Ford's 65MPG Due In November, But Not In the US 1103
computermesh writes "Ford has a vehicle that gets 65MPG and will not be released in the US. Why? Because they can not afford to! 'Ford's 2009 Fiesta ECOnetic goes on sale in November. But here's the catch: Despite the car's potential to transform Ford's image and help it compete with Toyota Motor (TM) and Honda Motor (HMC) in its home market, the company will sell the little fuel sipper only in Europe. "We know it's an awesome vehicle," says Ford America President Mark Fields. "But there are business reasons why we can't sell it in the U.S." The main one: The Fiesta ECOnetic runs on diesel.'"
Does that mean it can run on BIOdiesel? (Score:5, Insightful)
Biodiesel is about the only fuel which really can be produced from crops/tanks of sludge.
The USA should be encouraging diesel engines for all it's worth, not making things difficult.
Truth (Score:5, Insightful)
They're correct in that there are business reasons.
For example, they don't want the bottom to fall out of the market of their other cars, because they know that this would be their top #1 seller, and most of their other cars would become a lot less popular.
Also, there's probably some kind of collusion going on. We could make a 45mpg car that has decent numbers back in the 80's, but we can't make anything comparable now? Bullshit. There's something behind the scenes.
And this is why Ford and Chevy are... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Truth (Score:3, Insightful)
45mpg is about average in Europe, and most of the average cars come from American manufacturers.
Anyway, does it matter to Ford which one of their cars is the no. 1 best selling car, as long as it is a Ford car. If they don't put out what people want, then Honda or Toyota will.
Auto industry asking for loans (Score:3, Insightful)
The irony is delicious.
Re:Truth (Score:4, Insightful)
I will give you one hint - it costs about 30$ to pull a barrel of oil out of the ground, at the most (think oil sands in Ontario).
This answer would only make sense if Ford sold oil instead of cars.
Re:Truth (Score:5, Insightful)
The article states that the engines are made in Britain and would be costly to import. Making the engines in the Americas may not have a good enough ROI since they'd need to make a new factory when they currently don't have the resources to do it right now (losing billions during the fiscal year probably doesn't help).
Yes there are: tighter emission standards, higher safety requirements, America's penchant for higher performing engines. There's really no incentive for us here the USA to buy more fuel efficient vehicles. Over in Europe they have 2 things that drive the sales of smaller cars: 1) much higher fuel prices and, 2) more taxes to pay on larger engines.
Re:Truth (Score:3, Insightful)
We could make a 45 mpg gas burning only car today and it would be wildly popular. It would look a lot like the geo metro and have a top speed of 55, with a single passenger weighing less than 150 lbs. I think the main reasons why we don't are our previous infatuation with large suv's combined with the lead time needed to build a car that people now want. The story did say that a gas burning version would be available in the united states. Lets see how well that turns out.
Re:Truth (Score:3, Insightful)
45MPG isn't such a big deal. You could probably pull it off with little more than a lawnmower engine and a bicycle. The difficulty is achieving 45MPG+ in a package that meets safety, emissions, and financial limitations. I would imagine that the fact that it is diesel is the largest issue. Also, I imagine it is being assembled by cheaper labor, with cheaper raw materials, and lower taxes/fees. Perhaps it wouldn't be cost effective here in the US... remember, diesel averages 20 cents per gallon more here in the US. May not seem like much, but it cuts the MPG savings down a bit.
And this is why Ford is going bankrupt (Score:5, Insightful)
They are not willing to take any chances, even when their backs are up against the wall. They were completely dependent on gas guzzling behemoths like the F150 and their various SUV's. Yet when the opportunity comes up to do something unique and become a market leader, they are too risk averse to do it.
They could import these cars, selling them in relatively small quantities for a small profit, and then later do things to bring the costs down. Move the engine manufacturing to the US/Mexico. Use that famous lobbying ability that kept SUV's viable to reduce diesel taxes.
The Japanese companies didn't become as successful as they are overnight. Ford will not be able to compete with them until they take a long-term approach. Instead of burning through cash trying to maintain their current business model, how about investing that in new facilities that will create the next generation of cars. Focusing only on quarterly reports is what got them into this mess in the first place.
