The New York Times wants everyone everywhere to drive fuel-efficient automobiles or, preferably, take the subway. The Gray Lady’s Op Ed staff view SUV and pickup drivers as intellectually, politically, environmentally and morally corrupt. At the moment, the Times has won the day; new federal regulations force automakers to sell fuel-sippers or die– at least until they can figure-out a way to queer the system. But don’t expect magnanimity from the Big Apple Boyz. They see Ford’s new F-150, one of America’s most popular vehicles, as recidivism of the worst sort. “We fear that a $1.50 drop in gas prices was all it took to blunt Detroit’s newfound fervor for energy efficiency. Just a few weeks ago, the Big Three American automakers convinced Congress to give them $25 billion in cheap loans to retool their plants to make fuel-efficient cars. Then, with nary a blush, the Ford Motor Company introduced the new star in its line: the 2009, 3-ton, 16-miles-per-gallon, F-150 pickup.” The nerve! The fact that the new F-150 is the most fuel-efficient full-size pickup truck on the market doesn’t seem to matter. Ford– and by extension Detroit– just aren’t trying hard enough…
“As for that commitment to fuel economy? The new trucks should be 8 percent more fuel efficient than the 2008 models, on average — which means that they still use about 50 percent more gas per mile than, say, a Honda Accord.” The NYT ends their tire-rade with the usual condescension. “They evidently haven’t learned enough from their mistakes. Perhaps Congress, from which the automakers are lobbying for more taxpayer money, can help correct their ways — at the very least — by attaching strict fuel-economy requirements to any future aid.” Uh, hello? The $25b Department of Energy no- to low-interest loans mandate that the subsidized vehciles are 25 percent more fuel-efficient than the ones they replace– at least until they can figure-out a way to queer the system.
102 Comments on “NYT: New Ford F-150 Shows Detroit Doesn’t “Get It”...”
Back to TopLeave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
You can also login using Facebook Connect.
I keep waiting for an NYT editorial position I agree with. So far, no luck.
“The New York Times wants everyone everywhere to drive highly fuel-efficient automobiles or, preferably, take the subway.”
Everyone. No. No. No.
Everyone they invite to cocktail parties is very important and has to go places and meet people — all over the world — so they absolutely must — I mean MUST — have cars with drivers and back seats big enough for them and their friends — who are also very important, and trunks that can hold all of their luggage, so they can get to the airport and get on their jets (no, I don’t mean American Airlines, how common), and go places and meet people.
You must have your taxes increased to pay for subways to bring the middle class to work so they can clean up the bathrooms and serve sushi at their cocktail parties with very important people. It simply would not do if they all drove cars, the streets would be so crowded that they could not get to the airport on time.
Welcome to Obamaworld — Schmuck.
Sometimes when you read things that are so out of touch with reality, you have to wonder if the author is joking, or if they really do live in such an insular world. Like people who say they believe the earth is really only 5000 years old; can someone be so isolated in their little realm that facts and logic cannot intrude. It appears that’s what happens when you live in Manhattan and work at the New York Times.
Where to begin? That full sized trucks are still needed in so many places? That trucks still sell in huge volumes and only a suicidal automaker would voluntarily leave the market. That the new F150 has been in the pipeline for five years?
Of course trying to explain the realities of the automobile industry to the New York Times editorial board would be like trying to tell a fundamentalist preacher about the science behind evolution: yelling at brick wall.
What does this have to do with OBama.
And NY Times is a newspaper. Its not Wall Street. Sounds a bit like a rant.
Anyway, NYTimes writer does seem clueless as to Detroit reaction time. Detroit needs years to react. They didn’t launch the F150 project in Autumn 2008.
What Ford also did not do is engineer the F150 for best fuel economy. No way. Its a pig.
“The Gray Lady’s Op Ed staff view SUV and pickup drivers as intellectually, politically, environmentally and morally corrupt.”
Well, yeah, they are. Not all though, I will concede to the people that have to use pick-up trucks for work.
