It's using the existing platform, but making it smarter and more efficient with some subtle changes -- and it can best the complete change technologies:

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hyVOI0xu-CpL5MqBDJDPoE ...

Ford didn't reveal how much EcoBoost will cost, but said customers can expect to recoup their initial investment through fuel savings in two-and-a-half years, versus seven-and-a-half years for a diesel or nearly 12 years for a hybrid. EcoBoost is also ethanol compatible.

Ford's new product will probably be DOA, outdated and surpassed by other car makers by then.

I may want to take that bet.

I heard some backpedaling on the Volt from the President of GM in an NPR interview.   Although the initial claims are of plus 100 mpg, there may have been some fudgy "ciphering" going on.

And there's already lawsuits against hybrids for failing to deliver mpg as advertised.

And why not try to think up ways to make using gasoline more efficient?    

And even if we switch to hydrogen (in standard engines) or ethanol, this sounds like technology that could be used in either case for greater efficiency.

http://frepubtra.blogspot.com/

.

Think differently?  Read your history.  

For the last 30 years, the automotive industry in North America has overwhelmingly used engine technology improvements to make bigger and faster cars, rather than cars that pollute less or consume less gasoline.

This technology will be used to do the same thing.  It will enable Ford to increase horsepower while complying with existing emissions / mileage requirements (such as they are).

Without legislative improvements to those emissions / mileage requirements, Ford won't use this technology to improve emissions or mileage.

Techno-philes, no doubt, will disagree.  They're a strange, self-deluding species.

But cars are not faster. What they are is more powerful. I think it is logical that the American consumer wants a vehicle that accelerates to freeway speed more safely. It should be obvious that the consumer wants a larger car for safety as well. (I think the US car buyer also knows that the government is in a sense lying to them about crashworthyness tests. Those tests only rate how passengers will fare in a collision with a car or truck about the same size.)

The SUV loophole created in prior efforts to improve auto efficiency should be a clue that legislating the technology that goes to market is difficult. Why not do as the Europeans do and let the free market forces do the job -- double the price of gasoline and see what happens.

Socialscientist and Dave are both right.  We need to get rid of cars and use bicycles, walking, and public transit, and sorry folks, technology will not save us, it will just create more environmental problems as it has always done.

Compared to 30 years ago cars do pollute less and they do consume less gasoline, unlike what DaveGreenandRed implies.

What good is that if there are many many more cars now than 30 years ago?  It is better that they are cleaner but overall the problem is worse than 30 years ago by shear numbers and miles driven.  When gas prices drop people drive more and drive bigger.  Better economy does the same thing.

Better economy is a good thing but it will drive up the sprawl problem making the problem worse yet again.

Driving less is the only solution.  Free transit is a big part of it too.

But go ahead Ford, innovate.  I wouldn't want to legislate greed and good marketing.  I simply choose not to believe the hype.

I remember 30 or 40 years ago there was ZPG and the Sierra Club had a population policy and active program. Today environmental organizations are afraid offend their political allies on the left who oppose immigration control and to incense their political opponents on the right who oppose abortion.

"We have met the enemy and he is us."

http://frepubtra.blogspot.com