Re:That's your excuse?? (Score:4, Insightful)
The reason is 30 years old (Score:5, Insightful)
The main one: The Fiesta ECOnetic runs on diesel.
Some people may remember that in the 70s and 80s, the big three were making several diesel-powered sedans for the American market. Some of these vehicles are still operating, because the diesel engines have very good longevity.
However, it is the negative publicity that those old diesels attained that keeps diesel relegated so low in the US. Those cars in the 70s and 80s made terrible mileage (they were most if not all 8cyl diesels). They spewed noxious exhaust enough to make coal power plants look clean. And they accelerated like Mack trucks propelled by hamsters.
Unfortunately, many people aren't aware of the progress that diesel engines have made in the past 30 years. And it would seem some of those uninformed people are working for the big 3 automakers.
probably the UAW (Score:3, Insightful)
i remember seeing the title of my dad's 1966 chevy impala and it was only 2 grand when it was brand spanking new, look what a new car costs nowadays even with inflation it still should be less than 8 or 10 for a new car, but NoOo a new car is somewhere in the 20 to 30 grand range (ridiculous)! even with financing & reasonable interest rates it is just gawd awful expensive...
not a troll, just a rant with insight (IMO)
Re:Does that mean it can run on BIOdiesel? (Score:3, Insightful)
But, they don't seem to quite get that, and public perception is that diesels are dirty, so...
That public perception is backed up by decades of diesels smelling like hell and belching soot. It's not really so crazy.
Re:Truth (Score:5, Insightful)
Ok. My 1998 can get 50 MPG. My friends 2003 can get 50 MPG. VW (and the rest of the germans) have made 50 MPG cars for ages and all that meet safety regulations.
Oh, the other "problem" is that it is manual transmission. Slushboxes suck up fuel economy like most people don't even believe.
As someone else pointed out if California wasn't so anal about the NOx more diesels could be let in. Most of the NOx is the 'good' kind (NO2 or NO3, I forget) and not the 'bad' kind. But somehow a 8 MPG hummer is Ok.
I once heard an argument between two people the other day about the "new" V6 some company released that only has 245 HP while some other company's V6 can get 255 HP. I drive a 90 HP turbodiesel. It tops out at around 125 MPH. Most on ramps are long enough to get me up to 80-90 MPH. We have some huge hills around here and it's one of the only I4s I've been in that can accelerate you up the hill (torque rocks).
Diesel is much quieter on the road. Where gassers are turning 3000+ rpm I'm around 2000, and at peak torque, no downshifting.
And on the subject of "safety regulations" I've heard countless people talk about buying or riding their motorcycles more in the name of 'fuel economy.' How safe are those things? Most people don't understand there can be a middle ground between an awesome MPG motorcycle and a tank of an SUV? Personally I'd take something 100x safer than a motorcycle that got me 50 MPG even if it was only slightly less safe than an SUV.
Simply put. Most of my American brethren are absolute idiots.
Re:And this is why Ford and Chevy are... (Score:3, Insightful)
What's going to happen is Congress will give their CEO buddies a handout, they'll continue with business as usual meaning the Japanese and the Chinese will make inroads, then Detroit will whine about "unfair" competition and get even more money, and you and me, the people will get it in the ass.
It won't matter who's elected in November by the way. They all work for corp America - that's where the money comes from.
Re:Bull fucking shit (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Does that mean it can run on BIOdiesel? (Score:3, Insightful)
Biodiesel is about the only fuel which really can be produced from crops/tanks of sludge.
Without getting into the details, diesel itself has advantages and disadvantages but biodiesel is snake oil. There is not enough cast-off high-energy crops/sludge to cover any significant usage and purpose-made biodiesel is made at a net loss. Just like ethanol, it's a nice idea that has no chance of working. Even worse, ethanol has the evil corn lobby behind it.
Re:probably the UAW (Score:5, Insightful)
Check this out:
http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/webfeatures_snapshots_20060621 [epi.org]
CEO's make 262 times what a worker makes, up from 24 times in 1966. Where's the money going? Not into plant and equipment. Check this guy out:
http://money.cnn.com/2007/04/05/news/companies/ford_execpay/ [cnn.com]
I wish I could make that sort of money for destroying a company.
