Ford versus Chevy, like never before

Like it or not, the world of automobiles is changing. It is a common belief amongst some that the automobile is due for a revolution. Some say that the internal combustion engine is a crude device whose time has come, that it is a pollutant, that it makes us dependent on foreign oil, and that it kills polar bears.

Within the last few years the U.S. Government began a strong push toward electric vehicles and auto manufacturers have complied. Recently I had the opportunity to get a glimpse at our future by checking out the latest electric prototypes from Ford and Chevrolet.

l

Ford’s Approach

While GM takes the news spotlight away, Ford has been quietly developing some really nice cars. Their future plans call for going toward all kinds of electric vehicles: the common hybrid gasoline-electric, plug-in battery vehicles, and plug-in hybrid electric-gasoline vehicles. Ford’s approach to each one of these is to offer “no sacrifice” vehicles, meaning that they will look and feel like the conventional Escape or Milan that has been out for a few years. That is a smart and cost effective approach; just replace the existing engine, exhaust and fuel system with electric. The heavy batteries are located low to the ground and distributed throughout the vehicle which may actually in improve driving characteristics.

Plug-in hybrids (PHEV); like the name states these are version of current gas-electric hybrid vehicles, such as the Escape, but they also feature a higher capacity battery which can be charged using a conventional 120v or 240v outlet. Interesting piece of information here, the plug on the vehicle has been standardized for the 110/220v applications. Ford is working on a 440v option but there are issues with current phasing and therefore the same plug cannot be used worldwide.  I did not get a chance to drive the PHEV Escape, but it probably drives like a typical hybrid but with extended range and speed due to the higher capacity battery.

Battery Electric Vehicles (BEV); no internal combustion engine at all. Battery packs are placed anywhere and everywhere possible. Under the hood is a small (relatively, compared to the four-cylinder that used to be there) electric motor and a bunch of electronics that control everything. Overall weight has increased slightly, but is distributed throughout the vehicle more evenly. In the Focus, Ford is once again using as many off-the-shelf products as they can, for instance in this sedan the rear coil springs are off the old Focus wagon.

Outside, with the exception of the stickers, the BEV Focus does not look any different (or better) than the any other Focus. Inside, more of the same with the only difference being the tachometer replaced with economy gauge. This car was a prototype, and I am sure many things will still change before it goes into production.

Driving: turn the key and… nothing, just a light on the dash. The moment you put your foot on the brake you get noise which is the electric vacuum pump which is used in-lieu of missing vacuum brake booster provided by the engine. Take the car out of park, at which point the electronic parking brake disengages and you are off. Te almost perfect silence is interrupted by tire and road noise with a glimpse of the electric engine whine coming through. Once on the way, the car behaves just like any typical economy car. There is really not much to say regarding driving characteristics which can be experienced while driving around few city blocks; it’s like driving a Corolla with noise-canceling headphones on.

Chevy’s Approach:

By now everyone has heard of the Chevy Volt, which essentially underscores GM’s approach to electric vehicles. Unlike Ford’s vehicles, GM chose to develop a specific chassis for this car which has several benefits; they’re not trying to work around an existing chassis, thereby not limiting themselves with space for component placement and the new chassis will ensure that the Volt will look like any other GM car. This probably comes from having learned from the success of Prius over Civic hybrids, which pretty looked like all other Civics; the lesson was that people buying hybrids wanted to be seen driving a hybrid.

Video, courtesy of Mike Juregens

As you see in the video, the Volt is a nice and smooth ride. Keep in mind that this is a prototype and some components seen in the video are still in development. The car also seemed to handle surprisingly well, other than that it was smooth and quiet. The Volt comes with an AC motor and therefore when it takes off it sounds a bit like a new subway train; seriously. The small gasoline engine is used for battery recharging only and not vehicle propulsion like the common hybrid.

My Opinion:

I like the hybrid technology we have in cars such as the Prius, Insight, and Fusion; nothing to plug in, just drive it like a conventional car. Hybrid vehicles are perfect for people who require a non-sporty daily car, are often stuck in traffic or do a lot of city driving. I spent a day driving the Prius, and honestly, I hated everything about the car (the image, the dorky interior, the atrocious handling, the exterior), but the engineer in me loved the powerplant. I also liked the GMT-900 (Chevy/GMC full-size SUVs and pick-ups) hybrids; getting 20-mpg in vehicles that size, in vehicles with so much work potential (towing, room, and capacity) is really impressive. My own MDX, your average SUV, gets about 16-mpg in the city, and is smaller and has a half the towing capacity. The biggest downside to all these hybrid vehicles is their escalated price premium compared to their conventional cousins.

