Sure,
plug-in hybrid tech has been around for a while, but no major manufacturer has stepped up and actually delivered on all the
concepts and vague
plans we've seen so far -- until yesterday, when Ford delivered the first of 20 plug-in hybrid Escapes to Southern California Edison to begin testing. The handoff, which happened with great fanfare at the EVS23 conference, is the start of a two-year pilot program between Ford and Edison that will eventually have consumers testing the vehicles. For now, the first off the line is being dubbed a "research vehicle," and features a 30-mile electric-only range on a full battery charge. When the battery is depleted, the system switches over to a traditional gas / electric hybrid scheme, which, under ideal conditions, can apparently achieve up to 120mpg. There's a full gallery of the unveiling and the interior over at AutoBlog Green, hit the read link for some eco-friendly love.
posted Dec 5th 2007 5:32PM
We want to hear more news like this. Awesome.
While I applaud the effort, why choose an SUV as a demo vehicle? Is it because of the plug-in/hybrid technology taking up a lot of space?
People WANT SUV's, they are a better ride, have more features, put you higher up so you can see better and feel safer. People drive SUV's not because gas is cheap, but because they want to drive them, they replaced the mini-van as the car of choice for soccer moms because in many respects they are better (and worse in some). Frankly the holy grail is a plug-in hybrid / electric SUV that is astronomically efficient. Sure a small lightweight car will always be more efficient, but people WANT the bigger car with more space to haul stuff. If we could get all the SUV's up to 50mpg without sacrificing power or offroad ability they would sell millions of them, probably at a strong premium that people would be willing to pay.
So why an SUV? Because that's what people want. That and Ford surrendered (along with GM and Chrysler) the car market to Toyota and Honda 10 years ago.
I hate SUV's. It gives people a false sense of security.
Being higher up makes you no more of a better driver. It makes you a pain in the ass to try and see around when I am trying to turn left.
Bigger dosen't mean safer. It means your CG is higher up and when you turn suddenly--you roll, and the first side to hit is either the drivers side corner above the windsheild, or the passengers side. Almost always a fatal accient.
I will give you that they are good at picking up loads of people. But for the 90% of the time that it is just you in it going back and forth to work. No. Not good.
We don't need bigger cars, or even more efficient engines, or electric cars. We need more efficient people. Don't buy a SUV when all you need to get back and forth to work is a festiva.
The Escape SUV is Ford's Hybrid Vehicle. AFAIK, it's the only hybrid they make. Simple as that.
It's very nice, can go offroad in the 4wd version (though no lo-4 gearing), and gets 29 mpg in 4wd and 32 mpg 2wd. I'm considering purchasing one. Were plug-in available now, I'd buy one this second.
-Pie
SUVs are more dangerous than most cars on the road. Because they're classified as 'trucks' they aren't required to have the structural safety features that a minivan or even a compact car has. You're far more likely to be maimed or killed in an accident in an SUV even at low speed.
As an added bonus, they're also more dangerous to other vehicles.
Oh, and the overwhelming majority (think 90%+) of SUVs never leave pavement.
You know... SUVs are officially trucks. Yet, I've never seen one get pulled over for skipping a truck inspection station or not driving in the truck lane on a steep highway incline.
Sheesh, double-standards. If your vehicle is labeled a truck to escape the emissions and safety standards, it should also be subject to all other laws pertaining to trucks.
I think those are for trucks that are hauling goods for commercial purposes...
If not, I'd probably have ALOT of tickets for blowing past all of those.
I wish instead of plugging them in, they had giant batteries. Because that would make me feel tiny.
Sweet, so we're almost back to where we were 17 years ago. That's progress, right there.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_EV1
But could you drop off kids at soccer practice or get groceries in an EV1...? Progress!
I hate SUVs like math class. Personally I can't wait for gas to cost $10 per gallon or more, because that's the only way we'll ever get new automobile technology. Every day I see people driving alone in their SUVs, burning gallons of gas as they crawl along in LA traffic. I want gas to cost so much that these idiots have to choose between putting gas in their SUV or making their mortgage payment.