Why shouldn't the workers get a piece of the pie too? After all, isn't that the American dream?
BTW, who decides what cars to build? Who decides how to market them? Who decided to stick with SUVs for far too long? Who decided to kill the electric car? Who fought off increasing CAFE standards? Management.
I'm not saying Unions were innocent little angels, but blaming them for everything is wrong. Personally I feel that far too long we have a had a confrontational relationship between management and labor. They both need to realize they need each other and that they both have the same goal: to make money.
Re:Well, it running diesel is pretty important.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, that's a big, big reason. Why would I buy a diesel car that has better mpg if diesel fuel now costs a dollar and a half more than gasoline (more in the winter, when they start refining more heating oil)?
Where's your math on this? Still a lot cheaper than a gas car only getting 22mpg. Even if you had a car that got over 30mpg it's still cheaper. Why wouldn't you?
Re:US needs clean diesel fuel (Score:3, Insightful)
Diesel fuel in the USA wasn't as clean as in Europe.
Ultra-slow sulfur diesel is now required in the US:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra-low_sulfur_diesel#United_States [wikipedia.org]
Re:Does that mean it can run on BIOdiesel? (Score:5, Insightful)
at $4 a gallon, 30mpg in a gas engine gives you 300 miles for $40.
at $5 a gallon, 65mpg in a diesel gives you 650 miles for $50.
Who cares if it costs more per gallon if the increase in mileage more than offsets the increase in cost?
Biodiesel would be good, but... (Score:2, Insightful)
The Jetta TDI uses a NOx storage system and its particulates are way, way down. My guess here is that since a European consortium came up with the techniques used in the TDI, which is an offshoot fo the BlueTec program, there are patents in the way.
The Ford car may have a diesel but I'll betcha that it can't meet the restrictive diesel emissions ratings here in the US. Personally, I would love to see all diesels have to be just as clean as the Jetta TDI engine is and that includes all soot belching commercial truck diesels.
And, my next car is going to be a Jetta TDI Sportwagen with the DSG transmission. Going up a 6% grade with three full-sized adults, a 20 MPH headwind, and at 65 MPH and getting 40 MPG sold me. Plus, I believe that the engine is certified to run on ASTM certified Biodiesel. Fahrvernugen!
Re:Bull fucking shit (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Truth (Score:5, Insightful)
Hmm... NOx versus CO2.
http://www.epa.gov/air/urbanair/nox/hlth.html [epa.gov]
NOx causes smog, acid rain, breathing problems, and may contribute to global warming.
CO2 may contribute to global warming.
It would obviously depend on the quantities, but I can understand why you'd want to limit NOxs.
Re:Does that mean it can run on BIOdiesel? (Score:4, Insightful)
I've seen car commercials talk about how their car is environmentally safe because it uses diesel. I've always thought, WTF? It must be some scam. All too often, I've found myself behind a diesel that was belching out so much smoke that you couldn't see around it. I'd have to roll up all the windows and hold my breath until I was able to pass it.
Now I see that it's simply a poorly designed vehicle combined with a poorly refined fuel. That the newest diesels don't have this problem if you can find clean diesel. Now if only diesel wasn't the most expensive price at the pump. I suppose they have to pay for the new refining techniques.
I remember reading once that diesel engines were most efficient when run at their top RPM. Are there any vehicles that take advantage of this, by combining a diesel engine, generator, and electric motor? I believe that's how diesel locomotives work.
It's not the diesel it's consumer usage (Score:3, Insightful)
(caveat - I own Ford shares which I bought at the bottom)
It's not that it uses diesel, it's that US consumers pay too much for diesel, and have yet to realize that you get more distance on a gallon of diesel than you do on a gallon of gasoline.
The major markets that care about fuel economy, to date, have been the ones with tighter pollution controls, and hence diesel is at a disadvantage, due to emission restrictions on all but "experimental" cars.
But, if you read the WSJ and Fortune, you'd realize it will be released in the US once the US dollar recovers enough - no sense selling a high-demand vehicle in the US when you can make more profit selling it in the EU instead, where tax policy advantages diesel over gasoline.
Re:Truth (Score:4, Insightful)
So your the one who can't keep a constant speed on the highway. You pass many people at 70 then slow down causing a backup then go fast again...
