If you go to the home page at that article, you might suspect that the webmaster is just posting any article that looks cool - not a professional journalist.

 

The only 60 mpgs that pickup truck will get are 60 "mpg" video files at best. Where's Ford's P2000? I thought that thing was supposed to get at least 60 mpg. I really question Ford's seriousness when they're making these claims when they can't even get their Ford Focus to break 35mpg on the highway without falling apart. Cut the concept chat and build me a car that can cut the mustard! [/end rant]

Jeff

 

I didn't read the article to mean that a F-150 is naturally more fuel efficent than a Prius. Rather, I thought the article was saying that the equipment necessary to make a hydraulic hybrid work wouldn't fit into a small car. Thus, the extra size of the truck is an asset, because it gives more room for the pressure tank, piping, etc.

I remember watching a training video about 15 years ago when I worked at McDonnel Douglas (now Boeing), which was talking about paradigm shifts. It had a segment about a hydraulic hybrid car and talked about how that would be a paradigm shift for the automotive industry. I remember thinking that it was a cool concept, but it was probably only practical for city driving with a lot of stop and go.

Like others have stated, however, I'll believe a 60mpg F-150 when I see it.

 

Well, first of all, I don't see Ford really claiming anything. We see an article claiming it, from a website of dubious refute.

Second of all, as mentioned, the article doesn't say that an F-150 is better vehicle than a Prius, just that the F-150 is a better template for the 'efficient' hydrolics system because of it's size than a Prius style template.

Third, I'd be surprised if this had any true merit. We know that Ford is pushing alternative fuels pretty hard at the moment, with vehicles like the Super Chief.

Lastly, if it does have any merit, I'd like to see an Escape with it.

Like the others, if this does have any merit, I'll believe it when I see it. Just like the GM hybrids being so superior.

 

Again, many people can post a cool website, but that does not insure the integrity of the content.

 

Can we get real here? A Ford Focus will break at 35 mpg without "falling apart?" Where does this gem of wisdom come from? The Focus has had a few problems along the way but so far as I know is a pretty decent and economical car. I would imagine that a properly tuned Ford Focus driven at a normal rate of speed by a good non lead-footed driver could get 35 mpg or better during highway travel. An F-150 will not, however. The weight of the vehicle is simply too great. These things are built like tanks and about as heavy. I should know. I own one.

 

My experience comes from driving my father's Focus, which he ended up trading in at 40k miles because it was a piece of junk. With the electrical problems, including an ECU and wire harness replacement and a suspension problem that contributed to two blow outs, he got fed up. Neither of us got over 35 mpg, and we're both conservative drivers. Granted it was a 2001, and perhaps the quality has improved since. But no, I am not a fan.

I did get to drive one in England, and if they decide to import that car (especially with the diesel option), I will be pushing people out of line to get one. Ford Europe seems to have its act significantly more together in terms of building a quality vehicle.

Jeff

 

I've got a friend who owns a Ford Focus. I don't know what kind of FE he gets, but he says he's never needed an emergency repair, nor has it ever broken down.

Personally, I think the car would be a great candidate for a start/stop hybrid system (ala BAS). Then it would probably get about 40MPG.

 

Ford was kicking around the idea of making a diesel version for the States, but they dropped it about two months later. I know this is a hybrid website, but I'd love to see them come through on the diesel. Throw in the start/stop, and you might be able to pull at least 50mpg.

Jeff

 

(unfortunately, I quoted the wrong poster -- my apologies. How does one cut and paste in this forum?)

I'm not claiming that what your experience is not true but I'm always dubious about these claims that Fords are junk, or this or that. I've owned 54 cars in my lifetime and about 12 new Fords. I really haven't had any problems with them to speak of. I've also owned Toyotas, Mazdas, Datsuns, Volvos; Saabs, pretty much about everything. Some have been bad, but most not THAT bad.

If it were me and I was having continual problems with any vehicles, I would be having a serious talk with the store owner and get to the bottom of this. If he wouldn't help, I would go up the line. You wouldn't believe how many trees I will shake to get someone to clean up the mess, if one exists. I even had this one salesman make a claim that turned out not to be true and the owner refunded $500 to me out of his own pocket. Otherwise the vehicle was perfectly fine.

Now if one wants to go back to the 50's, 60's, and 70's they can find some real junk. By the 1990s most of the manufacturers had gotten "religion" and noted that they couldn't fix these things in the field so they built them right the first time. I'm trying to think of the recent Fords I owned. My 1984 T-Bird never went back to the dealer. My 1991 Ranger had a pulling problem that was eventually fixed. My 1992 Explorer never went back to the dealer for anything. My 1993 F-150 never went back for anything. My 1995 Ranger never went back for anything. My 1999 Mystique had a $10 resister burn out. My 2003 Escape had noisy tires (which I replaced) and a center console that broke when I leaned on it too hard. And one recall to replace the throttle cable. My 2005 F-150 has never gone back to the dealer. My 2006 Escape Hybrid has never gone back to the dealer.

Now let's look around the house. My mattress makes my back hurt. My washer needed a $25 part replaced the other day. My refrigerator made a "funny" noise and the icemaker needed replacing. My computer seat needed a new mount. My coffeemaker quit working (a German make).

My point is that perhaps we make a bit too much about all these little problems that inevitably arise on complicated products. All-in-all, I think our automobiles from all manufacturers are pretty darn good. In the old days, you could plan on doing a "ring" job at 30,000 miles, the bodies would rust off the frames and the tires would last 15,000 miles. Transmissions would fail regularly. The engines were unreliable. The brakes and suspensions were lousy. I could go on forever.

Sometimes we need to come into the real world and recognize this almost nothing is perfect; not even our automobiles.