PRESS RELEASE:
NEW 74.2 MPG FORD FOCUS ECONETIC USES AUTO-START-STOP TO ACHIEVE 99G/KM CO2
- Next generation Focus ECOnetic with optional Ford Auto-Start-Stop targets 99g/km average CO2 emissions and 74.2mpg
- First Ford of Europe production model with new eco technologies including Ford Auto-Start-Stop, Smart Regenerative Charging, Ford Eco Mode and Low Tension FEAD (Front End Accessory Drive)
- Focus ECOnetic versions without Ford Auto-Start-Stop still achieve 104 g/km
- New Focus ECOnetic range available from early 2010
BRENTWOOD, Essex, 1st December, 2009 — The new 2010 Ford Focus ECOnetic takes a successful formula to the next level by combining new technology with clever details delivering the most fuel-efficient Focus to date.
Dedicated Ford Fiesta, Focus, Mondeo and Transit ECOnetic models have already established themselves as smart choices for customers prioritising low carbon motoring and high levels of fuel efficiency. Now, the next generation Focus ECOnetic changes the rules again, and introduces Ford of Europe’s first production application of the Ford Auto-Start-Stop system.
Efficient technology
The new Focus ECOnetic five-door, revealed at the 2009 IAA Frankfurt Motor Show in September, is available with a new optional Ford Auto-Start-Stop system that was previewed on the Ford iosis MAX Concept at the 2009 Geneva Motor Show.
Regardless of whether Auto-Start-Stop is specified, the Focus ECOnetic has Smart Regenerative Charging and Low Tension FEAD (Front End Accessory Drive) – technologies that are new to the Ford of Europe product line-up, and which combine to deliver lower emissions and better fuel efficiency and pave the way for future powertrains from the blue oval.
Power comes from Ford’s 109 PS (80 kW) 1.6-litre Duratorq TDCi engine with standard coated Diesel Particulate Filter (cDPF). Target average CO2 emissions for the Auto-Start-Stop equipped model are as low as 99g/km, with a combined fuel economy of 74.2mpg and 104g/km for the standard Focus ECOnetic.*
The new Focus ECOnetic is also the first vehicle to feature the new Ford Eco Mode system as standard. An all-new driver information system, Ford Eco Mode, helps to educate the driver to achieve improved real-world fuel economy.
“To achieve these impressive figures, we combined the proven approach of the original Focus ECOnetic with even more detail improvements and all-new technologies,” said Dr. Thilo Seibert, Manager CO2 Technologies for Ford of Europe. “The new Focus ECOnetic is particularly significant as it paves the way for some of these technologies to be implemented into our core vehicle series in the near future.”
Ford Auto-Start-Stop system
The new Focus ECOnetic five-door is the first European Ford to offer a new Ford
Auto-Start-Stop system, which combines automatic engine start-stop operation with smart regenerative charging and advanced battery management systems.
The Ford Auto-Start-Stop system automatically shuts down the engine when the vehicle is at idle – at a traffic light, for example – and restarts the engine when the driver wants to move off, saving the fuel wasted at idle.
The system can reduce fuel consumption and CO2 emissions by up to five per cent in mixed driving conditions. In an urban environment and in heavy traffic with frequent stops the savings could increase to as much as 10 per cent.
The advanced new Ford Auto-Start-Stop system has been carefully designed with customer convenience in mind, and to provide consistent starting and stopping performance that is smooth, quiet and seamless, requiring no changes in driver behaviour.
When the engine shuts down, the electronic control unit immediately prepares the engine’s systems for an instant restart. An integrated system of sensors is then used to detect when the driver performs an action that signals the intent to drive off, such as pressing the accelerator or clutch pedal.
As soon as the driver prepares to move away, the engine starts quietly and almost instantly; it only takes the system around 0.3sec to fire up the engine. The process is near imperceptible, and happens before gear selection is completed.
To support the increased number of engine starts, the starter motor is upgraded with a high performance electric motor and a stronger pinion-engagement mechanism with reduced noise levels.
Advanced battery technology is required to ensure the main vehicle battery copes with the frequent charge-discharge cycles common with stop-start operation.