The EV1 was zero emission, but as pointed out, it wasn't very practical. It couldn't be taken on a trip out-of-town, for example.
The Ford Escape Hybrid / Plug-in is a totally different approach. They're taking a very popular vehicle and making it into a hybrid to increase mileage. They're not building the car from the ground up like the EV1, they're taking an already-existing chassis that's profitable, and adding a different engine and batteries. Much easier to produce AND it will make them money -- meaning they will KEEP making it.
Don't use past events to bitch at the present, use them to learn for the present.
-Pie
Pie:
The EV1 came in many flavors, including a hybrid. So thanks for playing, but that's not a valid excuse.
The reason it isn't available is explicitly spelled out in that wikipedia article:
"In 2002, the California Air Resources Board modified the ZEV mandate[7] to allow manufacturers to claim partial ZEV credit for hybrid vehicles. General Motors and DaimlerChrysler then sued the state of California and CARB, alleging that the new ZEV rules violated a federal law barring states from regulating fuel economy.[8] In response, CARB removed the requirement for electric vehicles from the ZEV mandate in 2003, and GM - having produced a product for a mandate and market that no longer existed - cancelled the EV1 program soon after.[9]"
GM and Daimlerchrysler sued California to prevent the state from requiring a certain percentage of new vehicles to be zero emission.
Hybrids in general are a joke, their real-world use they don't beat plain old diesel engines for efficiency. A new diesel-powered VW Golf beats the Prius in fuel efficiency.
The Bush administration fought hard to prevent California from demanding better emissions and efficiency and won. They also killed off the PNGV program which was about to ship cars with 80-mpg efficiency.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PNGV
At least for now, oil companies are running the country. Every action taken by the government makes sense when you understand that simple fact.
Barry: Yeah, right. Let me quote the same article.
"GM stated that it could not sell enough of the cars to make the EV1 profitable. In fact, during the later stages of development for the car, GM officials claimed that they stood no chance of ever making a profit on the EV1 itself."
As I said, Ford was taking a different approach. But by all means the FOUR WORDS of my post and attack that like it was everything.
Thanks for playing? Sheesh.
-Pie
pie, go rent yourself "who killed the electric vechile"
Those people were begging GM to let them BUY EV1 from GM, but GM decided to crush EV1 (literally) instead of recuperating however much they claim they lost.
now shut your pie hole.
The great thing about plug-in hybrids is when working like it is suppposed to, a house can run off the battery of the hybrid during the day when electricity is in great demand and then recharge at night when it is cheaper and demand for electricity is less. That is if you aren't out driving.
So is plugging a bunch of these things into a coal-fired power grid actually cleaner than a normal internal combustion engine would be?
exactly, congratulations on getting a little closer to where were at in the 90s.
Full electric modern vehicles existed, they worked, required little to no maintenance and could keep up with traditional vehicles.
But since they wouldn't make oil companies richer GM didn't mass produce them and took the ones that did make it to customers off the road. They were all leased and they took them back at the end of the leases without giving the people who leased them and loved them for years the option of buying them.
All electric cars were then destroyed or decommissioned by GM so that we could all go back to polluting our planet.
Oh and they were all plug in.
Big fricken innovation
It wasn't just the oil companies that would have lost some of their unbelievably huge profits; auto manufacturers would also have lost a lot of income. The modern internal combustion engine is one of the most complex machines ever built, with thousands upon thousands of parts, many of them moving parts. Such machines break down, and the auto manufacturers receive quite healthy profits on replacement parts. Electric motors, on the other hand, are extremely simple. Far fewer parts to this machine means far fewer replacement parts sold, and far smaller profits on manufacturing and selling replacement parts. They stand to lose a great deal of income by making and selling electric cars.
http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=5977085690337730430&hl=en
How many kwh's does it take to fully charge the battery?
I always wondered why people assume that plug in means more energy efficient...
An ICE converts mechanical energy into well, mechanical energy.