Your pulse and glide thing is OK if you are the only one on the road. It falls apart in rush hour traffic when they are hundreds (if not more) of other people on the road all not doing the same thing. I am not saying we need to have pulse zones and glide zones on the highways. That would lead to a lot more traffic accidents.
Re:Speed Humps (Score:4, Insightful)
So drive better.
90% of accidents are caused by sloppy driving; Not controlling your road space, acting unpredictably, not being in control of your vehicle.
I've found that even in cities, it's not impossible to control your road space, and accidents which do happen will be the non-violent sort; minor scrapes in parking lots, during lane changes, and at stop-lights.
Re:Truth (Score:3, Insightful)
Or the illusion of SUV safety. [wikipedia.org]
Re:Does that mean it can run on BIOdiesel? (Score:5, Insightful)
...fixed consumption hill climb...
Translation: You slow down on hills.
Result: You impede traffic and cause more fuel to be consumed because you have now caused a traffic jam and everyone is now in stop-and-go traffic.
I live in the San Francisco bay area, and nearly every highway that has even a small incline gets backed up because people don't know how to keep a steady speed while climbing a hill. Now, maybe you don't do this in high-congestion areas, which is OK. But for the love of God, DO NOT do this in high traffic areas.
Re:Does that mean it can run on BIOdiesel? (Score:5, Insightful)
Across 400 miles, if gas is $3.00 and diesel is $4.00, then I'm ahead by $8. If gas is $4.00 and diesel is $5, then I'm ahead $13.33
Unfortunately too many uneducated Americans don't do the math, they just see one price. Most of my fellow Americans also think that paying $250/month for 72 months is better than paying $350/month for 48 months for the same car.
I discovered during the gulf war that in my car, a 76 corolla, if I bought Texaco premium I would get 40mpg vs 30mpg on regular. I was ahead paying more for gas, with no investment requires.
Let's say you can save your self $10/week on diesel. That works out to be $521/year. In 10 years that's $5210. That's a good thing.
But a Jetta TDI new will run you about $20,000. A 2009 corolla will run you about $15,000 or so, and there are a couple of options under $15k like the Nissan Versa, Mazda 3i, and the new Smart Fortwo.
I hate to say it, but going with the budget import that gets about 40mpg highway, not including maintenance, is pretty much on par with the VW TDI solution provided you drive enough to make back your investment in 10 years. If you are not burning close to a tank per week, well, it'll certainly take you longer to make back your investment.
While I do like TDI, it's a premium that'll cost you about $5000 more.
Re:Does that mean it can run on BIOdiesel? (Score:2, Insightful)
This kind of ignorance is why diesel isn't taking off.
Better for taxes than for rich-snot profits (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm just sayin'...
Cheers,
Re:Does that mean it can run on BIOdiesel? (Score:2, Insightful)
Tell it to Ford like we feel it... (Score:1, Insightful)
"But there are business reasons why we can't sell it in the U.S."
Well fuck you very much, Ford.
Re:Does that mean it can run on BIOdiesel? (Score:2, Insightful)
I think what he means is that diesels tend to have more torque at low RPMs.
Re:Does that mean it can run on BIOdiesel? (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, this does not cause a traffic jam. Gently slowing and accelerating as required by terrain and traffic uses less fuel than sharp braking and accelerating. I have never had a problem with gently slowing up a hill, and gently applying the throttle as required while climbing, but mileage decreases dramatically by using "standard" techniques (as in me-first-driver techniques).
Gently climbing hills without flooring it and therefore using too much fuel doesn't automatically mean "driving below the limit" or any such thing. It simply means good technique. If traffic jams up, it's because people are following too closely (the two-second rule: are you obeying it?) or failing to otherwise ensure that there is sufficient space around them to 'take up' the variation in speed of vehicles ahead (and there will always be a variation to some extent; again, use the two-second rule, at LEAST).
Stop blaming other motorists and fix your driving habits so that you don't HAVE to slam on your brakes (and cause, or be a part of, a cause-and-effect wave behind you).
Re:Does that mean it can run on BIOdiesel? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Does that mean it can run on BIOdiesel? (Score:4, Insightful)
Seriously, why do people seem to get off on being as much of a danger as possible to others on the road?
