Peter, I rather see some of my taxes going to american car companies that probably do not need the money than to continue watching a huge amount of our money being given to oil countries that use the very money we pay them to wage war against us.

If Ford is serious about extreme fuel economy they should ecoboost a 1.6 L Atkinson cycle engine.

Why not build a 1.0 ecoboost Atkinson engine instead? We truly need to start moving toward an electric dominant drivetrain with a very small ICE with maximum thermal efficiency. Ecoboosting an Atkinson engine will increase its torque to levels similar to Otto cycle engines.

Ford has clearly outdone the prius on the electric side of the drivetrain. What I can't understand is why ford decided not to use their ecoboost technology (direct injection) in their atkinson cycle engine. Using direct injection in an atkinson cycle engine will allow a further increase in compression ratio which will increase the engine's peak thermal efficiency and it will also increase the power output which will allow the use of an even smaller engine, also increasing overall average thermal efficiency. Perhaps the next generation c-max will use direct injection

Mr. Ziv, "5C" in this report does not mean a temperature of 5 degrees Celcius. It means the rate of charging (or discharging). A rate of charge/discharge of 5C means you can charge/discharge the battery in question in approximately 60min/5 = 12 minutes.

Now, my question is what is Ford waiting for to combine an Atkinson engine with the EcoBoost technology. It is a well documented fact that the Atkinson engine has a very high thermal efficiency (due to the high compression ratio, i.e. 13:1 in the Prius), but is has a very low torque and power density. It seems like adding EcoBoost technology to the Atkinson engine will greatly increase the thermal efficiency, the power density and the torque. All three for the price of one.

4 miles per KW-hr is extremely efficient considering the coeffient of drag of an SUV. The Tesla roadster is a lot lighter than this SUV and it is still below 5 miles per KW-hr. The frictional losses must be extremely low.

If the goal is to build the lightest possible car, the Aixro XR50 Rotary Kart engine is only 17 Kg of weight (less than 40 lbs) and has 48 horsepower. This means more batteries (and therefore longer range) or a higher power to weight ratio and therefore even higher acceleration.

160 KW in 43 Kg! This is only second to the Tesla Roadster power density. I can just imagine what a Prius would drive like with one of these motors and some A123 Systems lithium batteries. The more competition the better!

I am sure the kingdom of Abu Dhabi are more than glad to sponsor this slightly less fuel hungry than a Hummer vehicle. After all, they need to maintain oil suppy slightly above demand so that the entire planet can pay for their exhuberant and irresponsible spending habits. What a pity that direct injection is now being used to prolong the reign of large displacement high power vehicles instead of developing a fuel efficient 3-cylinder Atkinson engine for a new generation of hybrids.

Joookes, I went to the Kelly Blue Book website and found that the 2010 Ford Edge has a curb weight of 4078 lbs. I seriously doubt that future models will reach 7000+ lbs.

Mr. Toppa Tom: There is no such thing as low gas prices in the US. We the taxpayers have to spend half a trillion dollas per year to keep our forces in the Middle East in a futile attempt to secure oil resources. On top of that, we are paying an average of $2.70/gallon of liquid fuel for the 200 billion gallons of combined gas/diesel we burn in this country. The only reason big cars are profitable is because we don't pay the true cost of fuel. The only reason small cars are not profitable is because we don't want to pay for sustained incentives for fuel efficient cars. The power of the UAW was greatly diminished once GM went into bankrupcy and Chrysler was sold to Fiat. Excuses are running out...

