All week the Ford auto company PR people have been bugging us to attend their forum on sustainability at the Governor’s Hotel today. In a plan that sounded both dubious and hilarious, the company offered a free catered meal and an in-depth discussion of their “groundbreaking” Eco-Boost Engine. I decided to bring along Ivan Maluski, conservation coordinator of the Oregon Sierra Club as backup.
Because, look, while it’s laughable to see big companies pander to liberal-minded customers with marketing phrases like “Eco-Boost Engine,” I definitely think the way to improve America’s impact on the environment is by having major companies like Ford change the way they design cars because they know it’s a smart idea rather than under the duress of government regulations. And since Portland is the most hybrid-heavy city in America, per capita, this is the place for car companies to pitch their most progressive ideas, right? So I was up for hearing Ford’s spiel, but I’m glad Maluski was there to help me cull the legit improvements from the greenwashing bullshit.
Well, Ford fell flat. While their business plan for the next 30 years makes some good minor improvements and yeah, the “Eco-Boost Engine” reduces CO2 emissions and ups MPG slightly, the company’s still into selling Americans big SUVs and trucks. All in all, these changes are just a way for owners of fat luxury cars to feel like they’re “green”, too.
Even the sustainability forum lunch itself was unsustainable: no vegetarian options on the posh catered menu. While waiters floated silently around the wood-paneled room with plates of rib-eye steak and Tilapia, one of Ford R&D directors Dan Kapp ran through a Powerpoint of Ford’s less-harmful new cars. The discussion on this is jargon crazy. Here’s an excerpt from the press release:
Ford’s 3.5 Liter EcoBoost V-6, for example, can deliver upwards of 340-plus lb.-ft of torque across a wide engine range — 2,000 to 5,000 rpm versus 270 to 310 lb. ft. of torque for a conventionally aspirated 4.6-liter v-8 over the same speed range.
uh, what? Oh, wait, the new engine improves fuel economy of trucks and SUVs 10-15 percent? That means only 2-3 more MPG than conventional models. That’s not good enough! That’s not pioneering real new, useful technology, that’s spending tons of money to try and make really inefficient SUVs into slightly less inefficient SUVs.
While Ford presented a couple decent SUVs like the Escape and Mariner with 20-30 mpg, some of the cars on their pro-environment plate are obviously not helping the world. Check out the fatty 2009 Ford Flex which offers “unsurpassed fuel economy among 7-passenger vehicles”:
17 MPG: Ford’s Green Monster
“You can definitely affect the market by what you put into it,” noted Maluski, after he and I had ducked outside to freedom before the forum officially finished. That’s what other environmentalists think, too. “We don’t need a whole bunch of new technology,” said Eric de Place, who writes about Eco-engines and their ilk for the Northwest Sightline Institute, “What they really need to do is stop selling F-350s.” While hybrid sales are on the rise and SUV sales plunging, Ford still says way more inefficient dinosaur cars than low-MPG ones. After eating cheesecake on Ford’s advertising dollar, I’m definitely with de Place.
“I definitely think the way to improve America’s impact on the environment is by having major companies like Ford change the way they design cars because they know it’s a smart idea rather than under the duress of government regulations.”
well that conclusion is pretty stupid. anyone that knows even econ 101 could tell you that the market fails all the time. especially when it comes to negative externalities like pollution/environmental damage.
the way to improve America’s impact on the environment is by leaving these decisions out of the hands of ideologues such as yourself.
zing!
As aa clearly demonstrates, the average American consumer is a self-absorbed, middle-class dingbat incapable of doing something for the good on humanity without the government forcing them into it.
And I agree! Wholeheartedly!
Sometimes consumers don’t force companies to change as quickly as I’d like them too, either, aa, and I think government should incentivize products and policies that make for good clean living. But I don’t think the current antagonism between businesses and environmentalists is very productive. Instead of environmentalists lobbying governments to force businesses to change and businesses seeing environmental policies as costly burdens, it would be way better if companies like Ford would work with environment-minded designers to make cars BETTER than any standards that could be shoved through the government.
With the market being pretty hot right now for anything “green” this is a chance for Ford to make that leap into real exciting environmental design and I think they missed it.
The fastest an auto company can respond to the market with a new car is three to five years, not three to five months. GM and Ford are bringing car designs from the Europe operations, but that still takes several years — if they don’t go bankrupt, first.
wait a minute, maybe I’m missing something, but when you said:
” Ford’s 3.5 Liter EcoBoost V-6, for example, can deliver upwards of 340-plus lb.-ft of torque across a wide engine range — 2,000 to 5,000 rpm versus 270 to 310 lb. ft. of torque for a conventionally aspirated 4.6-liter v-8 over the same speed range.
uh, what? Oh, wait, the new engine improves fuel economy of trucks and SUVs 10-15 percent? That means only 2-3 more MPG than conventional models.”
It looks like you confused torque with fuel economy. What those statistics seem to indicate is that you get more torque with the new motor despite it being significantly smaller in size. Your statement about only being 10-15% more efficient seems off because the two motors compared were of different sizes. The displacement of the newer motor is 3.5 liter while the displacement of the old motor they compare it to is 4.6 liter. The smaller displacement motor should use a lot less gas to get the increased torque over the big V8. Also, efficiency is all about power to weight ratio. A 3.5 Liter V6 should weigh a lot less than the 4.6 V8; which would reduce the overall weight of the car it’s trying to move.