By plugging it into your house, you have mechanical energy converted into electrical energy, store it & then convert it back to mechanical. It seems to me that unless you are charging this via your 14 acre wind farm / solar array, your wasting, not conserving...
I think they should use an SUV (though it is a small one) because that's what most of America drives. Every other hybrid vehicle is a compact car. How realistic is that?
Lexus LS, Lexus GS, Chevy Suburban, Lexus RX, Saturn Vue Green Line, Toyota Prius GenII, existing Ford Escape Hybrid...
Yea, but after a few years, they will collect them and destroy them. The someone will make a film, perhaps "Who Killed the Electric Plug-in Hybrid."
- Roger
". . .but no major manufacturer has stepped up and actually delivered. . ." is incorrect. GM had the EV1 in 1990. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_EV1
1,117 units were produced from 1996-1999 but the program was canceled in 2003 and GM took all of the cars back.
The EV1 was all-electric, no?
These seem to all the fashion for the future... But I have not seen reporting on how much the average electric bill will increase if you plug one of these in every night?, What will happen to the California power grid if 100,000 of these were plugged in at the same time? How much more co2 is produced by the power plants to charge all these batteries?...
Very little. There are billions of kilowatts wasted every night because power demand drops off substantially. Plug all these things in an night and the power they use would be nominal to the generation capacity.
Trent, how is a kilowatt wasted by not being used? I was under the impression that electricity is generated to meet demand-at-the-time, meaning when more power is needed, more generators are brought online, and when they aren't needed, they are idled or off. Maybe I'm wrong on that point.
Trent didn't say a kilowatt would be wasted... He said that at night time demand is low, so even with all those cars charging up the demand would be well within the limits of the power grid's delivery abilities.
Sweet, now instead of pollution from burnt gas, we have millions of batteries to clog our landfills.
For some reason I keep forgetting that the electricity from the wall is pollution free, it does not come from burnt coal or nuclear reactors, nope , lalalalalalala
Many of you are forgetting that producing electricity at one central location is incredibly more efficient than having each car generate its own power from burning gasoline. Also by having the energy to power cars produced at that central power plant it is much easier to implement expensive "Clean" technologies at that one location than in each individual car
I agree with you. I can't remember the last time I saw a car have "Nuclear Reactor" listed in the standard equipment field.
WHY is California the only on testing them, isnt the rest of the U S A good enough for them to test the plug in vehicles
Come-on you know that the rest of the US simply follows CA in all things.
Because they are only testing 20 cars.
And no the rest of the USA is not good enough to test these.
In short, California rules and all the other states drool!
Ken, the reason they are being tested in ohio is that the goal of the test is to work with the large power company in southern california to understand the impact of Plug in Hybrid Electric Vehicles... Southern California Edison and Ford are working together so that someday the PHEVs can be sustainable...in a way that all electrics like EV1 were not. (no matter what the crazies say)
Wait a minute! I only see 4 peopel in that picture. Where are the other 16 hybrids? ;)
people
It's interesting that there' still confussion over some percieved shift in pollution that a move to electric vehicles could cause. I recently completed a short research paper for my college class on that very topic. What I found is that if you took gas burning cars off the road and replaced with with some sort of electric transportation, even though you're still using electricity, the actual amount of carbon dioxide and other pollutants released through generating the electricity required to move something X number of miles is far less than the amount of pollutants released by an internal combustion engine going over the same distance, on the order of 60-90 percent depending on total efficiency.
One big reason electric only cars never "took off" (pun slightly intended) is that your driving range was limited to your local area. Even if you placed charging centers everywhere, charging would take more than 5 minutes at the "pump!"
And, even if you had a system where you swapped out a spent battery for a charged one, building out the infrastructure would be Very expensive and complex.
I like very much the idea of electric first, your run out of juice... it switches to the hyprid. This seems like a very nice compromise!
The one question I have is how many miles per $ would get? Would it be cheaper than gas? More expensive? The same?
Man as my father in law would say "you guys would complain if hung with a new rope."
