One big gripe people have about hybrids is they cost a few grand more than similar conventional models. It’s the so-called hybrid premium, and critics say you’ll have to drive a gazillion miles to recoup it in saved fuel. The Lincoln MKZ Hybrid tosses that argument on its head.

The gas-electric luxury sedan will have the same base price as its V6 gasoline sibling — $35,180, including destination charges — when it rolls into showrooms this fall. Ford boastfully says it is “making automotive history” here. Perhaps. That depends upon whether the pricing scheme will be SOP if Lincoln expands its hybrid line.

“If they make this a trend, it will be huge,” says Aaron Bragman, an industry analyst with IHS Global Insight. “It will differentiate Lincoln from other brands.”

Even if Lincoln limits pricing parity to the MKZ Hybrid, it is significant because it gives consumers another reason to check out a car that, with an EPA-certified 41 mpg, is the most fuel-efficient luxury car in the country. And don’t forget the Lexus HS 250h hybrid luxury sedan starts at $34,650. That’s surely a big part of Ford’s pricing strategy.

Bragman doesn’t expect to see Ford bring pricing parity to the Escape Hybrid and Fusion Hybrid. The gap between Ford and Lincoln has been getting smaller with regard to quality and luxury, so Ford may be increasing the value of the MKZ Hybrid to entire consumers to check out a car that shares its gas-electric drivetrain with the Fusion Hybrid.

“It’s an experiment,” Bragman said. “A really interesting experiment.”

It remains to be seen whether other automakers will bring pricing parity to hybrid models based on conventional models.

Photo: Ford

For Ford Motor Co.'s Lincoln upscale division, however, the definition of "priceless" means "no cost." Lincoln announced today that the price of its 2011 MKZ Hybrid is the same as a standard MKZ with a conventional V6: $35,180.

Pricing the hybrid MKZ identically to the standard version is a significant and potentially game-changing ploy that may put Lincoln on the map with hybrid enthusiasts and surely will cause competing automakers' marketers to watch customer response. And Lincoln's gambit also will test - for good and bad - the limits of hybrid-technology upcharge.

Can automakers profit from outsourced batteries?

Can automakers afford lithium?

Today, lithium is already available on the high end of the luxury hybrid market. Soon, however, lithium battery packs will be available in many other hybrids, plug-in hybrids and electric vehicles.

Still, can automakers derive a profit from lithium-powered vehicles?

Certainly on the high end, automakers are very capable of deriving profits from battery-powered vehicles. Of course, such vehicles represent only a tiny percent of yearly auto sales.

On the conventional side, with sedans and cars making up a greater portion of yearly auto sales, profit margins are more and more difficult for automakers to realize. Consequently, automakers are adding extra amenities and high tech features to increase vehicle pricing points. If costly batteries are added to this equation, will these cars become even more difficult to derive a profit, as well as too expensive for consumers?

Before the launch of the third generation Toyota Prius, high level executives announced that the king of hybrid cars would be powered by lithium, only to recant those statements as Toyota claimed that such batteries would simply be too expensive compared to NiMH. Certainly, compared to every other automaker, Toyota invested much more money into NiMH technology. So, considering the lack of competition, perhaps there was simply no real reason for Toyota to rush into lithium.

As Hyundai prepares to offer the new lithium-powered Sonata hybrid – without ever embracing NiMH technologies -  company insiders claim that Hyundai is contemplating bringing battery development in house to reduce a layer of costs.

Now, certainly, automakers can offset some of the development costs of battery-powered vehicles with the extra marketing capabilities such vehicles can provide. Yet, if battery-powered vehicles ever move beyond niche-status, will profits become harder and harder for automakers to achieve?

The bulk of the battery research, including consumer studies, suggests that automakers are going to have a tough time converting the public to plug-ins because of costs and/or limited capabilities, such as range. That almost certainly seems to suggest the thinnest possible profit margins to compete in terms of sales.

Or, if automakers can bring more and more battery production in-house, there is greater profit potential. Of course, there is also more complexity, potentially huge R&D and supply chain costs, etc.

Do auto makers have to become battery makers to succeed at electrification?

Only time will tell, of course, and different automakers are certain to try various approaches that could possibly lead to entirely different business models. One thing, however, seems certain. Without some major technological innovations in the battery industry, automakers will be required to be more innovative than ever.

