Plug-in Ford Transit Connect to make its debut in 2010

http://www.freep.com/article/20090209/BUSINESS01/902090358

Ford Motor Co. plans to unveil today the North American production version of the 2010 Transit Connect, a commercial van, at the Chicago Auto Show, and to announce its intent to produce an electric version.

The gasoline engine-powered version is to go on sale this summer for $21,475, while the plug-in, battery electric version is to arrive in the second half of 2010.

The electric van is to be powered by a lithium-ion battery and offer an expected maximum range of 100 miles from a fully charged battery.

The battery electric version of Transit Connect is a centerpiece of Ford's plans to add four new electric or hybrid vehicles to its lineup over the next four years, said Derrick Kuzak, Ford's group vice president of product development.

They are working.

So is GM. Chrysler, too, but less so than Ford and GM.

So has GM. The only people who actually believe the crap about American car makers not offering anything with decent gas mileage and foreign companies supposedly being saviors of the planet have obviously been asleep at the wheel.

A 2002 Ford F-150 crewcab (evil gas guzzler) gets better gas mileage than all Toyota Avalons OR many Camry's (the larger 6). Don't even talk to me about Tundra.

My 2007 6 Cyl Fusion is getting 25-31 city and 35-39 freeway. Malibu and Impala both are great on gas. Now I realize on the DU hybrids are GOD, plugins are the answer to every evil, and why don't we just all give up the car and bike 52 miles to the grocery store in 3 foot snow, but come on.

GM makes 2 of them. Most others are niche vehicles like the SMART car and the Mini -- with a few overpriced hybrids thrown in.

Could be the Gas in Georgia who knows, but I got that mileage all the way to Michigan and back on other state's gas too.

Like I said, you can go look at a list or you can get out there and talk to people and see what's actually happening on the ground.

Go find an Avalon or a Camry 6 cyl owner and ask them about how happy they are with their gas mileage and then go find someone with a GMC or F-150 Crew cab.

I have a Mustang that easily gets 35 on the highway - but it's also a straight-shift, so it probably easily outdoes the 28 or 29 highway standard that they're rated at.

Still no passenger or small car for people really concerned about fuel economy.

Is this a joke? What the fuck is wrong with these people?

They need to make a profit. Last I heard, Toyota had yet to make a dime on the Prius.

Plus, you can make a bigger impact overall by adding hybrid technology to larger vehicles, vs. small cars that already get good mileage.

Ford might not have a small hybrid. But the Ford Focus gets good mileage and is a really good little car.

As the Washington Post reported:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/24/AR2008112403211.html?

After a decade of relative success with its hybrid Prius, Toyota has sold about a million of the cars and is still widely believed by analysts to be losing money on each one sold. General Motors has touted plans for a plug-in hybrid vehicle called the Volt, but the costly battery will prevent it from turning a profit on the vehicle for several years, at least.

That should be an obvious enough hint to Detroit.

If you're goal is to reduce your overall fleet emissions then a hybrid SUV makes sense.

If you're goal is to actually sell a car to people who care about fuel economy then making your only hybrid a vehicle that gets under 35pmg is moronic. How does that appeal to the demographic most likely to buy a hybrid? It was meant to have limited success.

And much of the company's profitability comes from its sales of large, money-making SUVs.

That is a fact.

No car maker could survive by making hybrid buyers their priority. Why? Because hybrids make up only about 3% of the market right now. Profits come from the other 97%.

It's also a fact that General Motors makes more cars that get 30 mpg or more than does Toyota.

And, BTW... Toyota is posting big losses this year. The global recession is hitting all the car makers worldwide.

are only 3% of the market. Very few are offered and there have been months-long waiting lists to get them. That suggests there's large market potential that isn't being met.

Toyota stopped losing money on the Prius years ago. They're also not suffering from the recession as much as GM and Ford.

How many cars does GM make that get over 35mpg?

And, I'm sorry to tell you, but the "huge potential" of hybrids is still a few years off.