“Welcome to Obamaworld — Schmuck.”
First, what does this have to do with President Obama? I am pretty sure that the column in question would have been written if McCain (McLame? McShame? McArrogantSonOfABitch.) would have won the election.
The best man won. Get over it.
Face it, people who use pick-up trucks as their day-to-day transportation are the real schmucks. I mean WOW(!) the brand new Ford F-150 gets 21 miles per gallon!! Where can I jump in on the circle jerk? So it got that kind of mileage under controlled conditions, what about real world? What about all the trash-cans on wheels sold by OEMs?
Think before you speak. Oh, and get used to saying President Obama, by the way. I don’t know about you; but I did not, and do not enjoy working for an idiot.
A truck is a tool. It is not Ford’s fault that people who don’t need them buy them. It used to be that only peope who needed them drove trucks, so GM and Ford came out with the El Camino/Ranchero so that working folks wouldn’t have to ride around in trucks. If they want to give any maker a ration of shit, why not BMW? They make the X3,X5, and the most amazingly useless of all, the X6. Or Porsche?
Ford– and by extension Detroit– just aren’t trying hard enough…
this, however, IS true.
they simply CANNOT develop torquey engines that get better than 16mpg highway??? REALLY?? can’t add a little electric motor on there to help? why not make the entire line diesel-only? REALLY?? if you NEED one of these for utility, diesel will do!
we got NOTHING better in the works? this is as far as we’ve come? Really? NOTHING???
REALLY!?!?!?!?!?!??
Face it, people who use pick-up trucks as their day-to-day transportation are the real schmucks.
Agreed. 99% of the people I know with full size pickups say they need them for events that happen at most 2-3 times/year.
I also think most CUV’s and SUV’s are even more asinie than pickup trucks and the drivers of those deserve more grief since there is zero utility in those vehicles.
The problem is that it isn’t common middle class folk in the media ranting about the waste of trucks/SUV’s. It’s the elite class (hollywood/politicians) who are for the most part hypocrits getting chauffered around in equally inefficient luxury cars and grossly wasteful private jets.
Singling out Obama may be a bit unfair to the president elect, but calling out Democrats in general is very well placed. Haven’t heard many Republicans saying bad things about SUV’s lately, have you?
From Detroit-Iron: “If they want to give any maker a ration of shit, why not BMW? They make the X3,X5, and the most amazingly useless of all, the X6. Or Porsche?”
That is a damned good question, why don’t they? The only thing worse than a pick-up, is an SUV. You are right, pick-ups are just tools. But once people started using them for different purposes, they became the tools.
A truck is a tool.
…and so are the drivers. Ba-doom-ching! Thanks, I’ll be here all week.
Ahem..
The NYT is guilty perhaps of making a blanket statement, but the general thrust is accurate: Detroit isn’t trying hard enough across the spectrum. Ford, if the Fiesta and Focus show up unmolested and on-schedule, is trying, but GM and Chrysler are just winding the clock out now that “business as usual” isn’t an option.
Put it this way: Ford, Chrysler or GM could have compromised truck development in favour of small cars as, realistically, their dominance of the truck market is strong and would suffer a few extended model cycles, while they have nothing to lose (except some margin dollars) by improving their small car performance. But while the F-150, Ram and GMT900s all benefit from R&D dollars, the current Focus, Caliber, Aveo and Cobalt suffer for being starved.
Al Gore spoke at a tree-hugger fest while his full-size SUV waited outside with the A/C running. The WWF sponsors a trip around the world in a chartered airliner.
It’s hypocrisy that people have a problem with, not efforts at conservation.
Maybe the NY Times employs a team of engineers that could explain to us how an F-150 could be both powerful enough for its duties, and yet efficient enough to get 25 mpg.
unregular-
If Ford, GM, Nissan, anyone had developed the technology to build a truck engine that satisfies everone’s desire for fuel efficiency, they would have sold it by now. Enough with the conspiracy stuff.