The winds of freemarket are blowing...HARD! I hope all our car companies are taking notice: Either you meet the new 2016 CAFE standards or someone else will! I really hope GM is not expecting the Volt to raise the fleet average all the way all by itself to 35.5 mpg because as long as they are selling 15 mpg SUVs they will have a hard time meeting the goal. I do have a major concern about how the 2016 fleet average will be calculated and this is why: Let's assume the public buys 100 cars rated at 35.5 mpg from a car company. After driving 15,000 miles each, you would have burned around 1,500,000 miles driven/35.5 mpg = 42,254 gallons of fuel. Now look at what GM is most likely to do: If the Volt is rated at 100 mpg, GM could sell 36 Volts for every 64 SUVs rated at 15 mpg and still meet the 2016 CAFE standard with 0.5 mpg to spare (36 cars * 100 mpg + 64 cars * 15 mpg)/100 cars = 36 mpg!. If you calculate the effective fleet mpg however, this is what you get: if all cars are driven 15,000 miles, 36 Volts (100 mpg) will consume 5,400 gallons while the 64 SUVs (15 mpg) will consume 64,000 gallons. Then the effective fleet mpg average is = (15,000 miles/car * 100 cars)/(64,000 gallons + 5,400 gallons) = 21.61 mpg! This loophole could be the size of a barnyard. I hope the federal government clarifies the calculation so that we don't have to endure lawsuits from car companies because they won't be able to meet the 2016 CAFE standards when calculated the right way.

The winds of freemarket are blowing...HARD! I hope all our car companies are taking notice: Either you meet the new 2016 CAFE standards or someone else will! I really hope GM is not expecting the Volt to raise the fleet average all the way all by itself to 35.5 mpg because as long as they are selling 15 mpg SUVs they will have a hard time meeting the goal. I do have a major concern about how the 2016 fleet average will be calculated and this is why: Let's assume the public buys 100 cars rated at 35.5 mpg from a car company. After driving 15,000 miles each, you would have burned around 1,500,000 miles driven/35.5 mpg = 42,254 gallons of fuel. Now look at what GM is most likely to do: If the Volt is rated at 100 mpg, GM could sell 36 Volts for every 64 SUVs rated at 15 mpg and still meet the 2016 CAFE standard with 0.5 mpg to spare (36 cars * 100 mpg + 64 cars * 15 mpg)/100 cars = 36 mpg!. If you calculate the effective fleet mpg however, this is what you get: if all cars are driven 15,000 miles, 36 Volts (100 mpg) will consume 5,400 gallons while the 64 SUVs (15 mpg) will consume 64,000 gallons. Then the effective fleet mpg average is = (15,000 miles/car * 100 cars)/(64,000 gallons + 5,400 gallons) = 21.61 mpg! This loophole could be the size of a barnyard. I hope the federal government clarifies the calculation so that we don't have to endure lawsuits from car companies because they won't be able to meet the 2016 CAFE standards when calculated the right way.

OK, so Ford finally is taking full advantage of direct injection which allows for a higher compression ratio and therefore higher thermal efficiency. Ford has also used the Atkinson engine in the Ford Escape hybrid which in the front wheel drive beats my 2007 Toyota Yaris sedan with automatic transmission. I wonder how long it will take Ford to figure out that they can combine the Atkinson engine with direct injection and either turbocharging for non-hybrids or energy recovery for hybrids. Combining the Atkinson engine with direct injection and turbocharging has the potential to further increase the effective compression ratio which will furter increase thermal efficiency, it will also increase the engine power density, but more importantly, there could be a significant increase in low end torque which is the biggest weakness of the Atkinson engine. The low end torque of the Atkinson engine has prevented the widespread use of this wonderful engine from being used in non-hybrid vehicles. For hybrid vehicles, I suspect it would be better to recover energy from the exhaust and convert it to electricity and then release it every time you go down hill while the gas engine is turned off and the car is set to neutral.

I am glad that at least this foreign company is dead serious about the implemetation of lithium batteries. The only thing I don't like is that american companies seem to lag further and further behind.

All these great technological advances to propel a vehicle that will be well below of the 35.5 mpg mandate of 2016. I can already see Mercedez Benz joining the ranks of other car makers begging the federal government for an extention of the 2016 mandate. Just wait for the "We too are just to big to fail" song to play in Washington DC.