Yes it is too bad that it has taken us this long to finally get some electric vehicles mass produced. But at least things are finally starting to happen. This is a step in the right direction. And this car is much more advanced than the EV1. It can make long distance trips and can refuel at normal gas stations. Plus it is much larger, has more capacity, and is presumably much heavier than the EV1 was. My question is does this thing us Nickel or Li batteries?
Heh, if I'd have seen your comment before typing up my own I could have just said "I agree" and been done with it. ^_^
Why has nobody mentioned the fact that the 120mpg number is BULLPUCKEY! you can't actually go 1200 miles on 10 gallons of gas.
It won't use any less energy than a standard hybrid, it just shifts the energy source to your wall.
Its like the other plug in kits that you can put in prius's. The 120 miles is for the first gallon... For instance you go X miles on all electric, then Y miles for the first gallon when your on hybrid drive and you end up with 120mpg after that first gallon... well theoretically speaking.
Wrong. From the Wikipedia: The Gen 1 cars got 55 to 75 miles (90 to 120 km) per charge with the Delco-manufactured lead-acid batteries, 75 to 100 miles (120-to-160 km) with the Gen 2 Panasonic lead-acid batteries, and 75 to 150 miles (120 to 240 km) per charge with Gen 2 Ovonic nickel-metal hydride batteries. Recharging took as much as eight hours for a full charge (although one could get an 80% charge in two to three hours). The battery pack consisted of 26 12-volt lead-acid batteries holding 67.4 MJ (18.7 kWh) of energy or 26 13.2-volt nickel-metal hydride batteries which held 95.1 MJ (26.4 kWh) of energy.
I'd still rather have a Tesla.
Yeah, the EV-1 was a marvel, godsend, whatever, but you guys seem to be glossing over the fact that this is in fact innovation at work. This is a plug-in hybrid, not an all electric vehicle. Not only do you get the combustion engine to push you when you run out of juice, but the energy reclamation braking system as well. There have been advances necessary for this technology and those advances have taken time(Hybrid drivetrains, battery tech, etc). Though I'll be the first to admit that these technologies should have been the focus of study during and after the EV-1 production, the simple fact is that the big names figured that there wouldn't be any money in producing that type of vehicle.
Which would you buy, a 10k gas powered car or a 50k electric? It's called a business for a reason, they go where the money leads them.
But is she "sure"?
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2007/07/san-diego-gas-a.html
Saw one of these a month or so ago cruising around San Diego...
Hey Ford, bring back the Pinto and make it a plug-in!
Now when you hit it from behind it will explode with Lithium Ion juice instead of gas. Die green!
:o)
Does anybody else notice that pretty much any time something new comes out Engadget says something along the lines of "oh well we've already seen this before BUT" don't get me wrong I love Engadget but still, has everything already been done and only they know about it?
Simpsons did it!
I doubt the 120mgp is real. If so they would be eligible for the 100mpg X Prize http://www.xprize.org/news/automotive-x-prize-seeks-100-mpg-car
Welcome to the ... 90's? 70's? (19)00's? Nope. 1832. The first electric car. Hydrogen and oxygen were used in a combustion engine in 1807. This new fangled contraption is supposed to be a pilot program? Way to go Ford. I'm sure you feel so darn special living in the same year you started. Why even go with Edison? SoCal Costco's have plugin stations collecting dust already. This will end the same way the EV1 did as long as oil sticks around or under $100/barrel. Suck that big fat oil rig. Suck it, Detroit.
The Ford Escape is technically not an SUV, but a crossover.
It's built on a smaller frame that has more in common with a car, hence the really good better gas milage (I can get around 40mpg in city driving in my '08 Escape Hybrid).
I don't know about all states, but in Texas I don't believe it's considered a truck because of its smaller size. It sits about 2 feet lower than an Explorer, which is a true SUV.
Can somebody please explain to me why a plug-in car is a good idea period?
I don't know how many New York car owners have in-house garages, but I'd imagine there will be quite a lot of accidents from all the extension cords that travel from 4th floor appartments across 4 blocks to where their car is parked in front of a fire hydrant.
