Speaking at the Los Angeles Auto Show, Ford (NYSE: F) CEO Alan Mulally said the automaker is committed to improving miles per gallon efficiency and reducing emissions via implementing technological advances.And the technological advances Ford's looking to incorporate to help stabilize its market share? Direct fuel injection, smaller-cylinder engines with turbo charges, lighter weight materials, hybrids, and diesels, among others. Moreover, Mulally said Ford's goal will be to increase fuel economy without sacrificing engine performance or auto safety. Ford's shares drifted three cents lower to $7.95 in Thursday afternoon trading.
In general, analysts were encouraged by Ford's presentation, despite the company's lack of a time-table for efficiency improvements or announcement of changes to specific vehicle models, other than a promise to apply diesel fuel and technology to improve the mpg of its popular but fuel-guzzling F-150 pickups.
MPG and emissions
Further, the initial read of analysts suggests that auto reviews will cut Ford some slack regarding mileage and emissions improvements -- in part because it is Ford's first systematic effort to regain competitiveness versus Asian and European imports, and in part because the technologies hold considerable promise.
For example, turbochargers have the advantage of being used only when needed, as when a driver accelerates rapidly. The turbo, when combined with smaller cylinders, can reduce fuel consumption in typical driving conditions. However, turbos often require premium fuel, so any fuel savings will have to compensate for the higher fuel price.
In addition, lighter-weight materials and assembly plans that substantially reduce weight have the capacity to increase fuel economy by eye-opening amounts.
Meanwhile, diesel technology, which can increase fuel efficiency by 20%-35% compared to comparably-sized gasoline engines, is being viewed by analysts as a bridge, for some models, until Ford figures out its long-term, new engine technology strategy: hybrid, electric, or fuel cell. None of the latter technologies has advanced to the point where the tech could be deployed profitably on a mass scale, involving tens of millions of vehicles.
The prognosis?
Finally, part of analysts' mild treatment of Ford can perhaps be attributed to concerns about the global economy's continued expansion, the panorama of auto competitors, and the sheer magnitude of Ford's task. To say these are not heady times for Ford would be putting it diplomatically. Very diplomatically.
All of which begs the legitimate (and possibly foreboding) question that, given the undeniable realities of the global auto market, will Ford's new engines and technologies be a day late, and a dollar short?
Nuclear power is on the comeback trail
Apple backs AT&T in continuing spat with Verizon
Closing Bell: The recession is still over, still... do you feel it?
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
11-15-2007 @ 3:20PM
jpdr1100 said...
The use of direct fuel injection and turbocharging is not new. Audi and VW have been using it for several years now. It can make for pleasant engines, but its boost to fuel economy is minimal, especially because US emissions laws limit its scope.
11-15-2007 @ 3:21PM
ET said...
Dear Mr. Mulally,
I have spent three years talking to every Ford Salesperson, manager, exec, I can find telling them that we (the customers) want an F-150 with an efficient diesel engine. Everyone has told me that the customers don't want this. I have continued to tell them the customers will line up at the door to get the truck with the efficiency and the torque of the diesel in the mid sized pickup. You still are fiddling around and have no product out there. The writing has been on the wall for a decade. Would you please wake up and listen!
11-19-2007 @ 6:56AM
COWBOYINTHEHOLE said...
I WORK AT THE FORD TRUCK PLANT IN LOUISVILLE --KY. TRUCK PLANT --WE MAKE THE F-250'S THRU F-550'S . WHAT WE HAVE HEARD IS THAT FORD HAD A PROBLEM GETTING A FRONT END THAT WOULD HOLD UP WITH THE WEIGHT OF THE 6 CYLINDER DIESEL. THEY HAVE WORKED THAT OUT BECAUSE THEY DO NOT WANT TO RELEASE A TRUCK THEY KNOW HAS PROBLEMS.BUT THAT IS THE REASON THAT THEY HAVE NOT DONE IT YET. ALSO THEY SEEM TO BE SETTING OUR PLANT UP TO PRODUCE THAT TRUCK ALSO.ALSO WE HAVE HEARD THAT IN 2012 THE TRUCKS WILL START TO LOOK THE SAME -- SAME FLOOR PAN TO START WITH. AND FORD IS TO TAKE BACK PRODUCING OUR DIESEL ENGINES ABOUT 2010 OR 2011
11-15-2007 @ 3:29PM
ET said...
One more comment. The writer of the earlier comment about boost to fuel economy being minimal is simply wrong. I drove one for three years in Europe that was built in Alabama and shipped to Europe. I drove the car 100 mph on the autobahn and never fell below 30mpg and the car weighed over 5000 lbs. 2.7 liter common rail diesel engine. Unfortunately our regulators at EPA in 2006 brought us from having the worst diesel emission standard to having the strictest and today Ford among others has a mess on their hands meeting this standard with the big diesels. Problem relates not to particulates but to NOx emissions. Ours is now 5x stricter than the rest of the world. This is why volkswagen stopped shipment of all the diesel models.
11-16-2007 @ 12:30PM
jpdr1100 said...
ET, your second post answered your first.
The reason there is no F150 diesel is because of the emissions regulations, which don't apply to the F250 and 350.
All pickup makers are working on light duty diesels, but the job of cleaning them up is not easy....nor cheap.
11-15-2007 @ 4:12PM
Gumby said...
The mere smell of raw diesel fuel makes me sick with nausea and headaches. What kinid of rednecks like to smell that?? I dont want diesel crap around here, thank you!
The key to car success is lightweight materials simple as that. Airplanes has to be light to be airborne. Cars dont but it helps a lot !
You know what? We cant get enough lightweight materials to satisfy the voracious appetite of car makers churning out 70 millions units a year. That is why we are stuck with heavy and dumb steel and iron which is still plentiful .
Dont you know that we proudce 30 times as much steel as lightweight metals per year. So go figure, Put your money in lightweight materials. Why are you putting your money in them steel scrappers?
That is dumb!
11-16-2007 @ 10:51AM
Mike Sartor said...
Cost vs. Profit..... A simple analogy... Detroit is fixated on Captialism(Next quarters profit), and therefore doesn't have the gonads to make long term investment...... Other countries make that sacrifice....
How stupid can we be and see that this is what Capitalism costs... Short term gain, is how it works, until somebody has the hutzpah to actually enforce a change that will alter things, long term.... Don't believe me, check out Warren Buffetts writings, and don't forget he is a long term winner.....
Don't wait too long, or there won't be any boomers to see it. hehehehehe
Mike Sartor Sr
Cyborg