I am afraid this technology will have too little to offer in the long run and this is why: a Ford Escape hybrid which is basically a box with wheels (very high drag coefficient), it is very heavy (3669 lbs), it has a high compression ratio (12.3) Atkinson engine and it is rated at 34 mpg city/ 31 mpg highway (32.5 mpg combined), still beats my 2007 Toyota Yaris which is only 2346 lbs, has a fairly low drag coefficient, has an Otto cycle engine with a compression ratio of 10.5 and 29 mpg city/35 mpg highway (32 mpg combined). Ford has not started to used direct injection on the Escape's Atkinson engine but once they do, the compression ratio will easily go north of 15:1. Such high compression ratio, will make the thermal efficiency increase dramatically. An engine with a compression ratio of 15:1 will have an exhaust temperature below 800 degrees Celcius which means a small turbine can be used to convert some of the exhaust into additional electrical energy that can charge a battery. Such low exhaust temperature will eliminate the need of using heat resistant exotic materials to build the turbine. In short, ethanol boosting will only offer a very small increase of compression ratio to an engine that is already using direct injection.

This is great news. However, Panasonic seems to have the most energy dense lithium ion battery on the market (well over 200 Whr per kilogram). Why not make a final push for the transition from nickel metal hydride to lithium ion.

I drive an automatic 2007 Toyota Yaris that has a combined EPA rating of 32.5 mpg. I am a hypermiling freak and I usually get 37 mpg. I replaced the original tires to the new Goodyear FuelMax tires and I get 38 to 39 mpg. The problem with hypermiling is that you can't keep your speed constant all the time and you end up bothering other drivers behind you. It would be nice to have an electric boost when you are coasting down so that you don't have to engage the engine multiple times. Ideally, the hypermiling can be done by the car itself; when the current fuel consumption falls below certain threshold, it must mean that you are going down hill and therefore the small electric motor can sustain a constant speed. If the car is able to keep a constant speed without the electric boost, then car turns off the electric motor and if the car keeps gaining speed when the electric motor is off, let's say 2 mph above the cruise control setting, then the motor can be used as a generator (regenerative braking). Of course you will need to install a turbine in the exhaust to keep the small battery charged. In short, when you go uphill, the engine output is high and therefore the turbine charges the battery, and when you go downhill, the engine is off and in neutral, with the electric motor providing constant speed.

The end game is clear! Implement Atkinson engines for all cars, use direct injection to further increase the compression ratio and therefore thermal efficiency, use a small turbine to scavenge the last few Joules out of the exhaust, pass the turbine exhaust through a heat exchanger to trap the heat to maintain cabin temperature and....keep these engines off as long as those lithium ion batteries have any charge left! As batteries become more power dense, we should reduce the size of the ICE to the point that they will only be used as a cogeneration unit that will turn on only to heat the cabin in cold weather.

Ford is in the right track. Now, since the higher the compression ratio, the lower the exhaust temperature (a hot gas temperature goes down as it expands), then using a Miller cycle or an Atkinson cycle engine with direct injection and a compression ratio of 15:1, will give an exhaust temperature that is sufficiently low to not even bother with exotic materials that can withstand temperatures as high as 1,050 °C. The end game is very clear: the internal combustion engine should have the absolute highest compression ratio (and therefore the highest thermal efficiency) possible while an electrical motor should provide the majority of the acceleration. Electric motors such as those made by UQM, Raser Technologies, AC Propulsion or the motor used in the Tesla Roadster come to mind. High power lithium ion batteries such as Altair Nano, A123 Systems or Hitachi will make an excellent choise to power these electric motors.

Before A123 Systems and Altairnano, Hitachi had the best power dense lithium ion battery. The number of charge/discharge cycles were off the chart too. Then they simply dissapeared. I hope this time they stick to it and start mass producing these batteries so that we have some healthy competition. $10000 for a Prius battery module from A123 Systems is simply obscene.

I think this is a wonderful start. Hopefully, GM will soon switch to the Atkinson engine, use direct injection so that they can surpass the compression ratio of the Toyota Prius which is 13:1 without direct injection, add an exhaust energy recovery system with an electric turbocharger to increase the engine power density and you get a luxury car that can compete with the Prius in fuel economy.

Why is Ford squandering all this time and resources into making a car that averages 21 mpg when the real challenge is to meet the 35 mpg fleet average by 2016? I guess they are just banking on the republicans to win back the White House on 2012 and reverse all these fuel economy mandates...I really expected a lot more from Ford.