G. David Felt

REBUTTAL – Dwight has given good information below, yet I believe he left it in an Apple to Orange comparison for some info rather than a true Apple to Apple Counter Points: Five Reasons You shouldn't switch to CNG (1) CNG is much less dense than Gasoline. At atmospheric pressure a given volume of natural gas has 1/1000th the density of gasoline. Even at 3,000 psi (204x the pressure of the air we breathe, CNG has about 1/5th (22%) the volumetric energy density of gasoline. What it means is that for a given size of tank, a CNG car will go 1/5th the distance between refueling. Or, if it is to go the same distance it has to have 5 times the fuel tank volume. Rebuttal – True as it comes out of the ground, but then oil is not usable as a fuel either till refined. As such, Natural Gas is compressed (CNG) to 3600 psi that gives you a Gas Gallon Equivalent (GGE). This is how you then have a usable fuel for auto. CNG GGE = 1 Gallon Petrol. MPG = Same as Petrol, 130 Octane means you get more HP and Torque depending on the efficiency of the engine. Your example of only 1/5th the distance on CNG is misleading, proven by the industry over and over. (2) CNG is compressed to a high pressure. This means that tanks have to be cylindrical or spherical to effectively contain that pressure. Spheres and cylinders are much less space efficient than the kind of irregular shaped gasoline tanks cars use to tuck the fuel under the rear seats above and around the drive shaft and suspension bits. Rebuttal – Yes the cylindrical shape is not as efficient in one large tank as a petrol tank, but thanks to carbon fiber, type 5 tanks allow multiple layouts by using multiple small tanks such as the Chevy Van that uses a 3 tank layout in the frame under the body to give you a impressive storage amount. (3) CNG is not as available as gasoline or even diesel at today's gas stations. If you drive CNG, you have to plan your refueling stops around stations that sell CNG. If you drive gasoline you just drive and pull over at any gas station when the empty light goes on. Rebuttal – All current OEM built autos have CNG fast fill stations clearly listed for ease of find a fueling station. In fact one can drive from Vancouver BC to Baja California, From LA to Florida and up and down the east coast rather easy with finding fast fill CNG stations. Even driving from San Francisco to DC across the middle of the US was done on a CNG road trip in a CNG only Honda Civic GX. The 2015 Bi-Fuel Chevy Impala, with Petrol and CNG, this car on sale spring of 2014 will have a 150 mile range on CNG plus the petrol range. On top of this, with CSA certified CNG home fueling appliances, you can fuel for less than a dollar at home not having to bother going to a CNG station. As of 2009, 50% of all households in the US had Natural Gas available for use. http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=49&t=8 (4) Converting existing engines to CNG has no performance or efficiency benefits. In fact, both are a little worse. CNG is best run with increased compression ratios, but most converted CNG engines simply replaces gasoline fuel systems and metering with a CNG compatible alternative without changing the engine internals. If you drive CNG, it is best to get a factory CNG vehicle with an engine designed from the ground up to use CNG. These unfortunately are few and far in between, limiting your choices. Rebuttal – Todays conversion kits allow the modern day efficient engines to burn CNG so that one keeps the same MPG. Fuel delivery via the injectors, a fully functional computer brain that takes all sensors into account and adjust timing / dwell, etc. to maximize the burn of CNG. Can the engines be tuned or built to be more efficient for CNG, sure and that has been done in markets like Italy and Brazil. In many places, these pure CNG engines are just that, the current Petrol engines tweaked to truly maximize CNG. Yet you do not loose MPG with a Petrol engine converted to CNG. One exception is older auto’s that have carburetors, the adapters used for these engines do reduce MPG, HP and torque due to the inefficient use of fuel via the Carburetor. Modern day engines with injectors loose no fuel loss and as such no loss of MPG, HP or torque. (5) Today, US Natural Gas usage in vehicles is about 33 billion cu-ft compared to the total 23,400 billion cu-ft. That is 0.14% of the total usage; quite insignificant in the overall scheme of things. The USA uses a lot of NG and for good reasons we have a lot of it. Can we use more and be less reliant of imported oil? Sure. But is NG in vehicular use the best avenue to increase that usage? In residential and industrial heating, as well as power generation, the storage density issues (CNG's Achilles heels) are largely irrelevant since the fuel is pipe delivered in very mildly pressurized form. Most US power plants are not NG fired. Many homes use electric stoves and heaters. A drive to convert these to NG has a much larger effect on NG usage than trying to use them in vehicles without all the compromises. Rebuttal – According to the EIA, 35% of electrical production is now by Natural Gas, 65% is an almost 50/50 mix of Coal and Nuclear. Natural Gas use has finally passed coal use for clean energy production. Natural gas is far more readily available to home users and with efficient CSA certified CNG appliances, Time Fill fueling at home is a reality. While we see many businesses such as UPS and Waste Mgmt. go to CNG fueled fleets, more and more trucks are being produced to run on pure CNG only by Kenworth and Peterbuilt for inner city deliveries as the cities require cleaner fleets. Cost of CNG for businesses and home owners who keep their auto's longer than 3 yrs makes sense to use this abundant fuel. As one can see from the map below, we have an extensive network of Natural Gas pipelines and it is continually expanding. Here is the compressor map showing the ability to move natural gas around the US.