Alex Severinsky is a Soviet engineer and emigrant to the United States who once developed antitank-warfare instrumentation. In 1994, he patented a system for powering gas-electric hybrid automobiles. Toyota has been using his system since 1997 without permission or payment.

Until now.

Toyota Motor Corp. has settled a patent-infringement case that has dragged on for six years. The settlement, announced Monday, came the same day the U.S. International Trade Commission was to launch a hearing on Severinsky’s claims. Had the commission sided with the engineer, it could have barred Toyota from importing the Prius and other hybrids.

No one’s discussing the settlement, but Toyota insists it developed its Synergy Drive hybrid system independently of any work Severinsky had done. Severinsky, of course, sees things a bit differently.

This is his story.

The Beginning

“We [were] met by a high degree of cynicism from the automakers.” — Severinsky, to Auto Field Guide, on the industry reception to his technology in the pre-Prius era. 

Severinsky, a professor of mechanical engineering at the University of Maryland, earned a master’s degree in electrical engineering from Kharkov College of Radioelectronics, in Kharkov, Ukraine, in 1967. Eight years later, he earned a doctorate in the same field from Moscow’s Institute for Precision Measurements in Radioelectronics and Physics. He emigrated, as a refugee, to the United States in 1978.

Alex J. Severinsky Photo: University of Maryland

Predictably, Severinsky’s interest in hybrid tech grew out of computing.

In the 1980s, Severinsky spent a great deal of time working on uninterruptible power supplies for computer systems. Patents for gasoline-electric vehicle technology had been awarded before, but the seamless management of drive torque — the subtle transition that makes a hybrid feel like a normal car and not an on-off switch — had long been limited by computing power and component costs.

After years of inquiry, and encouraged by the evolution of high-voltage power semiconductors (needed, as the Innovation Hall of Fame notes, to deliver “satisfactory energy efficiency and power for acceleration”), Severinsky founded Power Assisted Internal Combustion Engines Corp. in 1992.

On September 6, 1994, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office granted Severinsky a patent for his high-voltage method of powering gas-electric hybrid vehicles. He called it “Hyperdrive.” The filing followed years of work and research, and it represented an early version of the thinking that led to the drivetrain in most modern hybrid electric vehicles.

Inexpensive semiconductors, which became available in the late 1990s, allowed Severinsky to build a working vehicle prototype. In October, 1999, he demonstrated his technology in a Cadillac Coupe de Ville and pursued licensing agreements from automakers.

The Patents

Make no mistake: Toyota is a juggernaut. It has experienced some setbacks lately, but it dominates the market for consumer hybrid vehicles. It also protects its technology aggressively. According to an Australian study, Toyota has sought more than 4000 patents related to hybrid technology in the United States. That’s roughly 43 percent of all hybrid vehicle patents filed. More than 1,000 were claimed on the 2009 Prius alone.

Given the relatively narrow window provided by government regulations and public demand, many prominent manufacturers — Ford, for example — have opted to license Toyota’s technology rather than develop their own. It is simply cheaper and faster than going it alone. (Though Ford did develop the system in the 2010 Fusion Hybrid.)

It must be said that Severinsky’s patents are not for hybrid cars or hybrid systems in their entirety. Hybrid automobiles have been around almost as long as automobiles. Ferdinand Porsche built one in 1898, for example. Severinsky’s patents focus on a problem of implementation: the method by which torque from an electric motor is seamlessly blended with that of a gasoline engine. In a nutshell, his company owns the notion of back-and-forth cooperative management of an internal-combustion engine and an electric motor.

Put another way, he developed the digital integration of countless variables — engine speed, road speed, throttle position and air density, to name a few — that dictate how the electric and gasoline components interact moment to moment. The relevant patents can be found on Google:

U.S. Patent No. 5,343,970
U.S. Patent No. 7,104,347
U.S. Patent No. 7,237,634

Toyota says it developed Synergy Drive independently of any work Severinsky might have done.

The Fight

Severinsky took his claims to court, launching a six-year legal battle that ended Monday. Although the Prius contains technology that infringes upon Severinsky’s 1994 patent, Toyota maintained that its vehicles were the result of its own research and Synergy Drive was invented independently of any work Severinsky might have done.

The courtroom fight is best chronicled by the following timeline from Paice’s website. Yes, we fact-checked it. It reads like a court docket, so you’ll be forgiven for skimming it.