I don't know. Tell us.
For most roads in the USA, the right lane is the travel lane and the left lane is the passing lane. If you're getting passed on the right enough to complain about, maybe you should get out of the passing lane.
Some hypermiling techniques, such as rolling through stop signs, are just as illegal and dangerous as speeding.
So the other guy is an ass for being in such a hurry, and you're an ass for being self-righteous about your driving habits. Do you see my point?
Re:Does that mean it can run on BIOdiesel? (Score:4, Insightful)
While I think it's funny that your example drives the same vehicle I would use for almost every idiot driver I've encountered (that's right, most of you drive SUVs), I have to reject your notion that those who get frustrated by people hypermiling are crazies. While of course there are always those people out there who will drive recklessly and at insane speeds, most ordinary people get upset with hypermilers because they get in their way. If you have ever been stuck behind a person who is walking way too slow for your own comfort level then you know exactly what I am talking about.
Plus, if you are being passed on the right you are driving too slow. If you were driving in any civilized country besides the US you would have people flashing and honking at you. Unfortunately, this is considered "rude" in the US so those that hold others up in the passing lane often times feel justified driving there despite their inconveinencing everyone else on the road.
Re:Does that mean it can run on BIOdiesel? (Score:3, Insightful)
I live in Boise ID, there's always construction at some point on the interstate, that literally just sits there for months, even years with you driving by it and nobody actually doing anything. No lanes are closed or anything, just a reduced speed limit that people tend to ignore. However, when you get two people side-by-side who take the speed limit literally at the more busier times, traffic just stops for miles. The lanes bunch up because everyone catches up, and things get compounded when those bunched up lanes get even worse from cars trying to merge in or change to the lane they need to be in. If they hadn't had gotten bunched up from the reduced speed limit, there wouldn't have been as much of a problem. Cars would of had room between other cars to merge on smoothly or change lanes smoothly
The point I was trying to make really, was that 55 mph is still REALLY fast to be driving near a person on the side of the road, which isn't even happening, so why have it at all. Either slow it down to 25 where its safe to be near people (which is entirely not necessary in this situation), or don't bother.
Oh yeah, and the construction workers stick barriers on the shoulder for merging onto the interstate, so you have to go fairly slow if at a glance the lane your merging on to isn't completely clear, since there isn't much wiggle room to be looking one direction (behind you and to your left) and driving the other. I might add, at the on-ramp near me, they haven't done any construction at all except put up barriers and reduce the speed limit. For 5 weeks, and for probably much more.
Re:Does that mean it can run on BIOdiesel? (Score:5, Insightful)
Everybody knows that speed zones (i.e. traps) are designed for revenue enhancement, not safety.
fuel prices (Score:3, Insightful)
If you live in a city or small town where diesel costs more than gasoline, you're getting SCREWED.
I suspect that might have a lot to do with the fact that the US government subsidizes the hell out of the gasoline industry to (try to) bring us extra-cheap gasoline.
After all, we have two oil men in the white house right now. If they can't keep the prices down, well, we might actually do something in this country. (ignoring the fact that prices have tripled since they took office)
Re:Does that mean it can run on BIOdiesel? (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't mind...just please stay in the right lane and let me by...I prefer to at least stay up to speed with the flow of traffic around me, and 99% of the time..that is above the limit...especially on the highways.
I just guess no one is taught anymore that the left lane(s) are for passing, and if you're going slower than traffic around you, pull to the right and let them by.
Ding of the Hill (Score:3, Insightful)
I live in the San Francisco bay area, and nearly every highway that has even a small incline gets backed up because people don't know how to keep a steady speed while climbing a hill.
I live in the bay area too, and I just don't see this happening. Yes, people often impede traffic (and create a hazard) by driving too slowly. But as far as I can see, it has nothing to do with hills (which are mostly not that steep; I'll get to the exceptions in a moment). It seems to me that it's most often an attention issue: somebody's looking for a sign or an exit, or talking on the cell phone, and are unaware of what's happening around them.