Smart Regenerative Charging
The new Focus ECOnetic also uses advanced technologies to ensure that the battery is kept charged in the most efficient way.
A Smart Regenerative Charging system increases the alternator output when the vehicle brakes or decelerates. This converts the kinetic energy of the vehicle into electric energy without having to use additional fuel.
The ‘free’ electric current is used to recharge the battery, so that it can be used by the electrical systems at a later stage. This could be when the engine is switched off during a stop-phase, but can also be when the generator is operating in a less efficient mode.
The battery has an advanced management system that continually monitors its status and communicates with the Ford Auto-Start-Stop system, so that the regenerative charging feature can charge the battery in the optimal way. The start-stop system knows how much battery charge is available, so that it can leave the engine running if the battery does not have a sufficient level of charge.
Low Tension FEAD
It has always been an integral element of the Ford ECOnetic approach to monitor potential sources of friction and find innovative solutions to make everything work even more efficiently. The Low Tension FEAD (Front End Accessory Drive) technology is the latest example that reinforces this.
A newly designed alternator bracket and new belt pulley design enable the tension of the front end accessory drive belt to be lowered without causing issues that are normally related to drive belt slackness such as increased wear of the belt itself or the alternator bearings, as well as raised noise levels.
The benefit of these changes is clear: with the belt at a lower tension, friction in the entire system is reduced and less friction leads to reduced fuel consumption.
Improved Duratorq TDCi engine technology
For the Ford Duratorq 1.6-litre TDCi engine, new injectors were specified, while the intake system was revised and the exhaust system fitted with an oxygen sensor. The engine management system was recalibrated and a standard coated Diesel Particulate Filter (cDPF) was added. No additives are required for the filtering process.
Additionally, the gear ratios of the Ford Durashift five-speed manual gearbox have been revised, offering a longer ratio for third, fourth and fifth gears – bringing down engine revs and engine noise.
New Ford Eco Mode
The new Focus ECOnetic also extends its attention to the human factor.
Drivers of the new Ford Focus ECOnetic will not only benefit from new technology hardware addressing lower fuel consumption, but also the introduction of smart, driver-focused software.
“At Ford we have a great deal of experience in the techniques of ‘eco-driving’ used to achieve maximum real-world fuel economy,” Dr. Seibert explained. “The new Ford Eco Mode system is a new software application that is added to the instrument cluster to give the driver useable and realistic eco-driving advice.”
This system monitors major parameters relevant for optimal fuel consumption that can actively be influenced by altering driving behaviour. These parameters include gear shifting, anticipation (driving as consistently and smoothly as possible) and motorway driving (driving with the most efficient speed on motorways and country roads). In addition the system considers the percentage of cold-engine short trips.
As a result of this monitoring process, Ford Eco Mode generates a driver profile with a scoring scheme for these driving parameters, and offers information on how to improve fuel economy over time. This ongoing process can be translated into driver advice that can help make the best of the vehicle’s technology.
“Ford Eco Mode really helps you to become an eco-driver,” Dr. Seibert noted. “We have been amazed by the positive feedback on the system by customers in early tests. Customers have told us that they actively enjoyed exploring a new and very contemporary discipline: saving fuel!”
The Ford ECOnetic experience
The new technologies added to the second generation Ford Focus ECOnetic complement and add to the original model’s fuel-saving features.
To improve aerodynamics, the Focus ECOnetic is lowered by 10mm at the front and 8mm at the rear, while the outer areas of the lower grille are fitted with blanking plates on the inside surface which contribute to the vehicle’s favourable cd (coefficient of drag) of 0.31. The car takes full advantage of latest generation Michelin Energy Saver 195/65R15 tyres to lower rolling resistance.
A further measure to reduce friction continued from the original Focus ECOnetic, is the use of low-viscosity transmission oil developed by Ford’s energy partner BP. The benefits of using this oil on Focus ECOnetic were immediately clear, so Ford subsequently introduced it as the standard transmission oil for all of the company’s core C- and CD-segment passenger cars fitted with manual transmission and dual-mass flywheel.