For the most part, the extra cost of hybrids in the showroom exceeds the fuel savings most consumers could expect to get. Few people these days can afford to add to the cost of ownership of their vehicles. That will change as fuel prices rise and battery prices fall. But for now, the best value for your dollar turns out to be a small gas-powered car.

How many cars does GM make that get over 35mpg? There actually are only a handful of cars that get that kind of mileage. But two are made by GM: The 2009 Chevrolet Cobalt XFE and the 2009 Pontiac G5 XFE 4.

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/advancedSearch.htm

that's from the last two years if you're going to keep making the claim about the Prius losing money. Toyota disagrees with you. It's an old wives tale anymore.

And the two cars you mention only get 30mpg combined, but nice try. People who care about fuel economy don't want a car that gets 25mpg in the city. Yet another example of GM's failure to offer consumers what they want.

There are only 15 cars on the market that get 35 MPG on the highway. And two of those are variations of the German SMART car -- which is wildly impractical for most people.

Very, very few people buy cars based on mileage alone.

And here is a link:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/24/AR2008112403211.html

After a decade of relative success with its hybrid Prius, Toyota has sold about a million of the cars and is still widely believed by analysts to be losing money on each one sold. General Motors has touted plans for a plug-in hybrid vehicle called the Volt, but the costly battery will prevent it from turning a profit on the vehicle for several years, at least.

I think that Toyota gets a real bang for their hybrid buck. If they are really "losing money", why would they continue?
I think that the image that Toyota has built - leading the way forward while dinosaurs suck up the last of ancient resources is worth its weight in gold.

The Prius is the future, the Hummer is the past. How can you lose money on leading the world into the future?

Once the tech is on solid ground, Detroit will be like, "huh?" Toyota will have a reputation of having a decade of hybrid tech under their belt. GM will be like, "But our HUMMER isn't half as obnoxious as it used to be."

(adult) Drug dealers know that they can score the biggest cash at high schools. The smart ones don't go there cause that is how you get busted. Sell to the less profitable adults and leave the (profitable) children alone. Detroit can keep selling outdated profitable machines if it wants. But we all know the result...

...that being Peak Oil. Hybrids allow people to drive using less gas, which will be more important someday. With fuel costs so low now, no, there's no net savings to the consumer. Let gas go to five and ten dollars a gallon, though, and we'll see people crying for hybrids, or for all-electric.

Toyota has invested sufficiently to be ahead of the curve in whatever technology rules the future of driving. They've promised hybrid versions of all their cars in the next few years, though I remain skeptical.

Is that why the Ford Escape Hybrid has better technology than the ugly, small and inefficient Prius? (Inefficient for most families)

:shrug:

mileage is about the same, but Toyota is a cleaner/ greener company:

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/bottleneck/2008/07/fleet-economy.html

But, shhhh.... the "Japanese cars are king" crowd around here doesn't want to recognize that fact (and those you've posted).

The No. 1 best-selling vehicles are ALWAYS trucks, SUVs and vans. Duh.

On edit: Or, uh, you know...what Lucky the Dog said.

It is a real gas hog. But then, he has 4 kids. So he needs a big car.

I had a 2001 Focus wagon and drove the hell out of it. Got almost 200K, averaging 25 mpg the whole time. Loved it so much Mr. Ogneopasno got a 2008 Focus, a little two-door commuter that pulls down more than 30 mpg. They're good cars.

Four kids, yowza. We just have the two, but two kids and two bags of hockey equipment mean we'll probably get one of those Escape hybrids next time around. In the meantime, I lurve my 2008 Taurus.

The Prius was their third highest selling vehicle in 2007 and stopped losing money years ago.

Counting the cost of R&D.

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Toyota Motor Corp (7203.T: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz) (TM.N: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz) will build batteries for its hybrids in North America eventually, as part of a plan to drive down the production costs of fuel-efficient models like its top-selling Prius.