Anyway, in my usual commute, the big slowdown is because of drivers in a hurry. These are the people who jump lanes on the freeway constantly, thinking they can get ahead of everybody else. Doesn't work, because almost everybody's doing the same thing. Plus they keep surprising other drivers, who hit their brakes, and cause exactly the kind of backup you blame on the slowpokes.
Then there are the folks who wait until the very last moment to merge into the exit lane....
But perhaps you're thinking of the really hilly areas, San Francisco itself. (Where I never drive, if I can avoid it.) There, the problem is simply that there are too many cars for the road system to handle. Even if you could magically flatten it out, it wouldn't get much better.
Re:Does that mean it can run on BIOdiesel? (Score:4, Insightful)
Do you think it is by mere coincidence that almost every piece of heavy machinery is powered by a diesel engine as opposed to a gas engine? Quite simply, diesel engines make more usable torque.
What follows is a broad generalization. Look at the dyno charts for a turbodiesel engine, and you'll notice they have a fat torque curve almost immediately off of idle all the way up until about a grand short of redline. Gas engines on the other hand build their peak torque up slowly until right before redline. Translation? The gas engine wastes more time and energy downshifting to keep you inside of that torque curve.
The VW diesels we have here in the US are a poor example anyways because they're designed with emissions and economy as the top priority, not performance. In Europe there are a wide variety [wikipedia.org] of VW TDI options to chose from, for example: a 2.0L 4-cyl Common Rail diesel that pounds out 197HP/295lb-ft at 1,800 RPMs stock. By the way, It's not uncommon for someone to merely change the ECU firmware [kermatdi.com] on a completely otherwise stock TDI, to bust out an additional 30HP/75lb-ft while still managing 45+ MPG. You can go even farther if you're willing to upgrade the clutch and other driveline components.
P.S. Let us know when your turbocharged Mazdaspeed3 hits 300,000 miles with only routine maintenance and no major engine work [autobloggreen.com]. There are some diesels that have logged over a million miles [google.com]!
Re:Does that mean it can run on BIOdiesel? (Score:2, Insightful)
So do I but some people just can't, and you can't hold it against all of them. The fact that there is a serious conversation about more efficient alternatives to American's ~20mpg tanks is a really good thing.
I would like to note that when I lived in Columbia, MD, I biked what I know a lot of people in the area would never consider riding. It was 5 miles, and easy. I do think that a lot of people dismiss riding because they think their roads aren't safe enough, or they think that 10 miles round trip is just too far, which are both ridiculous reasons not to ride.
Re:speeding (Score:5, Insightful)
You're kidding, right? The double-nickel was brought in during the Carter administration, strictly to save gas. The speed limit here in Canada used to be 70 mph, and that was in cars with just lap belts, no anti-lock brakes, no crumple zones, and no airbags. Traffic engineers have long recommended higher limits; when Montana had its "reasonable and prudent" speed limit, traffic fatalities actually fell. I used to drive from Toronto to Detroit every weekend; that's about 400 km. If, as the traffic engineers recommend, the speed limit outside of urban areas was raised to 130 km/hr, that would have saved me an entire hour. Speed is only a major death factor in young, male, inexperienced drivers; for older drivers fatigue was most often cited. If I could make the trip in 3 hours instead of 4, I would obviously be less fatigued. But our gutless politicians won't make the change because the green lobby would go ballistic.
Re:speeding (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not sure what you're getting at with that. Those aren't the factors used to set speed limits in any case, and if you do a bit of research on how speed limits actually are set, you'll find that it is quite possible that the limit is incorrect (either too high or too low) and a survey just hasn't been done because no one's ever thought to do another one since the road was built. How would it hurt to submit a request to your local or state street department, whoever is in charge? It won't. And it's also entirely legal and your participation in public matters is only a good thing -- thinking you're above the law and behaving in a way that other drivers aren't going to expect is not only illegal but unsafe to you and everyone else on the road. What's so good about that?
Re:Does that mean it can run on BIOdiesel? (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't speed (or if I do, it is not deliberate and I slow back down to the limit) and I am passed left and right (and passing on the right is not legal) and I've seen people scream on discussion forums at anyone who dares to obey the law, as if obeying the law is something to sneer at (it's not; the rules exist for a damn good reason and no one is above it).