The reduction in energy consumption is combined with the efficiency of the Focus EHPAS (Electro-Hydraulic Power Assisted Steering) system and underlines the fact that minor changes can produce a major fuel consumption benefit. By re-calibrating the no-load performance of the electric servo pump, energy consumption was reduced sufficiently to provide a noticeable reduction in fuel consumption.
The versatile alternative: New 104g/km Focus ECOnetic
In order to offer even greater versatility to cost-conscious ECOnetic customers, Ford is also launching additional five-door and estate versions of the new Focus ECOnetic without the integrated Ford Auto-Start-Stop system.
Available with Ford’s 1.6-litre Duratorq TDCi engine with standard coated Diesel Particulate Filter (cDPF) in both 90PS and 109PS power ratings and in a choice of five-door and estate bodystyles, these versions offer the full range of the latest Focus ECOnetic technology, with the single exception of the start-stop functionality.
Even without Ford Auto-Start-Stop, average CO2 emissions are a low 104g/km and target average fuel consumption is 70.6mpg*.
“From the very beginning of Ford’s ECOnetic approach it has been our clear intention to offer our customers affordable eco-technology, and to also pave the way for the possible integration of these technologies into the core vehicle programmes,” Dr. Seibert concludes. “With its new comprehensive set-up, the new Focus ECOnetic offers exactly what it takes: versatility, latest level technology and – regardless of version – excellent CO2 and fuel economy figures.”
*Note: Fuel economy figures quoted are based on the European Fuel Economy Directive
EU 80/1268/EEC and will differ from fuel economy drive cycle results in other regions of the world. Data relates to 5-dr Focus bodystyle.
Image: Ford
Source: Autoblog Green
PDF Pages: 1 2
About Susan Kraemer
“As much as Kyoto changed Europe, Copenhagen could change America.”
I don’t know if I’d count on that. Cap and Trade is currently stalled in the Senate and looks to be unable to get enough votes to overcome a filibuster. Any Democratic Senator from a state that has coal, oil and/or natural gas industries is understandably going to vote against it.
The Climategate emails are not going to help either. While not the “smoking gun proof that AGW is a hoax” that the right wing makes it out to be, to an objective reader, it definitely shows some disturbing collusion to silence dissenting hypotheses. They also deleted the raw temp data and only kept the “value added” data. That looks terribly suspicious. The mainstream media isn’t covering it, but covering their eyes and ears while shouting “LA, LA, LA,…”, isn’t going to make this go away. I guarantee it’s going to be one of the centerpieces of the 2010 and 2012 elections.
“As much as Kyoto changed Europe, Copenhagen could change America.”
I don’t know if I’d count on that. Cap and Trade is currently stalled in the Senate and looks to be unable to get enough votes to overcome a filibuster. Any Democratic Senator from a state that has coal, oil and/or natural gas industries is understandably going to vote against it.
The Climategate emails are not going to help either. While not the “smoking gun proof that AGW is a hoax” that the right wing makes it out to be, to an objective reader, it definitely shows some disturbing collusion to silence dissenting hypotheses. They also deleted the raw temp data and only kept the “value added” data. That looks terribly suspicious. The mainstream media isn’t covering it, but covering their eyes and ears while shouting “LA, LA, LA,…”, isn’t going to make this go away. I guarantee it’s going to be one of the centerpieces of the 2010 and 2012 elections.
That’s 62-mpg on the EU test cycle. Put the same vehicle through the EPA’s US test cycle and I guarantee it will not come close to 62-mpg. It’s the same smoke and mirrors that allow the Prius to get such ridiculously high mileage ratings in Japan.
You like to ignore the regulatory differences between the US and Europe in terms of safety standards, etc. but they are very important when designing a vehicle. Why is it, for instance, that only about 60% of the parts are common between the European and US Ford ‘Fiesta’? Part of that is market driven, but a large part of that is also driven by more stringent regulations designed to benefit the consumer.
These regulations are in place for a reason. Perhaps you should do some more research before declaring that the US consumer is somehow being cheated. Miles-per-gallon is not the only measure to be considered when comparing European and US-spec vehicles.
That’s 62-mpg on the EU test cycle. Put the same vehicle through the EPA’s US test cycle and I guarantee it will not come close to 62-mpg. It’s the same smoke and mirrors that allow the Prius to get such ridiculously high mileage ratings in Japan.
