article: Ford preparing 60mpg F150 - Fiberglass RV

Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 03-19-2007, 04:13 PM   #1
Trailer: No Trailer Yet
Posts: 45

Of course there would be good reason to keep some a development "under wraps" as the story notes. Even if the report turns out to be false, [b] just the rumor of a major company might plan to introduce such a vehicle very soon could have l substantial ramnifications that become even greater if rumor turns out to be fact.

Major technological change of that sort tends to produce massive social changes that go well beyond the original industry in their effects. In my speculation here, I've confined myself almost exclusively to the effects on the auto industry except for Items 7 and 8.

1. The first company to the market with such a vehicle would reap a huge advanage.

2. Any manufacturer too late to market could suffer devastating economic losses.

3. Many other vehicles, including SUVs, will experience a similar effect as first to the market gets a premium.

4. Such vehices should command a premium price for some time until enough rival manufacturers can offer the same or better the same or better.. That assumes they aren't so hard hit initially they are too cash-strapped to adjust later. Thus rival American manufacturers, already shaky, could be at great risk, while the Japanese in particular with lower production cost and more funds for R and D are in a better spot to flourish.

5. New conventional vehicles with gas mileage as usual would likely require deep discounts to move, widening any gap caused by premium prices even further. Any plant turning out such conventional vehicles could suffer layoffs.

6. The price of used conventional vehicles that get low mileage should drop substantially. Recent model used cars may be in an especially tough spot if new models with similar high fuel consumption are deeply discounted.

7. The tourist and RV industry, endangered at present by high gasoline prices, could be a beneficiary, especially if people are drawn (in the style of Europeans) to the kind of light fiberglass vehicles discussed here to go with the economical tow vehicles.

8. In the long run, such developments could have a huge impact on oil revenues in oil producing states.

Edit: Good topic, however political commentary removed.

Frank G. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-19-2007, 05:01 PM   #2
Trailer: No Trailer Yet
Posts: 45
Don't forget to read the letters that appear underneath the article I posted. There's some interesting stuff there. For example: is UPS really getting 60 mpg on certain trucks?

I thought Kryle's posts were especially interesting on the advantage of this hydraulic approach over the current hybrid approach. Check what he said about the relative advantages of the former when it comes to towing (all this stuff was Greek to me so it's nice to have someone else explain:

"For the size it (hydraulics) has impressive power. Imagine trying to do the same with an electric motor. Imagine trying to tow a 5,500 lbs. trailer with a electric-hybrid engine compared to a hydraulic-hybrid engine, which makes more sense? This idea is not so new and crazy.

His estimate of milage (40 to 50 mpg) is a bit more conservative than the original article.

...and then there's Tony who estimates most of the fuel savings (50 city/ 15 highway) would come in the reverse pattern from what we are familiar with and explains why.

Frank G. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-19-2007, 06:51 PM   #3
Senior Member
Brian B-P's Avatar
Name: Brian
Trailer: Boler (B1700RGH) 1979
Posts: 5,000
Frank, I think you are overestimating both the effectiveness of the technology and the commercial effect of superior performance. Buyers, particularly in North America, really don't care much about fuel economy, and vote that way with their wallets in the showroom. I hope I'm wrong and you're right, but I wouldn't bet money on it!

The posted comments with that article are an interesting mix of fantasy and rational thought. Guess where I put a 60 mpg F-150?

The hydraulic storage idea is good only for very small amounts of energy (which is why the reference to it as a "launch" system, providing only a brief burst of power), and has been in prototype use for years. Unfortunately, the reality never matches the hopes of the optimistic.

Some technical understanding helps, too: hydraulic accumulators don't store energy in hydraulic fluid at all - the storage is by a compressed gas. Picture the size of air tank needed to store enough energy to be useful driving a truck, then picture a much larger tank filled with hydraulic fluid, and you're starting to understand how poor this scheme is as an energy storage system.

The current (April 2007) issue of Road&Track contains their annual "April Fool's" road test. This time, it is real-world vehicles, somewhat seriously tested, and they are courier vans. The FedEx van is a diesel-electric hybrid (sorry, I had the wrong courier company in my other recent post...); FedEx is apparently pleased, but I don't believe for a moment that they get four times better fuel economy than a standard van, and there's no way hydraulic versus electric can get them there, either... in my opinion.
1979 Boler B1700RGH, pulled by 2004 Toyota Sienna LE 2WD
Information is good. Lack of information is not so good, but misinformation is much worse. Check facts, and apply common sense liberally.
STATUS: No longer active in forum.
Brian B-P is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-19-2007, 09:56 PM   #4
Trailer: No Trailer Yet
Posts: 45
Hello, Brian

I often read where people say they'd jump an economical and powerful diesel in some smaller vehicles. I differ with you in one respect here. The attraction is in cetain vehicles and their amenties. There's no status or satisfaction in the high gas mileage itself. If they could have what they want otherwise and pay less for fuel, I do think they'd be happier.

