2017 Ford Mustang 50th Anniversary Shelby Super Snake on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Ford C-Max Solar Energi takes a recharging station wherever it goes

Companies ranging in size from small startups to major automakers have been experimenting with solar-powered charging stations for EVs and plug-in hybrids. And, of course, people have been powering vehicles with onboard solar panels for quite some time, too. Still, Ford's new C-Max Solar Energi Concept shows the promise of a truly practical implementation of solar on a production vehicle, and it may not be as far off in the future as we had thought.
As we reported a few days ago, the Solar concept makes use of a "concentrator lens" that focuses sunlight onto the Ford's roof-mounted solar panels. The special lens follows the rays of the sun to maximize the amount of charge being fed to the batteries of the car, taking about a day to fully charge the 21-mile, all-electric range of the C-Max Energi. Ford data suggests that combination might be enough to power 75 percent of all trips made by a statistically average driver. In turn, using the sun to power a vehicle could reduce yearly C02 emissions by up to four metric tons when compared with the driver of an average gasoline-powered sedan.
We've got live images of the C-Max Solar Energi Concept, jauntily tilted on its display to best present it's signature solar panels, straight from the CES floor.

Buy Ford and GM stock and make 5%

Want to make a five-percent return when 10-year treasuries are paying around two percent? Ford (F) and General Motors (GM) have solid balance sheets, strong cash flow, solid earnings, and growing markets. By all accounts, they are smart investments. But the market is down on these stocks. Why? Some of the stupid excuses include: They are cyclical companies The Detroit 3 have lost 3.5 million in sales since 2000 The world economy is shaky GM recently filed for bankruptcy Their markets have peaked They haven't changed their ways Let's take these criticisms one by one: They Are Cyclical Companies Yes, they are cyclical. Every company is cyclical. Every industry is cyclical. Some more than others, but not every company is immune from swings in the market. Banks used to be 'non-cyclical' leader, not anymore. Airline stocks are just as cyclical as auto stocks, yet they are trading at multiples greater than the auto industry. Why? And what accounts for the irrational stock price for Tesla (TSLA)? At least Ford (F) and General Motors (GM) make money and have positive cash flows. In fact, both companies have a net positive cash position. They have more cash on hand than liabilities. Auto sales in the United States hit a record 17.5 million vehicles in 2015. During the Great Recession, Ford (F) and General Motors (GM) cut their break even points to 10 million vehicles per year. Anything above an annual U.S. volume of 10 million vehicles is profit. And what a profit they make. Sales of Ford's F-150 continues to be the best-selling vehicle in the United States for over 30 years. Detroit 3 Have Lost 3.5 million in Sales Since 2000 Automotive News reports General Motors (GM), Ford (F) and Chrysler (FCA) have lost a combined 3.5 million vehicles sales since 2000. So how can they be making more money? Two big reasons – Fleet Sales and the UAW. Fleet Sales The Detroit 3 used to own car rental companies to keep their factories running. Ford owned Hertz (HTZ), General Motors owned all of National Car Rental and 29 percent of Avis, and Chrysler, the forerunner to Fiat Chrysler (FCA), used to own Thrifty Car Rental and Dollar Rent-A-Car. The Detroit 3 owned these rental companies to have a place to sell their bad product and keep their factories running. These were low margin sales, and in many cases, were money losers for the Detroit 3. They no longer own auto rental companies.

Nuclear-powered concept cars from the Atomic Age

In the 1950s and early 60s, the dawn of nuclear power was supposed to lead to a limitless consumer culture, a world of flying cars and autonomous kitchens all powered by clean energy. In Europe, it offered the then-limping continent a cheap, inexhaustible supply of power after years of rationing and infrastructure damage brought on by two World Wars.
The development of nuclear-powered submarines and ships during the 1940s and 50s led car designers to begin conceptualizing atomic vehicles. Fueled by a consistent reaction, these cars would theoretically produce no harmful byproducts and rarely need to refuel. Combining these vehicles with the new interstate system presented amazing potential for American mobility.
But the fantasy soon faded. There were just too many problems with the realities of nuclear power. For starters, the powerplant would be too small to attain a reaction unless the car contained weapons-grade atomic materials. Doing so would mean every fender-bender could result in a minor nuclear holocaust. Additionally, many of the designers assumed a lightweight shielding material or even forcefields would eventually be invented (they still haven't) to protect passengers from harmful radiation. Analyses of the atomic car concept at the time determined that a 50-ton lead barrier would be necessary to prevent exposure.