You like to ignore the regulatory differences between the US and Europe in terms of safety standards, etc. but they are very important when designing a vehicle. Why is it, for instance, that only about 60% of the parts are common between the European and US Ford ‘Fiesta’? Part of that is market driven, but a large part of that is also driven by more stringent regulations designed to benefit the consumer.
These regulations are in place for a reason. Perhaps you should do some more research before declaring that the US consumer is somehow being cheated. Miles-per-gallon is not the only measure to be considered when comparing European and US-spec vehicles.
Actually, Captain, that is 62 MPG in the US. If you read the press release, you’ll see that the European mileage is 74 MPG. Generally you see a 15% drop in mileage numbers when converting from European to US—hence the 62 MPG number.
So, while your rant is accurate, your assumptions are wrong.
Climate legislation has been filibustered and stalled for years, by all but 4 Republicans: Collins and Snowe of 55% renewably powered Maine, and (till replaced by D’s last year: Smith(OR) and Coleman(MN)).
Now that there are fewer Senate Republicans, only 40%, there is a better chance. Two or three Democrats could stall legislation too, but we are closer than in 20 years to getting good renewable energy legislation passed with about 59 pro renewable energy votes.
US Fossil funding of congress has been the real problem preventing action. http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=E01
They don’t allow that in Europe.
On the email drama: more tactics by Senator Inhofe’s Marc Morano (Swiftboater at NewsMax). They have been hounding all climate science for a decade, because fossil companies stand to lose if AGW climate change is true.
Look at Inhofe’s fossil funding in that link, and you see the motive to delay action with new tactics (email hack revelation) right before Copenhagen. The previous tactic was “China and India won’t act so why should we”.
Look at it logically:
1. If the world switched to renewable energy, fossil companies would lose money.
2. Conversely, spending 30 years proving AGW would be an extremely roundabout and expensive way for Al Gore to score some investment gains: much easier to invest in traditional energy, than first change the way the entire civilization gets energy, then roll in the dough.
Climate legislation has been filibustered and stalled for years, by all but 4 Republicans: Collins and Snowe of 55% renewably powered Maine, and (till replaced by D’s last year: Smith(OR) and Coleman(MN)).
Now that there are fewer Senate Republicans, only 40%, there is a better chance. Two or three Democrats could stall legislation too, but we are closer than in 20 years to getting good renewable energy legislation passed with about 59 pro renewable energy votes.
US Fossil funding of congress has been the real problem preventing action. http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=E01
They don’t allow that in Europe.
On the email drama: more tactics by Senator Inhofe’s Marc Morano (Swiftboater at NewsMax). They have been hounding all climate science for a decade, because fossil companies stand to lose if AGW climate change is true.
Look at Inhofe’s fossil funding in that link, and you see the motive to delay action with new tactics (email hack revelation) right before Copenhagen. The previous tactic was “China and India won’t act so why should we”.
Look at it logically:
1. If the world switched to renewable energy, fossil companies would lose money.
2. Conversely, spending 30 years proving AGW would be an extremely roundabout and expensive way for Al Gore to score some investment gains: much easier to invest in traditional energy, than first change the way the entire civilization gets energy, then roll in the dough.
Doesn’t anyone wonder what the point these special restrictions the US has that keeps out these innovations?
Why do we have these restrictions? What is the logic?
Is this because we are backwards or is this because we are forward thinking in a way I don’t understand?
Doesn’t anyone wonder what the point these special restrictions the US has that keeps out these innovations?
Why do we have these restrictions? What is the logic?
Is this because we are backwards or is this because we are forward thinking in a way I don’t understand?
I think that Bob is onto the right question. Do the British have more lax NOx standards than US-CARB?
Also, weight plays a big factor in gas mileage. If the cars are lighter but Americans won’t buy them because they’ll have to roll up the windows manually (gasp!), those cars will just sit on the lot, unsold, getting indeterminant mpg.
I think that Bob is onto the right question. Do the British have more lax NOx standards than US-CARB?