As part of that strategy, Toyota expects that its next-generation Prius will have a profit margin close to that of a traditional sedan like the Corolla, a senior executive said on Friday.

"We reduced costs of hybrid systems for the current Prius by 50 percent from the first generation," Vice Chairman Kazuo Okamoto said on Friday at a presentation to financial analysts and reporters in New York.

"For the next-generation Prius, we will be able to cut costs by another half, so I think we've been able to ensure profitability will be similar to regular vehicles, such as the Corolla," Okamoto said.

"What's the best combination between space usage, cruising range and the price involved? Finding out that optimal point is key," Okamoto said.

It says it will make profits at similar levels to conventional cars soon. It doesn't say they're selling it at a loss now. If your link is correct it only implies that the Prius makes a smaller profit than other cars, but that doesn't mean they sell it at a loss.

Toyota spent billions developing the Prius. It then sold it at a loss for years.

Since the line's inception, Toyota has sold about 1 million units. That is a lot of cars. But I don't see how the math works out to an overall profit.

The Prius was a good thing for Toyota to do. It'll no doubt pay off in the long run because the technology will be developed further and used in other vehicles. But I would defy anyone to show how Toyota could be in the black as of now -- unless it is making SUV-like profits on every Prius sold (and it isn't).

say Toyota will break even somewhere in 2010 and will start to turn an overall profit on the car. The new gen Prius is substantially cheaper to build and if the worldwide unit sales meet projections then Toyota will meet it's 2010 timetable.

The industry is agreed that the Prius isn't profitable quite yet, according to the few things I've read. When do you think profitability was reached, exactly, and why?

How can they be making a profit on something that's down and they weren't making a profit on it last year?

:crazy:

Prius sales haven't dropped as much as the gas guzzlers.

from spewing bullshit in this thread (like you ALWAYS do in thread about Domestic autos).

Toyota Says It’s Now Turning a Profit on the Hybrid Prius

By Alan Ohnsman
December 19, 2001 in print edition G-1

Toyota Motor Corp. said it is starting to make a profit from its Prius gasoline-electric hybrid car, four years after introducing the low-pollution vehicle.

Higher production volume of the Prius, introduced in Japan in 1997 and in the U.S. last year, and technological gains are helping the costs of its advanced battery and electrical components, said Hiroyuki Watanabe, Toyota’s senior managing director for hybrid and fuel-cell systems. Toyota has sold about 75,000 Prius cars worldwide.

“I would say we have reached the profitable point,” Watanabe said at an electric vehicle conference here last week. “We are just above the break-even point, but we are not complacent about it. We have to try harder to increase our profitability.”

The Prius, the first hybrid from a major auto maker, and Honda Motor Co.’s Insight were built to meet stricter air-quality rules in Japan, the U.S. and Europe with improved fuel efficiency and low emissions. Toyota has struggled to overcome a per-car expense of as much as $8,000 for a power system combining a gasoline engine, an electric motor and regenerative brakes.

Though the cars are no longer sold at a loss, profit from sales remains insufficient for Toyota to recoup its initial investment and development costs, General Manager Shigenobu Uchikawa said.

Toyota said it will increase U.S.-bound shipments of the Prius, which sells for $20,450, by more than 40% to 17,000 units next year. Annual production of the model at the Motomachi plant in Toyota City, Japan, should reach 36,000 units in 2002, Uchikawa said.

Sales need to reach 50,000 to 100,000 units annually for the Prius to become truly profitable, said technology analyst Menahem Anderman, president of Advanced Automotive Batteries in Oregon House, Calif.

In addition to costs associated with research and development and capital investment, he said, Toyota may be incurring expenses from an eight-year, 100,000-mile warranty on the Prius’ advanced battery and 33-kilowatt electrical system because the model has been available for too brief a time for the company to know how long the components will last.

Toyota President Fujio Cho has said the company will produce annually 300,000 vehicles powered by hybrid systems or other alternative technologies, including fuel cells and engines that run on compressed natural gas, by 2005.

