AD #2174 – Ford Testing Oversized Escape? GM Not Giving Up On Passenger Cars, Emissions Going Up in California

August 22nd, 2017 at 11:48am

Runtime: 6:03

To watch this episode on YouTube click here.

- Ford Finds EV Partner in China
- Ford Testing Oversized Escape?
- Next-Gen Cruze Production Starts in 2023
- NTSB Wants More Speed Cameras & Lower Limits
- Emissions Going Up in California
- Mercedes Outpaces German Market

Visit our sponsors to thank them for their support of Autoline Daily: Bridgestone , Dow Automotive Systems and Lear Corporation.

»Subscribe to Podcast | iTunes | RSS | Listen on Phone Stitcher | YouTube

Thanks to our partner for embedding Autoline Daily on its website:

15 Comments to “AD #2174 – Ford Testing Oversized Escape? GM Not Giving Up On Passenger Cars, Emissions Going Up in California”

  1. Mike Hawkins Says:

    California emission problem might be from the increasing numbers of poor people driving older and older cars. The Middle Class used to be the largest demographic driving new or fairly new cars that would meet clean air standards. More and more California is looking like a Third World country with wealthy and poor people and more older cars.
    This is on top of the poisoned air drifting over the Pacific from China. It’s a wonder it isn’t worse.

  2. Mac Says:

    NTSB doesn’t get it. The “lower speed limit” red herring doesn’t play with the populace; if it did, we’d still have the 55 mph national speed limit. Further, if simply lowering the speed limit did work, a community could set theirs at 5 mph and eliminate ALL fatalities. While that would be absurd, it shows how silly such propositions are. If we’re serious about lower fatalities, we need better driver training. Driver education alone won’t cut it; we need to significantly improve the skillset of American drivers to have a meaningful impact (no pun intended) on the accident / fatality rates.

  3. Chuck Grenci Says:

    Mercedes Benz, while showing-the-way, over in Europe also offers lower prices variants if I recall. John, am I correct in that statement (and does it have an impact that might explain the differences between some of the others compared)?

  4. Drew Says:

    The film clips of collisions at intersections shows vehicles running through red lights. This means speed is either a secondary or tertiary causal factor. I suspect distraction is the primary causal factor. Hence, lower speed limits are not going to change the frequency of occurrence, but rather the severity of occurrence. I’d rather see NTSB study solutions to address “frequency”.

    By the way, Darwin’s principles might let the distracted drivers kill themselves… creating an amplified anti-distraction campaign and culling the herd from morons. The main problem with this approach is the collateral damage (truly innocent victims).

  5. Kit Gerhart Says:

    3 M-B sells both lower priced cars, like A-Class and B-Class in Europe, and sells cars much less “loaded up” than what they sell in the U.S. You can get a C-Class with several different gas and diesel engines, and with manual transmissions. They are almost a “full line” car company most places, except north America.

  6. Kit Gerhart Says:

    We don’t need lower speed limits. We need red light cameras, and jammers to render cell phones inoperable in cars.

  7. Lex Says:

    That “Great Escape” maybe the new Ford Bronco.

  8. Drew Says:

    Kit, before I retired from the industry, I tried to get the major cellular service providers to suspend non-emergency calls and messages in a moving vehicle unless the phone was paired to a Bluetooth device or was located outside the “space” of the driver’s environment (yes, this is feasible). They refused to progress such an idea as it runs counter to their business strategy of usage and data growth. That’s right, the new millenium brought with it a different type of “drug pusher”… cellular service providers!

  9. Kit Gerhart Says:

    8 Interesting, and I’m not surprised.

  10. GM Veteran Says:

    It seems to me that smart signal lights would really help our traffic and accident debacles.
    First, smart signals can view the traffic lane volume and end the torture of waiting for a light to turn green when there are no cars in the cross traffic street.
    Second, the smart lights could send out a narrowly focused signal when the light turns red, triggering emergency braking systems on cars that are not braking for the red light. In time, this would end the T-bone accidents that are so injurious to drivers and passengers of cars that actually have the green light.

  11. GM Veteran Says:

    Question for John: Does Ford really need a new partner company in China to explore building, selling and servicing electric cars in China? Seems that they could do this with their existing partner company. Perhaps they want to launch the all-new brand without impacting the good reputation that the Ford brand has built in that market?

  12. Bob White Says:

    The Chinese Communist Party has clearly dictated that China will be a clear leader in electrification. There are 7 Tesla equivalents being built today with more to come.

    Foreign Western automakers have no choice but to transfer all their technology to their Chinese partners if they want to participate in the world’s largest auto market. In the long run, will the Chinese partner gobble-up the other half especially when the direction of the PLA is to grow their own companies to be global leaders?

    For example, Bombardier’s train division was doing very well in China until its Chinese partner formed another partnership with a Chinese company. Today, that new partnership is bidding against Bombardier with its own technology and designs.

    Ford is betting the farm in China (with 6 new plants) and transferring significant production to China from Canada and the US. Let’s hope the Ford family is learning the language…

    Ford’s massive expansion in China and transfer of production and especially parts production.

  13. Kit Gerhart Says:

    China is becoming the global leader in most manufacturing. They own consumer electronics, they are, by far, the leader in renewable energy, and they are quickly becoming the leader in car manufacuring. That is not a good thing for employment in the U.S. and elsewhere, but it is happening.

  14. blueovalblood Says:

    I’m thinking the “Great” Escape is a plain view camouflage of the Bronco.

  15. Bob Wilson Says:

    Owning fuel efficient cars often leads to more miles driven. Compounding the fuel savings, trips become more a question of will than budget limited. It is as if the miles driven will expand to the available fuel budget.

    As for counting CO{2} as an emission, seems a little dodgy since there are much worse exhaust components: carbon monoxide (aka., Fords), particulates, NOx, and hydrocarbons. A bus is not always the best answer.

    Last week, the local bus cost $0.50 to travel 10 miles in two hours. I could have ridden a bicycle and been there faster at the risk of the heat and humidity. The local bus was air conditioned and I listened to my podcasts.