Mazda's Hybrid-Free Strategy
Mazda admits that it lacks the cash required to field its own hybrid technology.
Peter Fairley 03/30/2009
- 4 Comments
 |
Mazda R&D chief Seita Kanai confirmed last week that his company has no plans to commercialize its own hybrid technology, according to a report last week in Automobile Magazine. The Japanese automaker markets a hybrid version of its Tribute, a small SUV, which Automobile Magazine describes as a Ford-engineered system closely resembling the Ford Escape Hybrid. Kanai says that Mazda will instead achieve mandated fuel economy savings by improving engines and transmissions, and by redesigning vehicles to reduce their weight.
But Kanai also admitted that Mazda simply couldn't afford to field a hybrid. And he acknowledged that the resulting technology gap represented a worrisome problem for the company with many buyers enamored of hybrids. Here's how Kanai put it, according to Automotive News:
"We're in real trouble," Kanai said of the rapidly falling hybrid prices. "It's a threat. We don't have the resources to get involved in that kind of competition."
The company could be even further behind if one is to believe plans by automakers such as Nissan and Ford to aggressively push into fully battery-powered electric vehicles (EVs). Nissan is considering selling its first battery EV in the U.S starting next year--two years faster than it had previously planned, according to another report today from Automotive News.
Quoting Mark Perry, Nissan's U.S.-based product planning and strategy director, the report says that the rollout of Nissan's EV will track the rollout of charging infrastructure, city-by-city. Presumably a thumbs up from the Department of Energy on Nissan's request for loans to build an EV battery plant in Tennessee could also affect the automaker's appetite for taking a bet on EVs in the U.S.
On Twitter
Become a Fan on Facebook
Subscribe to the Feed
georgeheintzman
2 Comments
Electricity in the long run
Yes, the entry cost is high in the short run. But electricity will win in the long run because its cheaper. Only the cost of batteries is in the way. Here is the basic physics and economics. The specific fuel efficiency of the automotive engine is .3 kg /kwh or .41 l/kwh (Wikipedia). At $1/liter that's 41 cents a kwh for fuel. I pay about 8.5 cents per kwh for electricity. 8.5 cents is less than 41 cents. As the cost of fossil fuel rises the case for electricity gets better. I urge you to do your own calculation. Get the specific fuel consumption from your local technical school with a dynamometer and use the prices for fuel and electricity that you pay. The rest is grade three math. Then help your friends understand the underline forces for change.
Reply
markduran
6 Comments
Re: Electricity in the long run
Sure electricity costs 8.1 cents /kwh until you hit one of three levels which I do regularly here in California and the cost becomes 25.6 cents/kwh (we're still paying for the Enron debacle). Secondly, batteries are very expensive when you take a deep accounting that includes ecological ramifications. Currently, Sudbury Ontario bears the brunt of the nickel mining eco problems with thousands of acidified lakes and massive air pollution. When one considers these two drawbacks, hybrids using lead/nickel batteries don't really make sense. Personally, I'm holding out for better designed engines and hydrogen fuel cell technology--until then I'll continue to drive my 89 Toyota Pickup.
Reply