Honda’s second hybrid, a version of its Civic, went on sale in Japan last week and will be available in the U.S. early next year. Honda says it will cost about $20,000–or $3,000 more than a conventional gasoline-engine model.

and as for the next generation:

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Toyota Motor Corp (7203.T: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz) (TM.N: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz) will build batteries for its hybrids in North America eventually, as part of a plan to drive down the production costs of fuel-efficient models like its top-selling Prius.

As part of that strategy, Toyota expects that its next-generation Prius will have a profit margin close to that of a traditional sedan like the Corolla, a senior executive said on Friday.

"We reduced costs of hybrid systems for the current Prius by 50 percent from the first generation," Vice Chairman Kazuo Okamoto said on Friday at a presentation to financial analysts and reporters in New York.

"For the next-generation Prius, we will be able to cut costs by another half, so I think we've been able to ensure profitability will be similar to regular vehicles, such as the Corolla," Okamoto said.

"What's the best combination between space usage, cruising range and the price involved? Finding out that optimal point is key," Okamoto said.

From the Orlando Sentinel:

In a column a couple of weeks ago, I wrote about the Toyota Prius, which deservedly swept most of the "Car of the Year" awards for last year.

I said: "Last year, the Toyota Prius dominated the awards, as the redesigned gasoline/electric hybrid vehicle was so loaded with technology that we wondered how Toyota could make any money selling it for the base price of $20,000 or so.

"The answer is that Toyota isn't making any money -- despite the company's insistence otherwise -- and that the company is so rich it doesn't care. Toyota's profit plans are mapped out for a decade or more in advance, and when Toyota executives insist the Prius is profitable, they mean it's on track to eventually make a lot of money. Someday. This is legendary Asian inscrutability at its most effective, and it's why Toyota is the most successful car company of our time."

This drew the attention of Irv Miller, Toyota's group vice president for corporate communications, who e-mailed: "My sources tell me that we do, in fact, make a profit on every Prius sold now. Your position may have held some validity for the first-generation vehicle, but not today."

We entered into an interesting discussion about what "profit" actually means. My definition is that if you make something, then sell it, and if there's any money left over after covering what it cost you to make and market, that's profit.

That's oversimplifying my position, but that's what it boils down to. Until proceeds from the sales of the Prius cover all the research and development costs that went into it, plus the costs of the hardware and construction labor, I can't see a profit there. Especially because Toyota, unlike most other manufacturers, develops most of its own technology, rather than buy it from subcontractors. This means Toyota owns it, but it also means the company paid all the developments costs -- a great strategy for the long term, at a time when many car companies are thinking short term.

"I look at what makes up a Prius, base price $20,875, and what makes up a Camry LE, base price $22,380, and it seems one is conceivably subsidizing the other," I told Irv. Even with about a quarter-million Priuses sold globally, I just couldn't make the math work to cover the cost of developing the car, plus the proprietary equipment that goes into it, such as the pricey battery pack and the electric drive motor.

"I think we are on the same page," Irv said. "With R&D amortized over the number of vehicles sold thus far, there is no way it comes clear. But our thinking is that this R&D investment is to be spread out not only over the breadth of our hybrid line," which is the Prius, the upcoming Highlander, the Lexus RX400h, plus another Toyota and Lexus, and possibly a pickup truck, " but that it is the foundation for all our fuel cell development, as well.

"So when you say that we don't make money on the Prius, you are technically correct. When do you say that critical mass has been reached unless you take out the long-term investment and let the car stand on its own? If you consider manufacturing cost, sales, marketing and distribution cost, the car makes money."

On that, we agree. And the money Toyota has invested in hybrids, and fuel cell development, will likely put the carmaker so far ahead of the competition that it won't be long before these vehicles make money, no matter what definition you use.

Sentinel Automotive Editor Steven Cole Smith can be reached at scsmith@orlandosentinel.com or 407-420-5699.

