Here is an alternate view from a purely business perspective. Toyota has such a huge lead in hybrid technology - and a near stranglehold on component manufacturers - that it's nearly impossible for others to succeed. Toyota's oak catches all the sunlight and rain.

IMO, Honda is looking toward diesel longterm. Nissan has no interest other than in staying alive. Ford, with a perfectly capable system, discovers that it cannot grow in Toyota's shadow. GM/MB would rather close their doors than follow in Toyota's lead.

After the recent press releases by all the major players the shape of the future is starting to come into focus.

Toyota - hybrid technology is the centerpiece of it's future powertrain technology no matter the fuel source.
Honda - small hybrids and larger diesels
GM/MB/DC - diesel first, hybrids as an afterthought
Ford - flex fuels
Nissan - ????? is there a problem regarding fuels?
Hyundai - what can we 'benchmark'?

Bob

agreed. Good post. However, toyo is limited to what the Chrevron settlement allows them to build. I hope toyo or honda has the guts to find a diff battery to get around the patent , and produce EVs again, which is the real answer here.

How many of us honestly drive more than 150 miles per day? Many of us have 2 cars, so using an EV for almost every purpose is functional. Longer trips can go with the plug in or regular hybrids.

Actually, I'd say kinda-sorta right, but not quite. As with most things involving the government, the calculation is not that straight forward and there is a cap on how much benefit any company can accumulate. The credit is not a straight mpg re-rate for each vehicle. The purpose of the credit was to do exactly what is beginning to pan out now. That is to find reliable and renewable alternative sources for fuel. E85 is such a source. So is bio-diesel, though anything with the word "diesel" attached to it will provide a challenge to deploy wide-scale, largely because of the American perception of diesel cleanliness, and the current plan for emissions regulations relative to diesel.

Peace,

Martin

I am NOT the official voice of GM with respect to Hybrid issues

I am NOT the official voice of GM with respect to Hybrid issues

I am NOT the official voice of GM with respect to Hybrid issues

As a Lions Season Ticket Holder and a cheerleader for the domestic auto industry, I can honestly say that I've taken shots to both kidneys from the Ford family

Peace,

Martin

I am NOT the official voice of GM with respect to Hybrid issues

I am NOT the official voice of GM with respect to Hybrid issues

I am NOT the official voice of GM with respect to Hybrid issues

I can respect the opinion, but this is still a rather two dimensional view of the industry, not taking into account regional preferences and requirements or vehicle market segmentation. None of these companies has a one size fits all strategy. In Latin / South America, and much of Africa, the winning strategy for the forseeable future is alternative fuels. CNG, E85, and E100. Cost sensitivity makes diesels and hybrids a non-factor in these markets.

In Europe and parts of Africa and the Middle East, diesel is probably the pre-eminent focus and hybrids are a present but minor factor. I just spent 10 days in Europe and saw no hybrids, and innumerable diesel small cars and combis.

Asia Pacific is a very fractured market. Australia is kind of a morph of North American and European influences and still has a heavy focus on petrol based vehicles. Hybrids could eventually gain popularity there, but as far as I can tell, they haven't taken hold yet. There's a more pronounced pull for alternative fuels. South Korea appears to trending towards small clean diesels. China is likely to provide a true battle ground for the hybrid v clean diesel debate, since the automotive infrastructure is still very formative and growing. Stay tuned there.

Bottom line is each company you've listed has strategies for going to market in each of these regions and those strategies are not identical company to company or even region to region within the same company.

You note that GM and DCX are diesel first, hybrid after thought and that Ford is focused on flex-fuels. GM is probably more diligent on the flex fuel front than Ford. GM has a fairly comprehensive portfolio strategy targeting FlexFuel for vehicles in some segments, diesel for vehicles in some segments, and hybrids for vehicles in some segments. There is some overlap where you'll find two or more of these approaches available on the same class of vehicle. I would believe that Ford and DCX are taking similar approaches.

Peace,

Martin

I am NOT the official voice of GM with respect to Hybrid issues

I am NOT the official voice of GM with respect to Hybrid issues

I am NOT the official voice of GM with respect to Hybrid issues

hi martin


good points.