“If they want to give any maker a ration of shit, why not BMW? They make the X3,X5, and the most amazingly useless of all, the X6. Or Porsche?”
because we want to focus on AMERICAN companies. those are the ones in peril and those are the ones trying to squeeze bailout $ out of us.
they are NOT trying hard enough and they are NOT working smart enough. and it is hurting the American economy.
how am i being conspiratorial? I’m saying they are DUMB! not that they are hiding stuff… no conspiracy!
Al Gore spoke at a tree-hugger fest while his full-size SUV waited outside with the A/C running. source?
sorry, friend, but that TYPE of politics died this week. let’s work on answers, not “Al Gore once left a light on in his bathroom and Nancy Pelosi once was in a restaurant with a guy who looked like Castro!”
enough of that shite. let’s work on answers.
This is American for God’s sake and I will drive whatever I damn well please and can afford. If I only get 15mpg doing so, that is my choice and no one is going to tell me different. People have died for our freedoms and that includes driving whatever the hell I want.
I am so sick of everyone looking down on someone else because of what they drive. You don’t know their situation nor should you care. You should worry about yourself. Also, why is it that cars that get shitty gas mileage don’t draw the same attention as trucks/SUV’s do?
“This is American for God’s sake and I will drive whatever I damn well please and can afford. If I only get 15mpg doing so, that is my choice and no one is going to tell me different. People have died for our freedoms and that includes driving whatever the hell I want”
and that ladies and gentlemen is why GM Ford etc built trucks and SUVs for so long and got in this pickle. Why invest in small cars when the customer wants big thirsty profitable behemoths….
As a household with an SUV, and a truck, not an F-150, why do you all care if the cars that are in my driveway are fuel efficient enough?! You are not paying for my gas, and I am not asking you to –
Yes, I would LIKE for fuel efficiency to be better, and YES, I think Detroit is behind the 8-ball on this, and sinking their own ship – but the choice lies with the buyer!! Show me a compact gas sipper that I can fit my 2 children in car seats, and 2 dogs in for a family trip!! Show me a reasonable alternative (which I have looked at ALL of the current offerings from ALL automakers) I’ll consider it! But even trying to consider something more fuel efficient is not good enough for those of you who call CUV and SUV owners “schmucks” and “tools!!” We can NOT all drive Civics or even the supposedly-coming-Fiesta! Give people a break!!!
People have died for our freedoms and that includes driving whatever the hell I want.
ew. and ugh.
and yikes, dude, that’s is not only wrong, but it’s just wrong.
edit – your FREEDOMS do NOT include “driving whatever the hell you want” – and NO ONE DIED for that cause. don’t disparage those who died for your ACTUAL freedoms in such a manner.
Yes, I would LIKE for fuel efficiency to be better, and YES, I think Detroit is behind the 8-ball on this, and sinking their own ship
looks like you agree with the Times’ article!
the rest of what you said is just your kneejerk SUV arguement. but you seem to get the point of the article….
Is it any wonder that the NYT’s circulation numbers are heading in the same direction as Ford’s sales, and almost at the same rate?
why do you all care if the cars that are in my driveway are fuel efficient enough?!
dependence
on
foreign
oil
and what that means for the security and economy of America.
why do you have such a hard time grasping that concept?
and before you say OMG BUT WHAT ABOUT SPORTS CARS WTF?!?!? – you are only allowed to cite cars that are on the list of top-20 cars/trucks sold in the US as examples, ok?
because see, yes a Ferrari DOES get shitty economy. but there are a SMALL FRACTION of those on the road. less than 1%. F150’s and Expicursions, however, are crawling all over it. There are more H2s on the road than Ferraris, Vipers, and Lambos combined (that’s an educated guess).
Thank you franknham. I am so sick and tired of people railing against the Big3’s trucks and SUVs and people who drive them. Besides the fact that I cycle to work 3 months out of the year, own a “right sized” and energy efficient home, and own a car that gets decent mileage, my Jeep still gets demonized by those that think they have some moral high ground from which to preach from.