Also, weight plays a big factor in gas mileage. If the cars are lighter but Americans won’t buy them because they’ll have to roll up the windows manually (gasp!), those cars will just sit on the lot, unsold, getting indeterminant mpg.
I think that Bob is onto the right question. Do the British have more lax NOx standards than US-CARB?
Also, weight plays a big factor in gas mileage. If the cars are lighter but Americans won’t buy them because they’ll have to roll up the windows manually (gasp!), those cars will just sit on the lot, unsold, getting indeterminant mpg.
“On the email drama: more tactics by Senator Inhofe’s Marc Morano (Swiftboater at NewsMax). They have been hounding all climate science for a decade, because fossil companies stand to lose if AGW climate change is true. ”
Can we please try to be intellectually honest? Climategate is not some tactic cooked up by Inhofe.
The researchers at CRU confirm that the emails are indeed theirs and that they have deleted the raw temperature data. Phil Jones stepped down from his post and there is now an investigation underway (in the UK) of all this.
There are plenty of other reasons to promote energy conservation. If the emails plus the lack of warming over the past decade of the earth’s highest CO2 output ever don’t at least give you pause, then you should consider whether AGW has become a religion for you.
“On the email drama: more tactics by Senator Inhofe’s Marc Morano (Swiftboater at NewsMax). They have been hounding all climate science for a decade, because fossil companies stand to lose if AGW climate change is true. ”
Can we please try to be intellectually honest? Climategate is not some tactic cooked up by Inhofe.
The researchers at CRU confirm that the emails are indeed theirs and that they have deleted the raw temperature data. Phil Jones stepped down from his post and there is now an investigation underway (in the UK) of all this.
There are plenty of other reasons to promote energy conservation. If the emails plus the lack of warming over the past decade of the earth’s highest CO2 output ever don’t at least give you pause, then you should consider whether AGW has become a religion for you.
True, the climate data manipulation at this organization is incredibly disturbing and should be investigated.
That being said… that particular evidence is a drop in the bucket compared to the overwhelming evidence of climate change from countless other scientific sources.
Is sea level data being manipulated? Ice cap reduction falcified? Glacial melt a hoax? I think not.
It’s unfortunate that a few scientists’ shoddy work should cast doubt on the otherwise staggering evidence.
Or is it more unfortunate that people still cannot see through the tactics used by the likes of Senator Inhofe? Or that we as Americans actually elect people like this to represent us?
True, the climate data manipulation at this organization is incredibly disturbing and should be investigated.
That being said… that particular evidence is a drop in the bucket compared to the overwhelming evidence of climate change from countless other scientific sources.
Is sea level data being manipulated? Ice cap reduction falcified? Glacial melt a hoax? I think not.
It’s unfortunate that a few scientists’ shoddy work should cast doubt on the otherwise staggering evidence.
Or is it more unfortunate that people still cannot see through the tactics used by the likes of Senator Inhofe? Or that we as Americans actually elect people like this to represent us?
True, the climate data manipulation at this organization is incredibly disturbing and should be investigated.
That being said… that particular evidence is a drop in the bucket compared to the overwhelming evidence of climate change from countless other scientific sources.
Is sea level data being manipulated? Ice cap reduction falcified? Glacial melt a hoax? I think not.
It’s unfortunate that a few scientists’ shoddy work should cast doubt on the otherwise staggering evidence.
Or is it more unfortunate that people still cannot see through the tactics used by the likes of Senator Inhofe? Or that we as Americans actually elect people like this to represent us?
I guess American cars still have low mileage because there are no incentives for energy efficient cars in America.
the United States nearly don’t tax gasoline compared to other OECD nations with less than ten euro cents of taxes per litre when France, Germany and many other pay as much as 60 euro cents per litre.
Since gas is much more expansive in Europe cars are much more efficient.
I believe that if America added a one dollar per gallon tax cars people would want much more efficient cars and the US government could fund cleantech projects as massively as it should to avoid problems inherent to both peak oil and climate change.
For more on that, please check out this article :
http://blog.cleantechies.com/2009/10/19/could-america-tax-gasoline-more-and-fund-clean-tech/
I guess American cars still have low mileage because there are no incentives for energy efficient cars in America.
the United States nearly don’t tax gasoline compared to other OECD nations with less than ten euro cents of taxes per litre when France, Germany and many other pay as much as 60 euro cents per litre.