Of course, with no one buying new cars now, who knows?

as well as to design and build - a box with wheels. Many small curves and spaces on smaller cars, but they'll get there. New build technologies and materials are being developed all the time as well, so it's coming. Imagine a 600 lb. carbon fiber four-seater with a 200mi. range and far better crash safety than any passenger vehicle on the road today.

There is a myth that says the Big 3 would be fine if they made more hybrids. I wish it was that simple. The fact is that hybrids constitute a tiny part of the market and are not very profitable. In fact, the Prius loses money for Toyota.

Even dinosaurs like GM Vice Chairman Bob Lutz believe that electrification if the future of the motor vehicle industry. I totally agree. But, in the present, large gas-powered cars are where it is at, when it comes to making a profit as a manufacturer.

The Prius was toyota's third highest selling car in 2007. They made higher profits than GM and Ford. What you're writing may have been true five years ago but that isn't how the world works today.

Hybrids would make up a larger share of the market if GM dealers weren't forced to talk people out of buying one and getting something that GM actually offers instead.

Toyota division sold 181,221 prius, 1,132,430 other cars and 977,997 trucks.

Toyota division sold a total of 2,291,648 units in 2007 and 7.9% were prius whereas 42.7% were gas guzzling trucks and SUV's. And we haven't even touched the gas guzzlers in the Lexus division.

http://www.toyota.com/about/news/corporate/2008/01/03-1-sales.html

American car companies depend on trucks and SUVs.
The top selling Toyotas in '08 were the Camry and Coralla, which are not trucks or SUV's, last time I checked. Honda is doing well with small cars too.


The Top 10 Best-Selling Cars of 2008

* Ford F-Series: 515,513
* Chevy Silverado: 465,065
* Toyota Camry: 436,617
* Honda Accord: 372,789
* Toyota Corolla: 351,007
* Honda Civic: 339,289
* Nissan Altima: 269,668
* Chevy Impala: 265,840
* Dodge Ram: 245,840
* Honda CR-V: 197,279

since Toyota has not yet posted it's unit sales for 2008 you have no idea what percentage of their total US units sold were Prius. You are claiming Prius is a big moneymaker for them because "it's the 3rd largest sales in cars) but as I clearly demonstrated for 2007 Prius is a small fraction of the total units sold in the US. Clearly the huge bulk of Toyota's profit comes from vehicles other than Prius and in fact a major portion comes from gas guzzling trucks and SUVs.

Toyota is FAR from the planet saver you are making them out to be. Prius is a fine car for it's intended purpose. But it isn't for everyone and is hardly Toyota's profit leader or even amongst their leaders.

Are not enough people buying it?

It's a Detroit talking point from executives trying to defend their decision to force SUV's on the public instead of offering hybrids.

Anyone car buyer who wants a hybrid can get one. Only 3% choose to.

Nobody forces anyone to buy an SUV, either.

including last year when gas prices were high, there were waiting lists for hybrids in most states. How much more of the market would hybrids make up if they had been offered by all companies at a rate that met demand and had been advertised as much as SUVs?

I would like to buy an American union-made hybrid that gets 40mpg. I don't want an SUV. Please tell me what model I should buy. You can't because it doesn't exist. I'm forced to buy a foreign car if that's what I want.

Running constant ads for SUV's and forcing GM dealers to sell conventional cars because they don't have real hybrids to offer (No the Vue and Malibu half-assed hybrids don't count) is how gas guzzlers were shoved down the throats of the American public.

But go ahead and defend the business model of a company that charges thousands of dollars more for a Malibu light-hybrid that only gets 2mpg better than the conventional Malibu. Of course it doesn't sell well. Just fucking moronic.

There are very few people who buy cars based on mileage alone -- regardless of overall cost.

Each year for several years. No one is talking about people buying cars on mileage alone.