Just a few weeks ago, the Big Three American automakers convinced Congress to give them $25 billion in cheap loans to retool their plants to make fuel-efficient cars. Then, with nary a blush, the Ford Motor Company introduced the new star in its line: the 2009, 3-ton, 16-miles-per-gallon, F-150 pickup.
Wow that makes it look like it only took them a week to design, engineer, test and build a new truck now that they have their bailout bucks(which they don’t even really have yet). If Ford could do that it would be amazing, I would consider them saved if they could turn on a dime that fast.
Makes me think of the Jetsons when Coswell Cogs built a new multistory HQ building right next to Spacely Sprokets in about 15 minutes. Strange future that needs two big companies that make cogs and sprokets when they have flying cars that never seem to require fuel.
So, “Un…” am I to take it that because I own a 2 year-old American made SUV, and my husband drives a 4 year-old American made truck (NEITHER of which are the vehicles that you singled out), that we are somehow contributing to the breakdown in our Nation’s security or that we, at the time of these purchases, and even now when these vehicles require service, that we are contributing to the downfall of our economy?!!?!?! I REFUSE to take that responsibility solely on my shoulders! I do not dispute that we need more fuel efficient vehicles that are AMERICAN made to reduce our independence on foreign oil – I merely pointed out that people drive what they drive & it is not your job to judge them when they are paying for that car and filling that tank!
I do not dispute that we need more fuel efficient vehicles that are AMERICAN made to reduce our independence on foreign oil – I merely pointed out that people drive what they drive & it is not your job to judge them when they are paying for that car and filling that tank!
that’s some two-sided stuff right there!
how can you say we need to reduce our DEPENDENCE (not “independence”) on foreign oil – BUT can’t judge people when they fill their tank in their inefficient and unnecessary SUV?
so you’re saying: we need to do that (reduce dependence), but YOU, franknham, YOU don’t need to do that…. and no, don’t judge YOU, franknham, for INCREASING that dependence by filling the tank in YOUR inefficient vehicle? do i have that right?
There should be no problem with Ford making trucks, SUVs or any other type of car if they can make money selling them. That’s Ford’s argument (and every other car company’s argument) for producing these types of vehicles.
OK, no problem. We are a capitalistic society – that’s the way supply and demand works.
I do have a problem with the hypocrisy of this position. It’s OK to manufacture low-cost, high-margin trucks and SUVs, but when the market quickly turns, and the automakers are caught flat-footed, they run to the government for help.
You can’t have it both ways. Either you live and die by capitalism, or you take the public money and the (socialistic) regulation that goes with protecting the public money. Unfortunately, automakers and our elected representatives don’t understand this.
Privatize gains, socialize losses. It sucks and the taxpayers are taking it in the shorts.
-ted
What I don’t get at all, is why people need full-sized trucks. Please note that I’m speaking from ignorance and a genuine desire to learn.
From what I understand, trucks the size of Ford’s F-150 and larger are uniquely American. I keep reading that the new Toyota and Nissan truck plants were big mistakes as the Tundra and Titan can’t be exported outside of North America. This sounds to me like the rest of the world make do with smaller trucks.
So… what makes the American market unique? What sorts of needs do Americans have that the rest of the world don’t?
Obama = NYT = Unregular = Marxist
I frequently agree with the NYT, I favor stricter efficiency standards, and I agree the domestic automakers’ shortsighted over-reliance on large pickups and SUV’s has contributed to their collective decline. (Let’s not call it demise…yet.) Despite all this, the NYT’s rant about the new F-150 is absurd, and displays a profound lack of understanding about the auto industry and market.
Many people and businesses in this country rely on full-sized pickups. Regardless of fuel costs, this segment will remain significant. Ford, therefore, needs to retain a strong presence in the segment to be successful. And of course the model has already been in development for years, so it makes no sense to delay or forego the return on that investment.