BMW is so far out of touch with customers, I suspect we will see them do an about face in the next 5-10 years and consolidate their lineup to be cleaner.

Perceptions and Concerns about Diesel, Electric, Hybrids and Plug-in Hybrids. G. David Felt Alternative Energy writer for www.CheersandGears.com In todays auto industry, it is becoming more and more an issue of cost and long life that people will consider moving to new technology. Yes we all have a friend, family member or know of someone that jumps on every new gadget that comes along. Yet, what would it take to have a person change from their traditional petrol auto to a Diesel, Electric, Hybrids or Plug-in Hybrids? Here is just some of what was found by this survey: Shoppers top motivators for moving to they types of autos: Better Fuel Economy 70% Gas savings 56% Cleaner Emissions 37% Greener Environment 28% Federal Tax Credit 24% Price Premium consideration: Willing to pay for Diesel 53% Willing to pay for Hybrids 51% Willing to pay for EVs 41% Willing to pay for Plug-in Hybrids 39% Cost and Perceptions against buying Diesel: Fuel Expense 55% Too Expensive to purchase 45% Noise 32% Environmental destruction 29% Obstacles and reasons against purchasing for Hybrids and Plug-ins Too expensive to purchase Plug-in Hybrid 71% Too expensive to purchase Hybrid 66% Too expensive to purchase EVs 60% High Cost of Maintenance Plug-in & EVs 58% High cost of Maintenance Hybrids 55% Battery Life / Range EVs 67% Battery Life / Range Plug-in Hybrids 64% Battery Life / Range hybrids 52% 59% said EVs would need to get over 150 miles per charge. 56% said Plug-in hybrids would have to get over 80 miles per charge. 40% for Plug-in and 31% for EVs said they would not buy as they do not want to plug in. Toyota was First, followed by Honda and then Ford for who the top 3 alternative energy car companies. For a full review, go to: Source AutoTrader.com http://press.autotrader.com/2013-11-14-AutoTrader-com-Survey-Reveals-Shopper-Perceptions-And-Concerns-Regarding-Diesel-Hybrid-Electric-And-Plug-in-Hybrid-Vehicles

Very interesting, legal issues for doing it?

GM used to be full service on light, medium and heavy duty trucks, vans and auto's and look where it got them. I say eventually MB will also fall to the weight of trying to be all things everywhere.

Yea, no big deal, some will love it as they are connected everywhere, others will ignore it and not use it. I could care less as once my work day is over, I check my few sites, but I love to drive and only want to listen to music on my xm radio commercial free and drive.