• June 8, 2004: Paice files suit against Toyota in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, claiming infringement of its hybrid vehicle technology patents.
• December 20, 2005: A jury says Toyota’s hybrids infringe two claims of patent 53,343,970. It awards Paice past damages of $4,269,950 based on U.S. sales of the Prius, Highlander and Lexus RX400h hybrids between June, 2004 and November, 2005. Toyota asks a judge to set aside the finding or grant a new trial.
• August 16, 2006: A federal judge rejects Toyota’s request and orders the company to pay Paice $25 for every Prius II, Highlander Hybrid and Lexus RX400h hybrid it builds for the life of patent 53,343,970.
• August 31, 2006: Toyota appeals the judgement. Paice asks the court to reconsider the $25 royalty, feeling it was too low.
• September 12, 2006: Paice is awarded U.S. Patent No. 7,104,347.
• May 8, 2007: Paice files a second lawsuit, alleging Toyota is willfully infringing patent 53,343,970. with regard to hybrids sold since the 2005 trial. (Specifically, the Camry, Lexus RX450h and Lexus HS 250h hybrids and the third-gen Prius.)
• July 3, 2007: Paice is awarded U.S. Patent No. 7,237,634 and amends its suit to claim Toyota is infringing on this patent.
• October 18, 2007: An appeals court rejects Toyota’s challenge to the 2005 jury verdict.
• April 17, 2009: A federal court determines a formula for computing royalties paid to Paice. It amounts to $98 per hybrid vehicle based on current vehicle prices.
• April 21, 2009: The U.S. Supreme Court denies Toyota’s petition seeking review of the liability finding on patent 53,343,970.
• May 15, 2009: Toyota appeals the ruling regarding ongoing royalties.
• September 3, 2009: Paice files a complaint with the International Trade Commission, alleging infringement of patent 53,343,970 by some Toyota models sold since the final judgment of the first suit in 2006.
• September 25, 2009: In the second lawsuit, the court stays the damages portion of the case with respect to Paice’s three hybrid patents pending the ITC investigation into infringement of patent 53,343,970.
• October 5, 2009: The trade commission votes to investigate whether Toyota infringes upon patent 53,343,970.

The Lexus RX400h was among the hybrids Toyota was ordered to pay royalties on.

The Decision

Paice announced on July 15 that it had reached an agreement with Ford — which licenses Toyota’s hybrid technology — to license Severinsky’s patent No. 53,343,970. The deal came four days before the trade commission was to investigate Paice’s infrigement claims against Toyota, an inquiry that could have resulted in barring Toyota from importing the Prius and other vehicles.

On Monday, Toyota agreed to settle the dispute. By doing so, it agreed to the dismissal of all pending lawsuits and appeals, effectively bringing the entire saga to a close. The terms were not disclosed, but Toyota and Paice, in separate statements, said:

“The parties agree that, although certain Toyota vehicles have been found to be equivalent to a Paice patent, Toyota invented, designed and developed the Prius and Toyota’s hybrid technology independent of any inventions of Dr. Severinsky and Paice as part of Toyota’s long history of innovation.”

Silverinsky, who left Paice in August, 2006, to become the CEO of a company exploring synthetic fuel, was more direct in his comments to Business Week.

“Finally people understand the merits of what I invented and give it the proper value,” he said. “Toyota is the leading technology company and finally appreciates the value of the invention.”

This story was written by Sam Smith and originally published by Jalopnik on July 21.

Photos: Toyota

Automakers go to great lengths to make riding in their cars comfortable. But if Yale University researchers have their way, cars will introduce a bit of discomfort to warn you of impending danger.

John Morrell, an assistant professor of mechanical engineering, fitted a car seat with small cams and vibrating motors to provide a tactile warning when something is about to go horribly wrong. The technology could be especially helpful for alerting drivers about vehicles in their blind spot.

Yes, many modern cars have blind-spot warning signals in the mirror or dashboard. But Morrell says they aren’t effective because our visual senses already are overwhelmed. What’s more, the signal is in front of you and the threat is behind you. That increases the time needed to process and respond to the situation, increasing reaction time, Morrell told IEEE Spectrum. Vibro-seat tells you where the threat is.

Morrell says the goal is a ”renaissance user interface using the mind and body to the fullest.”