Yes, many folks who purchase these vehicles don’t need them. But that has nothing to do with whether full-sized pickups should exist, and they should as long as consumers want them.
golf4me = Bush = Rove = Cheney = Rumsfeld = Economic Collapse = Endless Wars = Bailouts = Spending = Fail = Fail = Palin = Fail = Fail = Fail = Fail
So… what makes the American market unique? What sorts of needs do Americans have that the rest of the world don’t?
big, fat asses.
franknham -
..am I to take it…that we are somehow contributing to the breakdown in our Nation’s security or that we, at the time of these purchases, and even now when these vehicles require service, that we are contributing to the downfall of our economy?!!?!?!
Yes.
I do not dispute that we need more fuel efficient vehicles that are AMERICAN made to reduce our independence on foreign oil – I merely pointed out that people drive what they drive & it is not your job to judge them when they are paying for that car and filling that tank!
This is hypocrisy. If one recognizes the need for more fuel efficient vehicles, and the relationship between oil consumption and national security, but chooses to drive a 16 MPG truck for one’s daily commute anyway, then that person is a hypocrite.
Again, nobody’s disputing that trucks have their place (for WORK), but way too many people drive them just for style or masculine insecurity.
NYT is doing in this article what TTAC does every day, point out how the big 2.8 aren’t trying hard enough in the car division, and spending too much effort/money on trucks and SUVs.
Far be it for me to get in the way of a good NYT bashing (damn tree-hugging socialists!), but how about looking at the real issue: Ford’s inability to adapt to the times.
Ford had some choices when it redesigned the F-150. It could have more aggressively reduced its truck’s size and weight by reverting to the body shell of the previous generation. Instead, Ford heavily borrowed from the F-350’s parts bin. Undoubtedly this increased economies of scale. After all, no one else offered completely different sheetmetal and cab shells for its light and medium-duty trucks. However, one could also argue that the F-150 is now so close to the F-350 that it will cannibalize sales. Meanwhile, the buyer who does want a more efficient pickup will have to go elsewhere.
One does not have to agree with the NYT’s views to appreciate that American trucks need to go on a diet, much like the bloated full-sized American cars of the mid-70s. There’s plenty of small and not so small ways to reduce unnecessary heft without compromising the basic mission of a large truck.
Ford was in the best position of the Big Three to downsize its pickups because it already had two basic bodies in play. Alas, Ford assumed that pick buyers were immune to rising gas prices and would continue to insist on bigness.
I suspect that Ford bet wrong. But so far GM and Chrysler have too, so at least misery loves company. That probably leaves it to Toyota to be the first to downsize its big trucks.
+1 what franknham said.
As for criticism of Ford releasing an updated F-150, give me a break. The F-150 has been insanely popular since forever, and the redesign was in the works for years. Just because the pickup market contracted at the 11th hour, that’s no reason for them to walk away from the R&D money already spent in a segment where they’re the leader.
I have to agree though that the ever increasing size and load capacity of “half-ton” pickups is getting silly. The new trucks are larger and taller than my 1994 Dodge 2500.
unregular-
I don’t see any better efforts from the non-Detroit automakers in having more efficient trucks.
How do you engineer a truck that will get high MPG while still being able to do the tasks that are asked of it such as towing, hauling, or getting off-road? Oh, and keeping it affordable to those that will still need the truck for work and utility purposes? I do agree that it may not be neccessary for everyone to use a truck…but we don’t know the needs of everyone either. I don’t know about where you live, but where I live and where I often travel for work…trucks are used on a daily basis. They’re not status symbols of any means, well maybe getting a Lariat or a GMC over a base F150 or Chevy is a means of somewhat higher wealth.
We live in a democratic country where you can choose what vehicle you want. You pay the price for that, or recoup the savings you seek. It’s the same in pretty much every other country.
If you want to decrease dependence on oil, turn off your computer and your lights…that consumes energy which is most likely powered by a form of fossil fuel (we’ll leave coal out of this since it’s a domestic source). See, we all use energy that makes us dependent on fuels…it’s up to you to decide your energy consumption. Not tell someone what they should do, while you’re still consuming energy that may be dependent on a foreign source.