I am however, not a fan of plug-in electric or plug-in hybrid vehicles. I don’t think our current electrical infrastructure is capable of supporting the added load of thousands of vehicles being plugged-in each night. That is not what you will hear from the electric companies however, as they say:

• “We are expanding our sources of renewable energy to things to wind and solar power” – I would really like to see how much of the current electricity is generated by wind and solar sources, not very much is my guess.
• “Smart charging stations will be used to communicate with the power grid and charge vehicles at an appropriate time”. What happens when there was no appropriate time to charge my vehicle from the moment I got home until the moment I have to leave?

Let’s also not ignore the fact that all this extra current will be flowing over existing power lines, and transformers, all of which are old and were not designed to even meet current peak capacity. Let’s recall the huge black-out of 2002 that affected the whole east coast and part of Canada and what about rolling black-outs that much of the country sees every summer? There is also the often-forgotten issue of the fact that electricity is in fact one of dirtiest forms of energy around; over 50% of electricity currently generated is from coal. Yes, coal, the same dirty stuff that third-world countries are using.

With the above, why are electrical companies so hung-ho about electric cars? Money. For decades oil companies have been making more money than they know what to do with. And now, electric companies want a piece of the action and they are doing it be spreading this propaganda of electricity being clean, sustainable, and renewable. It is not, and the only way anyone should feel good about driving an electric vehicle is if we build more dams, wind farms, solar panels or nuclear plants. Otherwise, the only difference between pollution generated by conventional internal combustion engine and electric car is the location of this pollution.

What’s our short term solution for cleaner air and lower dependence on oil? First off, baby steps, reduce consumption:

• Stop/Start systems, widely popular in Europe, the reasons are why they are not in US are several:

- Car manufacturers will say that the system is easier to implement on manual transmission car. I don’t believe that.

- In US we measure fuel consumption which is different than that of the rest of the world, where efficiency is measured, and therefore on paper such systems do not show gains in the US, so manufacturers do not want to bother with them.

• Diesels, especially small ones, with direct injection and urea injection, offer an excellent alternative to the conventional Otto four-stroke cycle engine, but they are not popular in the US for these reasons:

- Cost; from engine development, to parts, to marketing, manufacturers are not likely to see a return on their investment.

- Due to the way EPA measures emissions, the diesel engine, even with its much higher efficiency, has a reputation as a polluter.

- Price of fuel; this goes back to marketing, but volatility in the price of diesel fuel is much higher than that of gasoline. I don’t know why.

- Public perception; this is the insane part, in a country that forgets everything five minutes after it happens, general public still remembers the diesels a slow, loud, and smoky.

• Different measuring systems of emissions and fuel consumption.

- Let’s stop using miles-per-gallon, which is a system of measuring consumption and  focus on measuring efficiency; “how much fuel will this car burn in order to travel 100 miles?”

- In terms of emissions, measuring parts-per-million is not good. This is how a 5000lb vehicle that gets 10mpg may be considered a lower emissions vehicle than a VW Jetta diesel. That’s ridiculous; we should focus on total emissions.

• NGV, or Natural Gas Vehicles. The infrastructure for this exists; it’s clean, so why did it not catch on? Honda is one of the few companies offering this vehicle. Clean, quiet and you don’t need to redesign the whole car to use it. I don’t understand why this would not catch on before the electric cars.

• Mass transit; in the Northeast where the system is more successful than elsewhere in the country offer expanded operating hours and higher frequency of trains in off-peak hours. Make trains and buses available for things such as football and baseball games. Build more park-and-ride places so that people who commute from the suburbs into the city. Our mass transit systems have not seen meaningful growth in over 200 years, making us more dependent on cars.

• Focus on other polluters. Cars are an easy target, everyone has one, everyone needs one, and everyone sees one and there are no less than four major organizations that make rules which govern the automakers, all of which are in the name of safety and environment, and many of them contradict each other. However, cars by themselves contribute for approximately half of all air pollution, but what about the other half? What about the emissions from the millions of oil burning furnaces? What about cargo and cruise ships? What about airplanes and trains? Until recently, anything bigger than a half-ton truck did not have to adhere to any air pollution standards. What about factories (all kinds, not only automotive) that get away with dumping anything they want as long the factories are located in a place where the law-makers can be easily paid off?