While I (of course) sincerely hope this effort leads to Good Things in the automotive industry, I have to say that Ford is giving me whiplash. First they back off the 250K hybrids/year thing, then they make this announcement.

For all the bad press GM gets, I'm increasingly convinced that some of the opinions I've seen in places like BusinessWeek about Ford actually being in worse shape are right.

I'm convinced that we're seeing just the beginning of a years-long period of massive change and uncertainty in the automotive sector. Ford and GM are searching for answers, Toyota and Honda are opening new US plants (Honda in Indiana, Toyota in Texas), and there are technological changes coming fast and furious from all directions.

Too bad we don't have a really good web site to keep track of this stuff. You could call it--I don't know-- Green Transportation Parliament, or something like that.

What baffles me is that Ford currently uses the same type of hybrid system as Toyota, which is clearly the best in the world at this time. Why not expand it thru thier lineup, as Toyota is doing????

Score another victory for the UAW! Ford would rather spend the R&D money on facilities in Europe and European Engineers then at home to avoid the high labor costs in the USA.

Trucks and Mustangs are the only things Ford really wants to build. Everything else is afterthought.

Volvo cars is one of the few companies owned by ford that actually gives profits. It is only fair that this money is being reinvested in Sweden. Volvo cars is still a much more Swedish company than american, so you can quit your whining about downsizing america. And about UAW too, the Swedish union more or less rules the country.

It says this is and R and D project. They have been R and D ing for enough years to already know how to build hybrids. We and they would be better off if they research how to make batteries, motors, controlers,etc at a lower cost.

I wonder if Sweden or the EU sweetened the pot here or if Volvo is simply ahead of HQ in its internal hybrid technology competence. It certainly attests to poor PR that yesterday's and toda's news were not combined in a single press release and the new strategy regarding hybrids explained more clearly.

Considering Ford is up against the likes of Toyota, Honda and GM/DCX/BMW, it might make sense to seek out a large partner such as Citroen/PSA. Production volume is everything when you're lokking to reduce per-unit costs. Fiat is struggling, VW is pursuing its own technology roadmap and Nissan/Renault appear content to let others take the lead in hybrids.

Take CNG, take a hybrid, put them together and you have a long term low CO2, sustainable solution that can be high performance. Make the CNG from bio-methane and you are sorted....transportation for ever, no petroleum.....Volvo and Sweden will get there....

Can Ford actually pull this off and use any research they get into their production. As the state motto of Missouri says: Show me.

It is my feeling that hybrid will be the future of automobiles, and not just a wave. All ICE and even fuel-cell cars will need hybrid technology to maximize fuel economy. Only BEV won't need hybridization, but I don't think there'll be too many BEV's in the future.

It is my prediction that failure to make a full frontal assault on the development of cost-effective hybrid production process and technology will lead to the demise of many car companies to come. Gas-electric hybrid can be very simple: 1) Atkinson-cycle engine coupled to large-size starter-generator in order to power a large-size traction motor. 2) Sufficient battery for optimal regenerative braking and for significant downsizing of the ICE. 3) Torque lockup of the engine to the traction motor during cruise to eliminate loss via electrical pathway. 4) Optional Plug-in or Plug-out capability to increase market appeal. The main difficulty is how to produce a zillion of these at top quality and at low production cost and to sell them at competitive prices and still make a sustainable profit. All right, company can forgo profit until high volume build up, and then, with high volume production, profit will usually ensue.

Ford's shifting Hybrid R&D to Sweden, PHEV'S and EV's R&D to Japan and Korea, production to Mexico, Brazil, China, Japan etc is a sure way to get rid of UAW.

GM will most probably do the same in the comming months unless UAW starts to see the light.

It seems obvious that we may be driving a lot of Chinese built PHEV's and EV's by 2010-2012.

aa2,
You have a good point. Engineers and scientists are not treated as well here in the US in comparison to doctors or lawyers, even though engineers have just as tough, rigorous tranining, knowledge and skill requirement as any other higher-paid professionals. The engineering profession has been suffering thru overwork in boom time and layoff in bust time, similar to many in the manufacturing business...and discouragement due to continous downsizing of US manufacturing base and now also R&D base as well. No wonder we are not graduating as many engineers. In Japan, once hired by a major corporation, engineers are practically guaranteed employment for life, and in return, they reciprocicate with high loyalty for their corporation. This explains the consistent quality of Japanese engineering, via continuity of the engineering and manufacturing staff, continuing to learn the skill in one company years after years until they get to perfection. In the US, hiring is fast, but layoff is faster once the economy went sour. Engineers move from company to company throughout their career, thus little continuity in product development. Many engineers in the US quit their profession after several layoffs to go into real estate, teaching, medicine etc. where they can find more stable employment.

The US is very creative and very inventive, but perhaps too complacent in its size and its glorious past to analyze the European and Japanese system in order to avert a looming catastrophe. With so many ethnic and racial groups in the US and widely disparaging in income classes, expect major social unrest and catastrophe when the bubble burst, and especially when the foreign debtors decide to restrict further lending and try to collect on the debt.

Roger,

I couldn't agree more with what you said. Every industry goes through periods of ups and downs. In ups the US companies are good overall I believe. They get the employees to work harder, but they also give big salaries and bonuses, like in the tech boom.

However when the inevitable down cycle comes the companies are horrific. They 'downsize', offshore and generally eliminate many of their best people. As the industry recovers they are caught flat footed by the Japanese companies which held onto their employees through the pain.

Even developing them. Which if you spend years developing an engineer, that person becomes more and more valuable over time. You don't jus tleave it to chance of hoping to find a perfectly qualified person on the open market when the up cycle comes.

Some US companies don't have this philosophy like Intel hasn't. But even Intel recently has a new marketing guy president who of course is pushing downsizing.