You're right that there needs to be a cost-benefit pay-off for hybrids. That's why offering light-hybrids with modest mileage improvements but much bigger price tags (Vue, Malibu, Escape) is a foolish strategy that won't appeal to any market segment. You can say I'm a small market all you like but take a look at how many of the top selling cars are efficient foreign cars.

I really want to buy another American car but Ford and GM are making it VERY difficult. It's sad that they're forcing me to buy foreign to get a hybrid passenger car with good mileage.

I guess you couldn't find a link about Toyota losing money on one of their top selling models?

Which company do you work for?

And someone else posted another one.

The Prius program has yet to pay for itself.

Toyota has never claimed more than an "operating profit" on the Prius. That's not the same as a net profit that takes into account all of the costs.

Thanks for doing that, but it still is weak support for your claim. That article provides no documentation other than "analysts believe." GM analysts? Believe it based on what? It's a claim Toyota denies.

All this talk about the Prius losing money is excuse making by GM executives who know they can't sell the Volt at a profit in 2010.

... a small "operating profit" on the each Prius sold. But that's a far cry from making back its whole investment.

It's like GM and Saturn. Many years ago, GM started selling Saturns for more than they cost to make. But I've had knowledgeable people say that TO THIS DAY, GM has not made back all of the money that went into starting that division.

All of this stuff gets buried in the accounting. But, from what I have heard and read, Toyota still is not in the black with the Prius. That was fine when the company was printing money (thanks in part to the value of the yen vs. the dollar, and a lower cost of doing business). The Prius was an image builder.

Toyota, like all car makers, can make more money on one large SUV than on 25 or 30 smaller cars. And Toyota has, indeed, been a big player in the SUV market.

Counting R&D costs from years ago is a big caveat. I guess we can all agree that Toyota isn't selling the Prius at a loss.

I realized that you misunderstood. I look at this the way people from Detroit do. I don't look at the cost of each copy vs. the direct costs to make it. I look at the profitability of the car line INCLUDING the initial investment. That, in the end, is what matters.

It can cost $1 billion or more to develop an AVERAGE car. Say, you do that. Then, say, you pay $18,000 to make each copy and then sell each one for $19,000. In that case, you have made a "profit" of $1,000 per car. But you are not in the black until you have sold a million of them.

Toyota, for years, sold the Prius at an actual loss per car. Those loses, added to the initial costs of R&D, mean that Toyota is probably years away from making money on the Prius.

The Prius IS a good car. No doubt about that. Is it a good overall value? It probably is at $3.50 pr gallon of gas. It might not be a good value at $2 per gallon.

But, business case and value aside... it is a good little car. I don't mean to imply that it isn't.

The Prius program has not paid for itself.

so much less expensive to produce. Oh wait, they don't and aren't.

Take out the gasoline engine, the transmission, the cooling system, the gas tank and their associated components, and the whole concept is simplified. The EV-1 was $80K/unit because each car was hand-built and the technology was state-of-the-art (for the time) and developed under the same umbrella budget. Many of the things we now have in our vehicles and take for granted were developed by the EV-1 team and are (magically) now cheap enough to install in $15K cars.

Isn't it time to stop making excuses for the automakers? Rather, let's hold their feet to the fire lest our first batch of successful electric vehicles is shipped to U.S. from Asia.

If we want them to invest in totally new products, we'll have to do what other countries do: PAY the manufacturers to do what we want them to do.

We need an industrial policy.

It's not true, it apparently hasn't been true since 2001, and the proof is up above.
Yet you keep saying this, proudly repeating the lie as if you were a Republican.

Tesha

Seems like a good place to start. You know, amongst the most popular vehicles in the lineup, especially the ones getting the worst mileage.

The Transit, which has the figures you quote, is larger, and is a product line entirely separate from any car; the Transit Connect is based on the same platform as the Ford Focus.

But it makes some sense to me to go for a vehicle likely to do a lot of mileage in cities - a small delivery van.

Please look up some facts before lecturing, k? :hi:

Well AFTER their introduction of a hybrid SUV and Van.