I do disagree about one aspect you refer to. Its called the 'winning strategy' you talk about per region. Even though many parts of the country could have infrastucture and other issues, we here in the US are concerned about us here in the US.

Who defines the 'winning strategy' - not us, thats for sure.

Wouldnt the 'winning strategy' for automakers = the most profit possible ?

I take it 'winning strategy' cant mean for the enviroment , or world peace, or in the united states we would all be driving electric cars by now.

The winning strategy rules are devised, made up, implemented, and tweaked by big name players who then TELL US what is going on with whatever spin they see fit to get us to believe they are doing something when its about 2% of what they really could be doing but cant due to various financial and legal wrangling.

just my .02

FWIW, here's my OPINION of the Ford statement(s)......


Ford's most recent statement no doubt erodes his and the company's credibility, but also serves to inject a bit of reality into the equation. The only reason his statement is a back-pedal is because he for whatever reason felt compelled to publicize the number of hybrids and E85 vehicles Ford would sell rather than focus on market segments where Ford might apply them. He should be focused on communicating strategy and leave the market forecasting to people who make a lot less money than he does. Two things I can say are true about market volume forecasts.

1. They change daily
2. They're always wrong. The true value of long term forecasting is in identifying the direction and magnitude of trends, not the 3 digit accuracy of volume forecasting.

By saying that Ford would improve f/e by 25% by 2007, Ford made a commitment his execution teams had not confirmed they could deliver. When it became clear that they wouldn't, his back-pedal was to offer up too much detail on E85 and hybrid volume. Now he's forced to make yet another back-pedal.

I could provide you several entertaining stories about how our projections for hybrid product volume has swung up and down over the past couple years. I won't, of course, but I could. And I'm certain similar conversations have been going on at Ford and DCX, so for the CEO to commit to a volume while the troops are still establishing the go to market plan.......Dangerous prognostication is all I can say. Remember, his executive in charge of hybrid program development quit the company a short time after his volume announcement. Might not have been related, but I would not be surprised if it was.

Had it not been for the two prior "commitment" announcements, Ford's statements about the company's direction to pursue hybrid applications, alt fuel applications, and diesel applications would have been viewed much more favorably.

Peace,

Martin

I am NOT the official voice of GM with respect to Hybrid issues

I am NOT the official voice of GM with respect to Hybrid issues

I am NOT the official voice of GM with respect to Hybrid issues

Whatever happened to her?



Bob Wilson

Operation Iraqi Oil Freedom:

Automatic, stock, project car.

My other 1500 cc car:

Automatic, stock, backup car.
Free speech, dialog and knowledge thrives without the poison of SPAM.

There are too many elements to a strategy to boil it down to one sentence. There are several measures to success of a strategy. Profitablility is a key measure because it speaks directly to a company's ability to survive and grow. Companies are very much like living organisms in that they focus on survival, growth, and expansion of influence.

Toyota has deployed what I would call a winning strategy in the US that has focused more on establishing real estate in the mind of the customer and regulatory community at the expense of short term profitability. I am not saying that Toyota is not profitable. It definitely is. But they are able to allow for a lower level of profitability to allow for funding short term / mid term losses to promote hybrid technology at volume levels that other less profitable companies cannot match. By the time other automakers catch up in volume, Toyota will be profitable on the hybrid product lines, although I would suspect that Toyota still makes more profit on a per unit basis for non-hybrid products than they do for hybrid products. If profitability were truly the only measure, Toyota would minimize its volume intent for hybrid applications and serve them up as primarily a halo product to prop up additional sales of their non-hybrid variants (customer comes in because they're interested in a hybrid, can't afford it but drive out with a non-hybrid Toyota that provides better margin per vehicle to Toyota).

Peace,

Martin

I am NOT the official voice of GM with respect to Hybrid issues

I am NOT the official voice of GM with respect to Hybrid issues

I am NOT the official voice of GM with respect to Hybrid issues

Volvo (owned by Ford) just announced they are ramping up their hybrid R&D.

Reuters

Interesting.

61.5mpg lifetime - 82mpg in recent months

Best Run >
www.cleanmpg.com

"fanatic" is what the lazy call the dedicated