I don't know where you live, but in California the law says you must move over to the right to allow faster traffic to pass you on the left. It is not your job, nor do you have the authority, to enforce the speed limit by clogging up the fast lane.
do try not to break your leg climbing down off your high horse.
Auto Analyst is wrong (Score:4, Insightful)
"Americans see hybrids as the darling," says Global Insight auto analyst Philip Gott, "and diesel as old-tech."
Replace "Americans" with "American auto companies" and they will get it right. VW just rereleased the Jetta TDI in limited quantities and it is selling like hotcakes.
Re:Does that mean it can run on BIOdiesel? (Score:4, Insightful)
Engine braking saves fuel for a couple of reasons: firstly, coasting (particularly in a modern electronic fuel injected car) will consume minimal fuel - at worst idle fuel consumption, or zero in an EFI engine (the engine is turned over by the wheels, so why bother injecting anything?).
That applies when you're simply braking, too, though - the thing that really causes engine braking to save fuel compared to normal braking is that it's a lot gentler. You lose speed slower, which means you'll start slowing down sooner, which lowers your average speed and fuel consumption. Also, gentler braking will tend to smooth out traffic flow, particularly if you're allowing plenty of following distance, which means that you may not need to slow down as much, and the people behind you may not need to slow down as much.
Engine braking isn't really a fuel saving technique, though - for the most part it's just a good driving technique.
himi
I really would love to see a diesel hybrid. (Score:3, Insightful)
So would I. VW [wired.com] has one.
Unfortunately too many uneducated Americans don't do the math, they just see one price. Most of my fellow Americans also think that paying $250/month for 72 months is better than paying $350/month for 48 months for the same car.
A long loan term with lower monthly payments can be a good decision, if the difference in payments is invested. Say the loan interest is 6% and you're able to earn 8% by investing, you come out 2% ahead. Also with lower monthly payments if for any reason you end up having financial trouble, for instance if you lose your job and don't find one for an extended period, the difference in payment amounts may mean the difference between keeping and losing the car. Otherwise you're right about people being in debt up to their eyeballs.
Falcon
Re:Does that mean it can run on BIOdiesel? (Score:5, Insightful)
I generally cruise about 3-5 mph over the limit, and I generally stay in the right lane, because that makes for smoother traffic. But if, for whatever reason, an idiot gets perturbed because they are stuck behind me for two minutes, and end up being delayed by 5 mph x 120 seconds (slowing their arrival at their destination by about 8 seconds), I don't feel bad at all. It's an opportunity for them to grow, emotionally
Re:Does that mean it can run on BIOdiesel? (Score:5, Insightful)
What does it matter where I live?
It matters because traffic laws are not uniform. I know a fair amount about traffic laws in California because my ex-wife is a Highway Patrol Officer, but the the laws where you live may be different.
I've already explained that being where I am is necessary for what I am doing at the time I am doing it. Yes, I do normally drive in the right lane. If I am not there, I have good reason, and that does not change the fact that passing on the right is illegal.
Nor does it change the fact that you are required by law to move over to the right to allow faster traffic to pass you on the left. Quite the conundrum, isn't it?
If you think the situation justifies your ignoring one law, it's awfully hypocritical of you to get your panties in a bunch over other people using the same situation to justify ignoring another law that makes equally little sense in that situation. I'll assume you're talking about situations such as when a freeway splits into two or more separate freeways. Can you definitively say whether you are in the slow lane of the one going to the left or the fast lane of the one going to the right?
I also already explained that I obey all applicable rules of the road
Well then I must call you a liar. The California Vehicle Code is a pretty hefty book, well over 1000 pages of dense legalese, as I recall. Do you honestly expect me to believe that you know, let alone understand and follow, every single rule in that book that applies to you at any given time?
all this snark is totally unwarranted and I do not know what grounds are being used to vilify me even after repeated statements of these facts.
I can't speak for anyone else, but any snark in my replies has been in response to your self-righteous attitude and absolutist view of the law (except in cases where it would be inconvenient for you, but of course it's totally unacceptable for anyone else to do that).
I ask you, where were you when these things happened that permit you to be able to make judgments? How do you know which car is mine? Describe it, give the time, date, and place and state what you saw.