He’s made a test rig (itty-bitty pic of it here) with a steering wheel, pedals and a computer running an open-source sim called ”The Open Racing Car Simulator.” The seat uses 20 cellphone-motor tactors arranged in a grid. When a car approaches, the middle of the seat vibrates. The vibes get stronger as the car gets closer, and cams on either side gently press the driver’s back to indicate its location on the left or right.

Test results show “vibrotactile feedback” improved drivers’ performance compared to the feedback received from a mirror alone.

Via IEEE Spectrum

Photo: Bob B. Brown / Flickr

This is what aerospace engineers come up with when they let their imaginations run wild.

Airbus says up front the Concept Plane, unveiled Monday at Farnborough International Airshow near London, is more of an “engineer’s dream” than anything we might ever see. It’s unlikely a real aircraft might look like this. Instead, it reflects what experts in aircraft materials, aerodynamics, cabin design and engines came up with after considering what air transport might look like in 2050.

Aircraft manufacturers, like automakers, periodically engage in these flights of fancy. Charles Champion, Airbus executive vice president of engineering, says the technologies in the concept are feasible but “not likely to come together in the same manner.”

“Here we are stretching our imagination and thinking beyond our usual boundaries,” he said in a statement. “With the Airbus Concept Plane we want to stimulate young people from all over the world to engage with us so that we can continue to share the benefits of air transport while also looking after the environment.”

The Airbus concept looks similar to concepts we’ve seen from Boeing and others — and doesn’t look much like what we are flying today. With environmental concerns moving to the fore, the concept contemplates how to make planes more eco-friendly. It features long, high aspect ratio wings, an interesting U-shaped tail and engines incorporated into a lightweight fuselage.

Beyond the interesting overall design, Airbus talked about new interiors. It mentions morphing seats that change shape to fit passengers and “walls that become see-through at the touch of a button, affording 360 degree views of the world below.” We’d like to see the “holographic projections of virtual decors” that let passengers “transform their private cabin into an office, bedroom or Zen garden.”

Seems safe to say there are some within Airbus who truly are allowed to imagine something beyond normal aircraft interiors.

The “what-if” exercise continues with the possibility that fuel cells, solar cells and even passengers’ body heat could provide energy for some (presumably non-essential) systems. And the airliners of tomorrow could fly in formation like geese to reduce drag, and therefore fuel consumption and emissions.

Images: Airbus

See Also:

• Taking the Sonic Boom Out of Supersonic Flight
• MIT Team Designs Airliner That Uses 70 Percent Less Fuel
• United Airlines Tries Hypermiling a Boeing
• NASA’s Mini X-Plane Completes Initial Flight Testing
• Taking the Sonic Boom Out of Supersonic Flight

Read more of this story at U.S. News Rankings and Reviews

Why not take a few years?

Not 230 mpg?

The EPA has still not decided upon a methodology to determine the fuel economy of the Chevy Volt and plug-in hybrid vehicles. So what?

Not that many plug-in hybrids are even going to be sold in the next few years. Moreover, the government is already giving out free charger stations for early adopters to monitor such kinds of data. Why not use that information?

According to MotorTrend, GM is in constant contact and “collaborating” with the EPA to help determine a number that GM customers “can feel comfortable with.”

Is such collaboration really needed? Why not just let the facts speak for themselves?

Inevitably, fuel economy for the Volt and plug-in hybrids is going to vary wildly dependent upon charge, driving conditions, etc. Since automakers and the government are going to have real world data from thousands of vehicles over the next few years, why shouldn’t the EPA take its time and get it right?

Ultimately, the early adopters that are going to buy up the first few years of plug-in hybrid supply – a very limited supply – are going to buy these vehicles regardless of any EPA fuel economy sticker. So, what’s the rush? CAFE credits? Marketing?

For decades EPA fuel economy stickers have provided a very unrealistic picture of real world fuel economy, helping to increase our dependence upon oil, especially foreign oil. With plug-ins, the EPA has more real world data than ever to provide consumers with realistic fuel economy estimates. So, use it.

First, the wide-ranging financial-reform bill emerges this week from months of highly-charged political wrangling in a form that is expected to be passed without any provisions for regulation of auto-dealer sales by a newly formed consumer-protection authority.

And what looked like it was shaping up to be one of history's most potentially powerful acts of legislation dealing with automotive safety has been significantly toned down, according to reports from Washington this week.