In support of what you say, note how the demand for Toyota's hybrid dropped when gas prices dropped. Now it will go up again. We saw the same incapacity to look ahead as soon as the oil boycott and recession around 1979-1980 ended. The crisis goes, people forget everything they worried about and climb out on the same limb. Politicians are even more short-sighted.

Some of these things happen because of deliberate manipulation by the auto companies (bigger vehicles, bigger profit margins) and the oil companies (greater demand, greater revenue). They've always stifled mass transport and even played a major role in destroying it. Did you ever see the 60 Minutes report on what GM did in LA after WW II?. Realtors, contractors, the auto and oil industry, land speculators and the resort industries all had a stake in promoting suburbanization after World War II. All of this makes us very vulnerable to any oil crisis, like a man who has painted himself into a corner.

People are much the same about other things as they are about cars.

I read recently that 75 percent of Americans live from paycheck to paycheck! Of course 75 percent of people aren't poor so how does this happen?. Folks buy too much "stuff" robotically. Unlike us (I don't budget and I'm a lousy negotiatior), they'll squander less stuff on little things, buy generic cold medicine or purchasing ice cream on sale. Unlike us, they will place little figures in columns every month. Yet they never question blowing tens of thousands on big things (more house than they need especially). They need to ask, "How much pleasure am I getting from X (if any!) compared to the stress and worry it created by trying to keeping all the balls in the air?"

Most folks seem to have more tolerance for financial stress than me. I'll cut back before I'll let a financial hole get bigger or go without saving (especially 403s). Lukily I've never been attracted by big houses with lots of land. When we took advantage of a booming market to sell our townhouse in Center City Philly and moved to a relatively stable working class neighborhood (Port Richmond) five minutes from downtown, some neighbors and relatives thought we were crazy.

My wife resisted. Now she thinks it's the smartest move we ever made. It's not that we couldn't meet our financial obligations in the old neighborhood, it's just that we didn't want that much obligation. Except for 403 contributions (healthy "pay yourself first" thinking)--our savings seemed to grow like molasses. I thought, "What does it matter if you have so many amenities around you (Kimmel Center concerts, theaters, etc.) if you go rarely because too much surplus we could have is instead being siphoned off on crap --utility companies, the city revenue department, home insurance companies, etc.?" Is there an ounce of psychological "satisfaction" in that? Such expenitures are like opening up your wallet, pulling out hundreds of dollars and setting them afire.

I hate debt and now we have none because we chose to make it that way instead of continuing on the same course as our neighbors. It's a pleasure you almost feel--a nagging weight removed, one you always could "handle" but didn't need to. We dumped a mortgage that ran over $2,100 a month and included over $9,000 for insurance and property taxes. We bought a row home for 60 K, put 90K more into features we liked, and it blows away what was in our townhouse in terms of daily satisfaction. Property tax and insurance run a mere $150 a month.

Retirement would still be far off if we were blowing all that cash on nothing.

Moving to a smaller house (1,400 sqare feet) also taught me why some full timers explain their surprise at the pleasure they got in getting rid of "stuff" they spent so much money buying and never thought they could part with. Moving made me determined to avoid accumulating lots of anything. It's heavy. It takes up room and--instead of improving the appearance of a place it makes it uglier (via clutter).

When we drive through our old neighborhood (ten minutes away by car, a world away in terms of debt), I wonder how many folks there with expensive houses and luxurycars (often leased) are knee deep in debt, yet worry about putting little aside for college or retirement. When it comes to investing, economists say having all your eggs in one basket is a bad idea. A lot of people have most of their savings in real estate.

Look up a chart on the percentage of income people have spend on housing expenses. Ideally it shouldn't be much over 20 percent. Check out the figure for San Francisco (highest in the nation). When well-paid folks have to live on what is left, they beome high income poor in some ways.

I love REAL city living and I love the real countryside but living in the burgs just isn't our taste. Give us a decent neighborhood within easy reach of a walkable Center City, or give us the countryside and hiking trails (no big treeless RV parks), especially if there is a GOOD supermarket within reach.
Frank G. is offline   Reply With Quote

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
$1800 Ford F150 Tune-up Johnny B General Chat 15 07-25-2009 01:44 PM
Article: Boler Owners Are Serious About Their RVs Janine General Chat 0 08-31-2007 03:32 PM
Interesting new article from UK BOBSMITH General Chat 3 07-23-2007 07:28 PM
RV glut, interesting article Frederick L. Simson General Chat 19 10-05-2006 08:01 AM
Preparing to Paint Legacy Posts Care and Feeding of Molded Fiberglass Trailers 4 05-11-2003 04:37 PM

» Upcoming Events
No events scheduled in
the next 465 days.
» Featured Campgrounds

Reviews provided by

Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:48 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions Inc.