I have no use for a truck, that’s why I have a Mazda3 wagon (and an old Volvo sedan which usually sits in the garage because I’ll often bike to work) for my family of 3. It’s all we need.
TEXN3 – but do you see the non-Detroit automakers laying off Americans by the thousands and receiving billions in American taxpayer bailout money?
let’s keep our focus on American automakers here. that’s what I care about. we want AMERICAN business to be revitalized in this country.
and for what it’s worth… i get a large % of my electricity from wind. i live in the city where i work. i take the subway to my office. i DO what i CAN. I can ask the same of others.
edit: sorry, i was mistaken, i get 100% of my electricity from wind power.
The New York Times needs to stick with what it knows – which, judging by this editorial, does not include the automobile industry.
Ford is very smart for redoing this truck. There will still be a market for full-size trucks, and Ford is keeping its entry up-to-date.
I don’t see Toyota abandoning this segment.
Ford will have a redone Fusion and Mustang next spring, and the Fiesta and all-new Focus in 2010. So it isn’t as though it is putting all of its eggs in one basket.
Ford will have a full line-up of up-to-date products that appeal to a vareity of buyers – some who want fuel economy with style; some who want solid family sedans; some who want trucks for work or towing.
Just like…Toyota.
How do you engineer a truck that will get high MPG while still being able to do the tasks that are asked of it such as towing, hauling, or getting off-road?
diesel? hydrogen? squirrels-and-pigeons? cow manure? algae? thousands of horses running on treadmills? snickers bars? i don’t fucking know! I AM NOT AN AUTO ENGINEER.
i am asking our Brilliant, Ingenuitive, American Auto Engineers to FIGURE IT OUT!!!! HELP!!!!
They don’t employ as many American workers as the US automakers. However, they are asking for portions of the bailout…corporations will do anything they can to pad their profits a little more.
your FREEDOMS do NOT include “driving whatever the hell you want” – and NO ONE DIED for that cause.
#1 – the constitution says nothing about what vehicles you have a right to drive.
#2 – many people have died for the cause of “cheap energy.” The huge US military presence in the middle east isn’t by accident.
We got big vehicles because at one point in time the USA was awash in oil. It was cheap and plentiful and conservation wasn’t necessary. That ended decades ago, however gov’t needed to support big business (cough GM cough) and started indirect intervetion to keep up business as usual.
Now I don’t support direct gov’t intervention into what people drive…but lets not forget all that indirect gov’t intervention. Look at the network of roads and highways almost all taxpayer funded. Look at the meager gasoline taxes compared to other western nations. Look at the billions spent on military presence in oil exporting zones. We pay a very dear price for cheap gasoline, and why I don’t feel guilty calling someone out for wasteful use of resources. People did die so you could drive your suburban.
All other western nations get by just fine with vehicle much smaller than the US counterparts. Nobody there complains about needing room for their kids & dogs and kitchen sink. Nobody there needs a truck that can haul enough cargo to fill a swimming pool. They make do and oddly enough surveys say they are happier and more satisified than Americans. Go figure.
TEXN3 – let’s focus on making American Car Companies the best in the world.
the “oh but what about them!?!?” is loser talk. let’s focus on what WE can do.
corporations will do anything they can to pad their profits a little more. yeah… that’s why we need oversight and regulation. Alan Greenspan killed Ayn Rand!
The F-150 is a core product, and core products need to be updated periodically. No matter what happens, Ford needs to have a product to serve this segment.
The issue isn’t one of whether the truck should be updated, but of how the company can make a profit with it, at least over the long run.
It’s not an either-or situation. Ford’s mistake was not in updating this, but in failing to have competitive compact and mid-sized sedans that it could sell alongside the F-150. These are basic segments and all of them must receive appropriate attention.
(Ford also needs a competitive luxury sedan that can generate profits once the recession had ended, but they are obviously ill prepared for that eventuality, too. Those profits will be flowing to the usual imported suspects, not to Detroit.)
