Ford delivers first of 20 plug-in hybrids in California

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.

[mike @ Dec 5th 2007 5:40PM]

We want to hear more news like this. Awesome.

[RC @ Dec 5th 2007 5:42PM]

I wish instead of plugging them in, they had giant batteries. Because that would make me feel tiny.

[Tim @ Dec 5th 2007 5:43PM]

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?

[Trent @ Dec 5th 2007 6:13PM]

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.

[Alexander @ Dec 5th 2007 6:34PM]

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.

[EatingPie @ Dec 5th 2007 7:09PM]

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

[Barry @ Dec 5th 2007 7:41PM]

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.

[Tom @ Dec 5th 2007 8:37PM]

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.

[dmdallas @ Dec 5th 2007 9:40PM]

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.

[Barry @ Dec 5th 2007 5:44PM]

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

[SUV-lovin' 'merican! @ Dec 5th 2007 6:01PM]

But could you drop off kids at soccer practice or get groceries in an EV1...? Progress!

[Barry @ Dec 5th 2007 7:35PM]

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.

[EatingPie @ Dec 5th 2007 7:18PM]

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

[Barry @ Dec 5th 2007 7:36PM]

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.

[EatingPie @ Dec 5th 2007 11:22PM]

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

[lettcco @ Dec 6th 2007 4:21AM]

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.

[videonevin @ Dec 5th 2007 5:53PM]

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

[Ig @ Dec 5th 2007 6:14PM]

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.

[Gerlinger, A @ Dec 5th 2007 6:26PM]

http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=5977085690337730430&hl=en

[Jamie @ Dec 5th 2007 5:55PM]

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?

[jonathan @ Dec 5th 2007 6:03PM]

Lexus LS, Lexus GS, Chevy Suburban, Lexus RX, Saturn Vue Green Line, Toyota Prius GenII, existing Ford Escape Hybrid...

[John Kubala @ Dec 5th 2007 5:58PM]

". . .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.

[Nilay Patel @ Dec 5th 2007 6:09PM]

The EV1 was all-electric, no?

[SFO Kevin @ Dec 5th 2007 6:02PM]

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?...

[Trent @ Dec 5th 2007 6:15PM]

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.

[letstakeawalk @ Dec 5th 2007 6:41PM]

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.

[Tom @ Dec 5th 2007 8:41PM]

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.

[Donnavon @ Dec 5th 2007 6:05PM]

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

[anonymous @ Dec 5th 2007 6:08PM]

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

[steve @ Dec 5th 2007 6:43PM]

I agree with you. I can't remember the last time I saw a car have "Nuclear Reactor" listed in the standard equipment field.

[ryan @ Dec 5th 2007 6:11PM]

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.

[rzlmlchm009 @ Dec 5th 2007 6:18PM]

Wait a minute! I only see 4 peopel in that picture. Where are the other 16 hybrids? ;)

[rzlmlchm009 @ Dec 5th 2007 6:18PM]

people

[shkolnick @ Dec 5th 2007 6:19PM]

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.

[Ken In Ohio @ Dec 5th 2007 6:19PM]

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

[roger_huston @ Dec 5th 2007 7:47PM]

Come-on you know that the rest of the US simply follows CA in all things.

[bjrcboy @ Dec 5th 2007 6:41PM]

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!

[Matthew @ Dec 5th 2007 7:30PM]

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)

[Orville Chomer @ Dec 5th 2007 6:24PM]

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?

[roger_huston @ Dec 5th 2007 6:25PM]

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

[Bean @ Dec 5th 2007 6:26PM]

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?

[Duo @ Dec 5th 2007 6:40PM]

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. ^_^

[John @ Dec 5th 2007 6:33PM]

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.

[bjrcboy @ Dec 5th 2007 6:45PM]

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.

[crescentdavid @ Dec 5th 2007 6:33PM]

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.

[R @ Dec 5th 2007 6:34PM]

I'd still rather have a Tesla.

[Duo @ Dec 5th 2007 6:37PM]

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.

[aoeu00 @ Dec 5th 2007 6:38PM]

But is she "sure"?

[Chris Bromley @ Dec 5th 2007 6:47PM]

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2007/07/san-diego-gas-a.html

Saw one of these a month or so ago cruising around San Diego...

[jasahl @ Dec 5th 2007 7:08PM]

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...