.

At the present time, there are a lot of solar, wind, etc. projects being installed, so the grid should be even less of an issue, as time goes on.

[forever4now]

The electric utility companies have said that the current grid would be fine, if 70% of the cars suddenly became electric (assuming predominantly nighttime charging). It will be MANY years, before that many cars are on the road, so there should not be a problem, in the foreseeable future.

In addition, there are MANY solar and wind projects underway, so the concern will become progressively less and less, over time.

[sanenazok]

Where did the "electric utilities" say this?? Every summer we have brownouts in Chicago just due to AC use...don't see how any quantity of cars can be accommodated on the grid here not to mention 70%. Solar, wind, and other renewable will NEVER cover more than 20% of current energy demand, so no more than 5% of the energy demand needed with cars on the grid.

[jjfcpa]

I think it would be wise for the gov't to try to influence the markets than to try and bailout companies that have failed to read the market trends. For example, what if instead of providing a bailout, the gov't offered a tax credit for new car purchases. The credit would be scaled to the fuel efficiency of the car. This will have a number of very positive influences on the market.

1. The manufacturers will want to produce more fuel efficient cars because that's what their customers will be demanding.

2. People will buy more fuel efficient cars because of the tax savings. And, of course, they will be conserving precious resources (our cash) this is currently being sent to people who want to kill us.

3. The market will reward those companies who can respond to the demands of their customers best. If it's GM, Volvo, Toyota, who cares. In a free market society, the market determines the winner, not the gov't.

4. The middle class will buy the most fuel efficient cars and get the most credits against their taxes, while the upper class will simply not get the credit and pay higher taxes. What do you know, tax relief for the middle class...!

5. This will also stimulate the economy as people get rid of their inefficient cars for more fuel efficient cars.

Of course, the gov't will have to make the credit large enough to actually influence someone to buy a smart car that gets 33 mpg city. Remember, I said a progressive credit that increases as the fuel efficiency goes up. The scale could change from year-to-year to provide a continuing incentive. Perhaps even a surcharge if you buy gas guzzlers. Either way, the effects are exactly what the auto industry needs... a shot in the arm.

[eeee]

Those fools in Congress had their BS session talking about the corporate jets instead of concentrating on the saving of millions of good paying US on shore jobs that generate community wealth and benefits. Within a week or less, WITH NO DISCUSSION, we learn Citibank has been given 30 bilion and loan guarantees of 180 billion (or more) with not a minute of hearings, justifications, etc etc
WHAT A BUNCH OF HIPOCRITS IS ALL WE KNOW!
Saving jobs from the USA Big 3 is MORE important than all this BS from bashers who just love to bash and have no real solutions

[NiraliSherni]

There are a lot of jobs on the line; in the interest of those and the economy in general, the big three have to be bailed out; that said, they must be made to keep their promise to produce the sort of vehicles that are good for the environment; the sort people want to drive: fuel efficient, cheap to run, EVs etc.

[msowajr]

Raise gas prices PLEASE do that only for "yourself". My family has been energy efficient for more than thirty years an we should not have to suffer high fuel prices because of such FUELISH people like YOU that only cares for himself and probably does not have to work hard or live had to afford his own High prices. You probably have stock in companies that produce everything offshore or worse yet your probably a "DINK" Double income no kids. Well I have more than a family to support and I do not need to have you drain my last few dollars to punish most Americans that never had a choice to get an energy efficient Anything. Stick your High prices up your Solar Reflector.