Since gas is much more expansive in Europe cars are much more efficient.
I believe that if America added a one dollar per gallon tax cars people would want much more efficient cars and the US government could fund cleantech projects as massively as it should to avoid problems inherent to both peak oil and climate change.
For more on that, please check out this article :
http://blog.cleantechies.com/2009/10/19/could-america-tax-gasoline-more-and-fund-clean-tech/
Tim, so, you have kept all your paper docs from the 1950′s, 1960′s, 1970′s and 1980′s – even after transfering all the data into computers.
The emails at one site, even going back decades, haven’t revealed anything to change all the thousands of records from scientists around the world showing the evidence of climate change.
If anything they reveal the level of persistent attack by the fossil energy delayer industry, through their front groups, for decades.
Tim, so, you have kept all your paper docs from the 1950′s, 1960′s, 1970′s and 1980′s – even after transfering all the data into computers.
The emails at one site, even going back decades, haven’t revealed anything to change all the thousands of records from scientists around the world showing the evidence of climate change.
If anything they reveal the level of persistent attack by the fossil energy delayer industry, through their front groups, for decades.
Tim, so, you have kept all your paper docs from the 1950′s, 1960′s, 1970′s and 1980′s – even after transfering all the data into computers.
The emails at one site, even going back decades, haven’t revealed anything to change all the thousands of records from scientists around the world showing the evidence of climate change.
If anything they reveal the level of persistent attack by the fossil energy delayer industry, through their front groups, for decades.
But they didn’t just delete the original data after transferring it to a computer, they first changed the data (i.e. calling it “value added”) then deleted the original data.
It’s not that this is just one group that was caught, this is THE MAIN group of climate scientists. They have a direct line to the IPCC. They are to climate science what Neils Bohr, Wolfgang Pauli, Albert Einstein, Werner Heisenberg, Paul Dirac, etc. were to quantum physics. It’s very disturbing.
Note, I’m not claiming that AGW is itself a hoax. My own belief is that the urgency of AGW is the hoax. If you’d have polled all the climate science community back in 2000 to estimate what the sea level rise would be by 2010 if we did nothing and China’s and India’s economies crew by 8-12% per year (which, of course, turned out to be the case) my guess is that you’d have gotten an average estimate somewhere in the 1 to 10 ft range.
Well, it turns out that the real number is somewhere between 2 to 3 centimeters or approximately 1 inch.
And don’t think there isn’t plenty of money to made on the promotion of AGW as a catastrophe in waiting. Al Gore has sold books, made a movie, won the Nobel Prize ($1.4 million), and he makes a bundle charging for his speeches.
But they didn’t just delete the original data after transferring it to a computer, they first changed the data (i.e. calling it “value added”) then deleted the original data.
It’s not that this is just one group that was caught, this is THE MAIN group of climate scientists. They have a direct line to the IPCC. They are to climate science what Neils Bohr, Wolfgang Pauli, Albert Einstein, Werner Heisenberg, Paul Dirac, etc. were to quantum physics. It’s very disturbing.
Note, I’m not claiming that AGW is itself a hoax. My own belief is that the urgency of AGW is the hoax. If you’d have polled all the climate science community back in 2000 to estimate what the sea level rise would be by 2010 if we did nothing and China’s and India’s economies crew by 8-12% per year (which, of course, turned out to be the case) my guess is that you’d have gotten an average estimate somewhere in the 1 to 10 ft range.
Well, it turns out that the real number is somewhere between 2 to 3 centimeters or approximately 1 inch.
And don’t think there isn’t plenty of money to made on the promotion of AGW as a catastrophe in waiting. Al Gore has sold books, made a movie, won the Nobel Prize ($1.4 million), and he makes a bundle charging for his speeches.
But they didn’t just delete the original data after transferring it to a computer, they first changed the data (i.e. calling it “value added”) then deleted the original data.