Ford Fusion hybrid is set to be released in Mid March. :hi:

http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/reviews/healey/2009-02-05-2010-ford-fusion-hybrid_N.htm

like most of the others Ford and GM are producing. A hybrid that has a much higher sticker price with only moderate improvements in fuel economy can't be taken seriously. The Chevy Volt is the only thing Detroit has coming that will realistically compete with the Prius and it's years overdue.

And it gets better MPG than the equivalent Toyota, but that doesn't matter.

isn't a Prius. Which proves my point.

Radical Activist: "Still no passenger or small car for people really concerned about fuel economy."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5019587&mesg_id=5019653

Er, wrong.

Radical Activist: "In a few years."

Er, wrong.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5019587&mesg_id=5023225

Any admission of mistake? Nope. You just whine that it's not as efficient as a Prius. Which is a complete revision of what you said upthread.

And the fuel economy gains are limited and entirely unimpressive. So no, my statement is not wrong. You don't seem to get that just calling something a hybrid by making limited use of the technology does not cut it. American car companies currently offer nothing that directly competes with the Prius.

"You don't seem to get that just calling something a hybrid by making limited use of the technology does not cut it."

It's the same technology that's in the Prius; Ford developed it independently, but decided to license it from Toyota to avoid legal trouble.

And that's not even comparing it to the plug-in Prius due this year that, once again, American companies offer nothing comparable to.

Your link is about the Escape. I guess you had to switch models to make your argument. As I wrote in my first post, selling an SUV as your first hybrid is an idiotic strategy that doesn't appeal to most consumers concerned about fuel economy. Your link offers nothing to disprove my point about Ford and GM making limited use of hybrid technology and not currently offering a comparable alternative to the Prius. An Escape is nothing like a Prius.

I will admit that the Fusion is coming out a year earlier than I realized. How does that change the point of my arguments? Not one bit.

Even GM and Ford executives publicly admitted the mistakes in their business strategy. Why can't you?

It makes you look slimy and dishonest when you spout something, someone provides a link to prove you wrong, and you ignore it to slither on to the next mistatement.

"Your link is about the Escape. I guess you had to switch models to make your argument"

It's the same technology, dullard. :hi:

Read posts 2 and 5 that I argued at the start of this thread. Nothing you've posted disproves my points.

The fact that Ford is coming out with the Fusion YEARS after it should have does not change the fact that Ford and GM are years behind, had a poor business strategy, currently offer no direct competitor to the Prius, and make limited and inadequate use of hybrid technology in the few hybrids they do offer.

I admitted the Fusion is coming out a year sooner than I realized. The sky is also blue. Both facts have as much weight in disproving my point. And you still haven't told me which company you work/worked for?

Or will this be filed under Too Little, Too Late?

Unless you like the idea of seeing the U.S. become a second-rate economy.

Ever.

And Ford is a big part of that.

Nobody who calls himself/herself a progressive should be rooting for the demise of the U.S.-based auto industry.

agreeing with whatever jackassery DUers squawking about "a true progressive never X's and a true progressive never Y's" spout, then thank fucking gawd I'll never be one.

Your back-patting navel-gazing club SUCKS.


EDIT: Forgot a word.

that one who argues for things that would hurt working Americans is not a progressive. By definition, progressives are those who seek to IMPROVE the lot of average people in a society.

Union jobs and the U.S. working middle class.

The livelihood of real people is at stake here.

You just go on hoping for those union jobs to go away. I won't be joining you.

We'll be here in the real world waiting for you.

they are the only American car company moving in the right direction at this point.

Give it up boys. There is no shortage of that foreign junk any more. There are thousands of them sitting rusting away on the docks no one wants.

Its the American workers turn now. Get over it.

Don

partly because it has more American made and assembled parts than any other car on the market. I'm hoping that when I'm ready to buy another car American companies will finally be offering me a realistic hybrid choice but they aren't right now. For now, I'm forced to choose between buying American or buying for fuel economy and environmental impact. There's no one to blame for that other than the short-sighted business plans of Ford and GM.