The statement you took from ford is about performance, and the numbers they provide say nothing about efficiency, other than suggesting they’ve found a way to get more power out of less motor, which is good.
If I’m wrong, can someone please explain what I’m not getting?
ok, I did a little research on the ecoboost technology in one of fords most popular suv’s; the explorer. The 2008 explorer gets 13 city/19 highway. According to ford, the replacement ecoboost motor should add 5 mpg to that, and reduce weight by 150-200 pounds. 5 mpg might not sound huge when you’re thinking about some of the more efficient cars out there, but it’s 26-38% better efficiency when you’re talking about explorer.
Ford is also planning on making smaller ecoboost motors to replace the engines in their smaller cars as well, which should probably make a bigger difference.
It’s also an easier sell than hybrids because the extra cost for this technology is estimated to pay for itself in gas savings in about 2.5 years, compared to much longer to offset the high cost of the hybrid options.
Also, the introduction of this technology could later lead to a more efficient gas motor for future hybrids, taking a good thing and making it better.
I wouldn’t be so quick to knock the technology, it sounds like a step in the right direction.
ok, I did a little research on the ecoboost technology in one of fords most popular suv’s; the explorer. The 2008 explorer gets 13 city/19 highway. According to ford, the replacement ecoboost motor should add 5 mpg to that, and reduce weight by 150-200 pounds. 5 mpg might not sound huge when you’re thinking about some of the more efficient cars out there, but it’s 26-38% better efficiency when you’re talking about explorer.
Ford is also planning on making smaller ecoboost motors to replace the engines in their smaller cars as well, which should probably make a bigger difference.
It’s also an easier sell than hybrids because the extra cost for this technology is estimated to pay for itself in gas savings in about 2.5 years, compared to much longer to offset the high cost of the hybrid options.
Also, the introduction of this technology could later lead to a more efficient gas motor for future hybrids, taking a good thing and making it better.
I wouldn’t be so quick to knock the technology, it sounds like a step in the right direction.
Very cool to spy. But it sounds like you’re mad at the consumer and not at Ford. Sounds like they’re doing a lot to offer better cars that people can afford without the extra $3-4k that expensive battery hybrids cost that most of us can’t afford. Plus I looked online – Ford is selling out of all the Focus’s they can sell – they get like 34 mpg – and they’re switching over to make as many as possible while cutting their truck production.
If Hybrids are outselling SUVs, then exactly how is the free market not working?
On another note, my Honda Odyssey gets 27 MPG because it can run on 3 of 6 cylinders whilst on the highway. This is a 6,000 lb vehicle used to transport my family. Tell me why US automakers are even still in business. My only explanation is the middle America is full of fucking morons.
While I think improving engine technology is a must, I wish we could ease up on safety standards. I drive a 91 honda crx hf. It’s a 17 yr. old car with 213,000 miles on it that still gets over 40 mpg in the city and over 50 mpg on the freeway… because it doesn’t have heavy extra stuff like airbags. It’s still safer than a motorcycle, but car manufacturers can’t build them that light anymore because they’re not “safe enough”. I think consumers should have the option to risk driving a no frills car for that kind of fuel economy. Good thing there are still plenty of used ones on the road I guess. For around $2000, you can drive a gas that rivals the prius at the pump.
you fucking tree huggers such as the author and gripeboy are soooo out of touch with the rest of us. Although I’m sure you could care less, but did you know that there is an entire economy in the fucking moronville that is middle America. Thanks to the libs on the coasts, we are transferring hundreds of billions of dollars each year of our wealth to evil countries because we are not allowed to use our own resources that are already here. Wake up and smell the coffee as we are becoming a 3rde world debtor country. I know I know its Bush’s fault that fuel was up 50% in the first 6 years of his office, but what about the 120% increase in the 2 years the dems have had both houses? Amen to the Big 3 for finally waking up and trying to make these improvements (albeit maybe a little late for one of them). You idiot left coasters seem to be ignorant to the fact that millions of jobs are on the line here.
This green movement is so overplayed.
Guess what!
The world won’t implode tomorrow or even fifty years from now if you don’t change all your light bulbs to halogen, recycle every beer bottle, ride a bike everywhere and shop with one of those lame ass reusable bags. Really, get over yourselves. This world will do what it’s going to do regardless of your menial ass daily activities.
Holy shit, when will this fad pass? I’m guessing within a year or so.
This idea that getting better gas mileage will help clean up cars is bullshit.
The key is to burn the gas better. The Nissan GT-R is a ULEV (Ultra Low Emissions Vehicle) and it is a freaking SUPER CAR! The key isn’t to burn less or more gas, but to burn it clean.
Hybrids on the other hand just add one more massively BAD element to the picture. A battery that has a massive energy cost to make and dispose of (if done properly). I’d hate to think of even one of those batteries and the acid being dumped into a river or water supply. An entire engine block of a V8 would be less of an impact than that single little battery.
Hopefully, one day, people will start to realize this. About the time the obsessiveness with gas mileage clicks in peoples heads that it has nothing to do with environmental cleanliness, we’ll have a new or different cleaner energy source anyway. 🙂