I don't know, and I don't care. I wasn't responding to any specific incident you described, but rather to general patterns of behavior.
Re:Does that mean it can run on BIOdiesel? (Score:2, Insightful)
Your close. All Diesel engines currently produced for all vehicles in the US-America are Tier II compliant. By 2010 they must meet Tier III regulations. Rather than produce "filters" for the end production of smog, it was decided to make a lean motor from scratch.
California emission standards effectively killed the Isuzu Diesel, which was also to be used in the Chevy S10, that's why you see Diesel repair in the early S10(& GMC S15) repair manuals.
Re:Does that mean it can run on BIOdiesel? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, Jettas are $5k more than Corollas new - that's not due to diesel vs gas.
A better comparison would be the Jetta TDI vs Jetta gas. kbb.com prices the TDI at $21,393 invoice and the gas version at $18,445 invoice, a $2,948 difference. There is a $1,300 tax credit for clean diesel (check vw's homepage, filter ate my url)
So the real difference is $1,645 more for diesel. At $521/year, that's a 3 year payback at current prices. If prices rise, it would be faster.
No, no, no, no, no, a thousand times no. (Score:5, Insightful)
If you are not *actively passing someone* you should move over to the right.
It isn't the fast lane, it's the passing lane.
Re:Interstates have 3 lanes (Score:2, Insightful)
Passing on the right is NEVER EVER EVER justified. It is just stupid dangerous.
I disagree. There are a lot of stupid drivers out there. I try to avoid them. If there are three lanes, and you're in the middle, and some idiot soccer mom is driving her minivan in the far left lane at the same speed as you (60mph), and I would like to pass both of you, I can either use the right lane (which is not illegal in my state, or any other state I've heard of, despite what anyone claims on here. Try actually looking up your state's laws before stating what they are) or wait for one of you to get far enough away from the other one to pass without having to use the mostly open right lane.
If the speed limit is 70mph, and 2 lanes are occupied by vehicles of any size going 60mph, I'll pass on the right and go about my way, instead of trying to get one of the inconsiderate other drivers to change lanes first. That's just the way it is.
I've also driven large trucks, and you really shouldn't have much of a blind spot at all. When I'm on the right of a semi on city streets, I can see the side mirrors, which means they should be able to see me. If they still have problems, they should get the 6"-7" fish-eye mirrors which lets you see everything over there. It really isn't all that difficult. If you can't do that, setup one of those "backup cameras" so you can have a little screen that can show you the right side.
MASSIVE blind spots are irresponsible, unnecessary and should be unacceptable.
Re:Does that mean it can run on BIOdiesel? (Score:2, Insightful)
Don't know where the original poster was, but the law on that varies by state.
And one can be in the left lane, gradually overtaking a slower vehicle (or group thereof) in the right lane, and still have some asshole come zooming up behind you, ride your ass, and blind you with his highbeams because, dammit, you made him slow down from his 90mph fsck-you-all tear along the highway.
Re:Does that mean it can run on BIOdiesel? (Score:3, Insightful)
Everyone seems to have the same basic assumption that consuming less fuel is an indesputably positive thing. Have we, as a society, fully explored this almost subconscious devotion to a questionable ideal? I think not.
Personally, I enjoy driving my car and am willing to spend whatever I think necessary on fuel to further that enjoyment. If other people question me on this they do so to their own detriment. Take care of your own house and I will take care of mine.
PArt of my enjoyment comes from my motivation to drive politely with other drivers. This means that if I need to speed up or slow down to accomodate another driver I will do it. I will put the apparent needs and wants of other drivers ahead of any attempted or perceived fuel savings on my part. Seriously, if I save $15.00 a week in gas and piss people off while I am driving that is not worth it to me. Apparently I lack sufficient self-righteousness to gain pleasure from "teaching people a lesson."
Like I said, I enjoy driving and I don't like to make other people's driving a stressful or frustrating experience. Just think to yourself that the other car contains a person with needs wants and desires that you cannot fathom from the distance of 3 car lengths but are just as valid as your own. Internally appealing to "higher standards" of whatever origin (better fuel economy, proper speed, driving technique, etc.) just leads to everyone acting like a total jackass. Other people are more important than petty internal self-considerations, at least for me.