Saying American automakers are the best in the world is a rather subjective opinion…do you think that? I bought a Ford product, albeit made in Japan. I guess it’s a wash.
Oversight on foreign companies? Good luck.
You won’t be too smug when the government starts regulating your life and your decisions, will you?
Oh, and 100% from wind power…where exactly do you live? I’m curious as to what urban area recieves 100% wind energy in the US.
I’m curious because my profession is being a civil engineer (and land planner) for a firm that does alot of planning/design/engineering/construction on energy projects (T&D, generation, facilities) in North America.
seriously though, don’t ever say this again. ever.
I do not dispute that we need more fuel efficient vehicles that are AMERICAN made to reduce our independence on foreign oil – I merely pointed out that people drive what they drive & it is not your job to judge them when they are paying for that car and filling that tank!
here you go, champ: nstar.com
I said “let’s focus on making American Car Companies the best in the world.”
since you clearly didn’t read what I wrote, I’m not going to answer any more of your questions.
edit: ok, one more: You won’t be too smug when the government starts regulating your life and your decisions, will you?
are you under the impression that we live our lives freemarket-syle? free of regulation of our decisions? i don’t get it. the government regulates MANY of our decisions and MUCH of our lives. do they not? didn’t they “start” that back in 1776?
Robert Schwartz, excellent post. You put so many panties in knots!
Why not? American automakers should offer a wide array of vehicles for the market. It is not hypocritical to think that even if your needs require a larger vehicle. The person that posted the comment did not say that people (except for themselves) should buy the more efficient American vehicles…she said that it is up to them how much money they want to spend on fuel.
I read what you wrote, but am allowed to bring up other points in the process…as that is how a conversation works. Plus, you said “the best in the world” so that pretty much makes your point moot.
How do you know that someone who feels there should be more efficient vehicles doesn’t have more than 2 children? Even 2 car seats will take up an entire mid-size sedan/SUV backseat…no room for anyone else, there goes the carpool.
Should we regulate how many children people have?
EDIT: Finally, you should learn how an electric grid works (your New England grid uses alot of generation from various sources)…not all of your power comes from wind, even if you pay for it. You’re paying a premium for the company to buy more of it’s generation from wind than from a coal-fire, natural gas, even a nuclear plant, as well as other forms of renewable sources. This doesn’t even take into account that wind is not constantly generated.
Look, I enjoy working on wind farms…I actually think the structures are quite fascinating to look at! And there are several being developed in the western US.
Oh, and my energy is 98% hydro, 2% wind from Idaho Power.
But, now we’re getting a bit off-topic.
I am a schmuck!
I drive an ‘05 F150 STX 2WD 5-sp V6 and love it. I routinely achieve 20 mpg in all conditions and use it to commute to work everyday.
I cannot afford to buy, insure and maintain a separate vehicle to just commute with and the F150 is always there when I need it, whether it be trash, furniture or whatever. It is a tool, AND NO, I am not a tool.
It works for me, and my 2007 Focus PZEV-driving spouse.
“The new trucks should be 8 percent more fuel efficient than the 2008 models”
Proof that there is a terrible shortage of engineers contributing to ‘facts’ the NYT likes to spout off in their editorials.
If the NYT’s circulation was busting at the seams, I’d say they might be worth listening to. As it stands, they have their own problems with running their business profitably.
Will their be a bailout of the newspaper industry?
Typical NYT short sighted ignorance. In mere months Ford will be launching…
2010 Festiva
2010 Fusion
– 4 cyl, 33 hwy MPG
– Hybrid, 38 city MPG
They also fail to mention the best-in-class 21mpg SFE model or that the F-150 actually lost 100 lbs compared to the previous model. That’s not huge but it’s an aberration in the full size truck market.
“…which means that they still use about 50 percent more gas per mile than, say, a Honda Accord.”
So they’re comparing the 16mpg 5.4 liter F-150 with an accord? Why don’t they rip the bloated accord for not being a Prius … or for that matter, a bicycle?