It’s not that this is just one group that was caught, this is THE MAIN group of climate scientists. They have a direct line to the IPCC. They are to climate science what Neils Bohr, Wolfgang Pauli, Albert Einstein, Werner Heisenberg, Paul Dirac, etc. were to quantum physics. It’s very disturbing.
Note, I’m not claiming that AGW is itself a hoax. My own belief is that the urgency of AGW is the hoax. If you’d have polled all the climate science community back in 2000 to estimate what the sea level rise would be by 2010 if we did nothing and China’s and India’s economies crew by 8-12% per year (which, of course, turned out to be the case) my guess is that you’d have gotten an average estimate somewhere in the 1 to 10 ft range.
Well, it turns out that the real number is somewhere between 2 to 3 centimeters or approximately 1 inch.
And don’t think there isn’t plenty of money to made on the promotion of AGW as a catastrophe in waiting. Al Gore has sold books, made a movie, won the Nobel Prize ($1.4 million), and he makes a bundle charging for his speeches.
” Why doesn’t Ford make cars like that here? ”
The interesting thing about this innovation
is that it is NOT a hybrid . They use the regenerative braking to charge the battery
instead of having the alternator put a heavy
drag on the engine .
Apparently they have reduced the amount of alternator drag on the engine .
But if the battery needs extra charge , the engine will stay idling when the car is stopped .
These changes could be done to a gasoline engine car too . I expect this would work well for city driving but mileage would not be improved on the highway especially with lights on , A/C on etc . Perhaps this is the answer to the above question .
I expect that Americans do a lot of highway driving at night with the A/C on ; Europeans less so .
Thus this car would not be as useful for
American style driving .
” Why doesn’t Ford make cars like that here? ”
The interesting thing about this innovation
is that it is NOT a hybrid . They use the regenerative braking to charge the battery
instead of having the alternator put a heavy
drag on the engine .
Apparently they have reduced the amount of alternator drag on the engine .
But if the battery needs extra charge , the engine will stay idling when the car is stopped .
These changes could be done to a gasoline engine car too . I expect this would work well for city driving but mileage would not be improved on the highway especially with lights on , A/C on etc . Perhaps this is the answer to the above question .
I expect that Americans do a lot of highway driving at night with the A/C on ; Europeans less so .
Thus this car would not be as useful for
American style driving .
” Why doesn’t Ford make cars like that here? ”
The interesting thing about this innovation
is that it is NOT a hybrid . They use the regenerative braking to charge the battery
instead of having the alternator put a heavy
drag on the engine .
Apparently they have reduced the amount of alternator drag on the engine .
But if the battery needs extra charge , the engine will stay idling when the car is stopped .
These changes could be done to a gasoline engine car too . I expect this would work well for city driving but mileage would not be improved on the highway especially with lights on , A/C on etc . Perhaps this is the answer to the above question .
I expect that Americans do a lot of highway driving at night with the A/C on ; Europeans less so .
Thus this car would not be as useful for
American style driving .
The Prius is rated at 60.3 MPG in the european official test. So the Focus looks better, but that’s with diesel fuel which has a slightly higher carbon content than gasoline. I haven’t driven that Focus, but I’m pretty sure the Prius is a nicer drive in city driving with a more educated drivetrain. The Focus has a manual and can only compare on the highway.
The Prius is rated at 60.3 MPG in the european official test. So the Focus looks better, but that’s with diesel fuel which has a slightly higher carbon content than gasoline. I haven’t driven that Focus, but I’m pretty sure the Prius is a nicer drive in city driving with a more educated drivetrain. The Focus has a manual and can only compare on the highway.
The Prius is rated at 60.3 MPG in the european official test. So the Focus looks better, but that’s with diesel fuel which has a slightly higher carbon content than gasoline. I haven’t driven that Focus, but I’m pretty sure the Prius is a nicer drive in city driving with a more educated drivetrain. The Focus has a manual and can only compare on the highway.
Yes but it probably won’t pull my boat.
Yes but it probably won’t pull my boat.
Yes but it probably won’t pull my boat.
Explaining this on the basis of the Kyoto agreement is wrong. They may have signed the agreement, but when I lived in Ireland for several years none of the European countries were even making a halfhearted attempt to meet what they agreed to.