While I might prefer other vehicles, I'm stoked about this. Will there be better technology in the future - sure - is it one of the best practical options for right now - I think so. I'm hoping to see a lot more of this technology available in standard vehicles SOON!!!!
I have a beef with this-- And keep in mind I'm the guy who rides an electric bike 2/3 of the year.
My problem is that any time there's an electric car or hybrid being tested, they test it in SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA. Why not here in Michigan, where cars are (were) our economy, and they're completely necessary, and where the weather isn't perfect all year round? Wouldn't it be in their best interest to see how their car handles rain, sun, snow, ice, sleet, and other conditions that could potential affect not just the driving conditions, but the battery/fuel conditions as well? What the hell will they learn from southern California? That it works perfectly in ideal weather conditions?
Now, as to the whole SUV debate... My two cents is this: People don't *want* SUVs. They feel they need to have SUVs to maintain their social status among their peer group. SUVs are *rarely* used in off-road conditions, *rarely* used for cargo or large passenger loads, and tend to be driven by one person who uses the extra capacity perhaps once a week, if that. They could just as easily get a decent-sized sedan and accomplish their trips to the grocery store and soccer practice.
This is all about style over substance. Many people who drive SUVs also think they need to have brand names on their clothing in order to be accepted by their peer group. It's a status symbol, and little else.
And finally--- To those doubting the efficiency of electric (plug-in) versus fossil fuel, let me point out that it takes less electricity to power a motor directly than fossil fuel energy to power an engine indirectly. Of course, it all depends on what your community uses to produce electricity, but coal-powered electricity is actually a pretty direct fuel source compared to an internal combustion engine.
But some communities do use hydroelectric or wind power, and they save even more when it comes to carbon footprints. I'm a supporter of nuclear energy (I used to live in a town that had it, until it was shut down by paranoid people) because it's clean, extremely efficient, and the waste is nowhere near as dangerous and explosive as opponents would have you think... it's certainly less dangerous than gasoline, coal, or natural gas.
When it comes to electric vehicles, the community has a lot to do with how much the EVs will save the environment. If the community has a terrible, inefficient electric power plant, then the EV's impact will be negligible compared to one in a community with responsible, safe, renewable energy.
In my case, there's a personal benefit to riding an electric bike: I didn't have to pay for gasoline from April until early November. Not one drop. I paid electric bills, but the fifty cents per charge (getting me about 30 miles) was far easier to deal with than $3 a gallon, and my vehicle didn't produce any carbon emissions during this time. (Also, parking was a lot easier. I hate being back in the car, because I have to drive around looking for parking spaces when I go anywhere now.)
The Big Three are dragging their heels on electric, and have been for over 40 years. My father worked for GM, and there was talk of an electric car when he started there in the 60s. The technology is there NOW, even if it was wonky in the 60s (of course, we did go to the moon on 1960s tech, too, so I wonder.)
These people look like midgets, and the car still looks small.
According to Ford's specs this thing is capable of 34 mpg - probably only in the 2wd version. If it is anything like the 2005, which I own, it does 28 mpg (4wd) in the city and 27 mpg on the highway (during the summer months +70 F degree weather), the gas consumption is much worse in winter conditions (24mpg in 45 degrees F and below).
The engine itself does not run until the battery is depleted - the article is probably stating something out of a white paper and not actual use.
120 mpg in this thing is impossible. I do mostly city driving on streets less than 35 mph (the gas engine kicks in at 30 mph if you baby it) and I am very carefull to drive slow and watch my acceleration, the most I have gotten is 29.4 mpg.
Don't make another Pinto mistake. Please make this with large format nickel metal hydride batteries. Sue Chevron for sequestering and suppressing them just when we need them most. Nickel batteries made in the early 1900's still work today 100 years later. Short lived Lithium will be one big worthless brick I would not want to have to replace in my car. Don't make the transition from electric only mode unnoticeable. As a PHEV buyer I want to know when I begin to consume gas!