If the UAW wants to support American auto workers they should have been challenging GM's refusal to change instead of colluding with CEO's against better fuel economy standards.

And the resale value of a Prius is better than any other car on the market.

The workers have no say so in what kinds of cars they build.

We build what the company tells us to build.

The union handles negotiating wages and benefits and such.

Just so we are clear on this.

Don

Because I recall many occasions where UAW officials testified to Congress side by side with CEO's against fuel economy standards. Standards that would probably have resulted in GM and Ford having more fuel efficient cars on the market right now, to their own benefit.
You should give the UAW a call if you think they don't actively lobby against any and all standards to improve fuel economy at the state and federal level. This is about the UAW leadership, not the workers. I doubt any union has done more to divide the labor and environmental movements by pushing the idea that protecting the environment costs jobs. American workers are the ones paying for that mistake now.

as I wrote in another post.

Or do you now deny claiming to drive a Toyota Tundra on these very message boards?

Feel free to search the archives if you doubt me.

EVERY car I've ever bought has been a GM model and one of the reasons I bought my current car is that it has more American union made and assembled parts than any other car on the market. So no, you can't brush me off as some anti-American union-hater.

Detroit fucked up and it doesn't hurt to admit that.

I remember quite clearly asking Mr. Che Avatar how he squared his "socialism" with his lack of support of Labor...

That's what I thought. Making ugly accusations that you can't back up. Anyone can do a basic search even if they aren't a donor but you won't try because you won't find shit. Take your lies and shove it up your ass. You don't know shit about my support for labor.

Seeing how the Che avatar is available for any DU member to use, I'm thinking you have two posters confused.

No mistake about the poster's anti-Labor mania, however. Notice upthread how he changes his argument time and again as he is proven wrong.

In addition to the several hybrid models now on offer from US manufacturers, several more are set to debut this year an next.

But you, being a "radical activist" in the tradition of Che, would never ignore these facts in attempt to beat up on organized Labor.

Never. :eyes:

offered by US companies. There's the SUV from Ford, which appeals to a small niche market. There's the Chevy Malibu that costs thousands more but only gets 2mpg gallon better than the conventional Malibu. GM hybrids make very limited use of the technology so that the extra up-front costs are far more than what a buyer would save on fuel. That's completely ineffective.

Not all hybrids are alike. Educate yourself on that.

And I'm not beating up on organized labor. Supporting labor doesn't mean blindly following bad decisions made by union Presidents who are too cozy with CEOs. Che would never support that either.

least of all you.

You have been proven wrong in this very thread. The fact that you try to blow it off doesn't make you any less wrong!


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5019587&mesg_id=5023248

The fact that Ford is releasing another light-hybrid that will have no commercial appeal doesn't challenge the points I'm making in this thread. It doesn't change the fact that Detroit is years behind and had misplaced priorities, something even the executives are finally admitting.

The Fusion is much higher priced, has significantly lower fuel economy, AND it's not on the market yet. All of that is in the article you linked. So thanks for posting a link that proves MY argument.

If the author thinks customers are more concerned about how noisy a car is than price and fuel economy right now then he's a complete moron. Even Detroit execs admit their mistakes so why can't you?

You've been proven wrong time and again, so you just fabricate something else.

All while hiding behind a "Hot Topic" Che avatar. :eyes:

My next car will be a Prius. Get over it. They're better, greener cars, period.

...why can't car companies make a non-gas-guzzling car that's attractive?

Seriously - not all of us like boxes and bubbles.

That looks like the van for those less mental-able than the rest of us.

:(

I thought the "wedge of cheese" style - which I like a bit better - was more aerodynamic. How is something that would cause a wind sheer aerodynamic?

I'm still not sure how it's more fuel efficient. It looks like a sleeker design - like sports cars, for example, would be more fuel efficient.