Athiest

Religion

Drew, Sorry to make your head hurt, I understand trust me that Torque is what moves an auto. I wish Marketing would not get so hung up on HP. Maybe since I have never run a stock engine, I tend to not think about it, but for all my engines, they tend to go in parrallel the HP and Torque and continue even when HP crosses over the flat torque band. My v8's that I have all tend to give max HP just within 500 to 1000RPMs past max torque and as such when I see an engine that needs to go 2-3K RPM past max torque I just shake my head as to why. Perfect example is how marketing send the message that you have to have so much more HP at high speeds to keep the auto going BS. You see the Italian Pony as one example of an auto with 600+ HP and just barely 400lbs torque. I think the Corvette shows the perfect blend. Sorry for hijacking the thread and causing confusion, my head is in a fog today, not feeling well so probably not communicating clearly. Sorry.

Maybe MB will kick off these van Trends again.

SMK has been drinking deeply from the MB punch bowl lately. Cadillac can ignor this market, they do NOT need to do vans.

IF they do go with a New CEO, then get a Real Car guy who can drive the passion. Maybe that new German guy who came over to GM from BMW?

Still Think Cadillac should have a family of V4, V6 and V8 engines based on Corvette V8 DNA engines for their lineup. These engines could all be Twin Turbo'd and maxed out and then use detuned versions for the other departments.

I think the Chinese will make more changes than anyone will expect as they try to take on the world and grow to be #1.

I do not have an issue with the torque of these motors, just that you have to rev much higher to get all the ponies. This makes me call them a high reving motor. I personally think that horsepower and Torque should go in parallel so that as you build torque, you also build horsepower and you do not have to go even higher to just get that power.

Patience young pawdawan, in time you be rewarded you see.

Per the Ford News Release, http://corporate.ford.com/news-center/press-releases-detail/all-new-2015-lincoln-mkc When equipped with the all-new 2.3-liter EcoBoost engine option, MKC offers a projected 275 horsepower at 5,500 rpm and 300 lb.-ft. of torque at 3,000 rpm, according to preliminary test data. Class-exclusive Active Grille Shutters are designed to help improve MKC fuel efficiency at highway speeds. MKC comes standard with a 2.0-liter EcoBoost four-cylinder turbocharged engine, projected to produce 240 horsepower at 5,500 rpm and 270 lb.-ft. of torque at 3,000 rpm, according to preliminary test data. This makes Lincoln MKC an all-EcoBoost vehicle. NO V6 engine option at all, I think this is wrong as it will not be seen as the luxury people will put towards other auto makers, but time will tell if the sales prove their engine options right or wrong. I personally am not a fan of these high reving small engines. I will probably be proven wrong over time, but I still do not see the longevity of these small power plants compared to a V8 power plant. I do not think the trucks and suv's will live a long life when compared to what has been built with bigger motors.

Thanks for checking in LS6

Chick Flicks

The ute would seem to be very special order in my opinion. I think a 3rd party company could build a special edition one for the market here cheaper than importing it. Ute Kit Car.

Sounds like Chevy and GMC want to stay apart and truly differentiate their products which would be a good thing. No need to have them sit side by side and be called the twins. Yes we know they are off the same base platform, but at least truly make the external and internal area different.

I have wondered how the stand alone Volvo dealerships have survived as the one by me needs a major remodel of the show room and they do not have much inventory or seem busy. So how have they survived? With China now owning them, I know they will make a big effort to survive, but can they over come such large hurdles to really survive in the US market long term? To me they are a competitor to Buick, Lexus, Acura, not to BMW, MB or Cadillac. While I think they are quirky auto's, I wonder just how fast they can recover or if they really will to be profitable. Going to be interesting to watch.

While I can see the generic shape of the Ford Edge here, it is clearly a solid job on making it stand alone. I like the dash layout and while easy on the eye's, I wonder if this will still blend into the background and be forgotten in a short amount of time.

Very cool, look forward to seeing your review and what you think of the AFM and if any issues seem to show up.

crying