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.
Re:Does that mean it can run on BIOdiesel? (Score:5, Informative)
But California's under the mistaken belief that NOx emissions are the source of their smog problems, except in a VOC rich environment (basically any environment with a heavy percentage of gasoline cars,) smog is [b]reduced[/b] but NOx emissions, especially those from diesels.
But, they don't seem to quite get that, and public perception is that diesels are dirty, so...
Re:Does that mean it can run on BIOdiesel? (Score:5, Informative)
They have fixed the problem by creating affordable and effective catalytic converts for diesel.
Check out VW's new TDI they just released for the US. Way more low end torque than gasoline and almost 50 mpg. I have no idea why the US hasn't fallen in love with diesel yet.
Re:Does that mean it can run on BIOdiesel? (Score:5, Interesting)
I actually have a 140 HP VW Diesel engine in my car, and I love it. :) (And no, it's not a VW, it's a Skoda).
Re:Does that mean it can run on BIOdiesel? (Score:5, Informative)
It's a VW, just cheaper and with a different badge.
Re:Does that mean it can run on BIOdiesel? (Score:5, Interesting)
Likewise, except I had mine remapped so it should be more like upwards of 160HP (bear in mind that this is at about 4000RPM and you get a better idea of the torque involved), and I am averaging 37mpg despite regularly accelerating like a lunatic :)
Re:Does that mean it can run on BIOdiesel? (Score:5, Funny)
The first rule of TDI Club is that you do not speak of TDI Club.
Re:Does that mean it can run on BIOdiesel? (Score:5, Funny)
You mean you don't torque about it? Har de har har!
Re:Does that mean it can run on BIOdiesel? (Score:5, Informative)
I have no idea why the US hasn't fallen in love with diesel yet.
Well, I have. I just bought one of the Jetta TDI wagons and it's amazing. I can get 50 MPG in mixed city/highway driving plus intermittent AC with some mild hypermiling techniques (fixed consumption hill climb, engine braking, anticipating traffic ahead; no pulse/glide or unpowered driving) and I expect that the fuel consumption will go down measurably as the engine breaks in (peak compression increases by 20% over the break-in of a VW TDI engine). All this in a car that's big enough to fit five people plus cargo.
Re:Does that mean it can run on BIOdiesel? (Score:4, Interesting)
Awesome to hear... I'll probably be trading in my full sized pickup for a TDI Sportswagen this fall as I move from rural Washington to Seattle.
Great to hear people are getting way over what the EPA suggested and still have room for carrying a bunch of crap.
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, Interesting)
A study a few years ago showed that the major cause of traffic jams was caused by people automatically hitting their brakes as they go over a hilltop, no matter how small. And then the person behind them will break harder, not knowing how hard the person in front of them breaks. And so on, for at least half a mile back. This is a psychological phenomenon, and it's unlikely that there are any good remedies, except for removing anything that could be perceived as a hilltop.
Re:Does that mean it can run on BIOdiesel? (Score:5, Interesting)
Construction zones on the interstate that slow you from 75 to 55 are a culprit. Can someone explain the logic in taking a fast speed, slowing it down to just a slightly slower but still fast speed, and making people slow down when the construction itself is over a 100 feet from the interstate, with concrete barriers blocking the interstate from the construction?
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.
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: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: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: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: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.
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.
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:5, Funny)
You're in the wrong lane again?
Geez, some people never learn.
Re:Does that mean it can run on BIOdiesel? (Score:4)
Problem with that is that not only am I not going to put someone's life in danger deliberately (I'm not a road rager -- honking or highbeaming is my limit and those are harmless things), but you can also get in trouble for doing that -- I'm not sure what the charge is but assault with a deadly weapon or attempted homicide or something similar would probably fit. You would be using your vehicle to deliberately attempt to severely injure or murder another person. For what charge would actually fit, ask a police officer.
Honestly, I should have called the local bad-driver report hotline (we have one in my area) and given them the make and model of the offender's vehicle in addition to the license number.
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:4, Informative)
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: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
You dirty planet killer (Score:5, Funny)
Are you aware of the environmental destruction caused by rubber harvesting for bike tires? Where does the grease for your gears come from? Planet rapist.
I walk to work in shoes made from my own toenail clippings, wearing a breathing mask to filter out microbes so my immune system doesn't kill them, brushing bugs out of the way with a broom made from my own hair.
Re:Does that mean it can run on BIOdiesel? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Does that mean it can run on BIOdiesel? (Score:4, Interesting)
Peak power isn't really a useful number unless you intend to go ridiculously fast.
Diesel is different from gas in that the torque is where you want it, at the low end, so driving is still fun.
Re:Does that mean it can run on BIOdiesel? (Score:5, Informative)
Not really. Diesel engines have a lot more torque at the low end which is where most driving is done, especially for those of us who live in urban areas. This is, in part, why vehicles that carry heavy loads use diesel engines because all the torque needed to pull that load is there when it's needed.
Have you ever heard the saying that "people buy horsepower and drive torque"? My VW DSG FSI engine, which is quite efficient for a gas engine, and is largely topped efficiencywise by cars like the Honda Fit and similar -- to be expected because they're smaller and lighter, but the VW engine is quite respectable and I routinely get 31+ highway, variable mileage in the city but pretty good -- but it would easily be topped torquewise by a diesel. It's just an inherent property of diesel engines. A 90-horsepower VW TDI diesel feels as "peppy", with the kind of driving most people do, as an engine with 150 horsepower because of the power band and because that torque is available down low.
This is not to say that either gas engines or diesel engines are "bad". It is merely that they are inherently different and the torque curve is one of them. Diesel fans aren't being biased when they say there's more torque in a diesel -- not really. They are getting more of it perhaps because most drive time is probably spent at lower rpm (I know that in commute traffic, mine is) so yes, at those same rpms they do get more torque than our gas engines do.
They should, it is true, modify their statement but most people aren't gearheads and don't know how to be more specific.
I hope I am making some kind of sense with my attempt to address your complaint/comment and explain where the problem is arising.
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:5, Informative)
Um, gee I dunno 50MPG (diesel) vs 30MPG (gas).
I'd much rather pay $1.00 more per gallon for getting 20MPG better.
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.
And people wonder why the average American is in debt up to their eyeballs.
I really would love to see a diesel hybrid. That thing would blow the doors off of the crappy gasoline hybrids that are around now. Cleaner exhaust, better fuel mileage, longer life.
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:4, Informative)
It's not that I don't believe you, but I don't believe you.
Premium fuel has higher octane. That prevents premature destination in high compression engines. It stops engine 'knock'. Lower compression engines aren't affected by premature detonation, and so don't need the higher octane rating.
Premium does not have a higher energy content than regular gas. The corolla engine isn't a high compression engine (I have one), and so premium does nothing for the engine, but does cost more.
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.
Re:Does that mean it can run on BIOdiesel? (Score:4, Informative)
In a modern diesel, glow plugs don't even turn on unless the engine water temperature goes below about 42 degrees F. So if the engine is warm, glow plugs never turn on. I have a Golf TDI here in Massachusetts, I consistently have the car turn faster than any gas engined car I have driven.
Definitely, YMMV though!
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?
Re:Does that mean it can run on BIOdiesel? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Does that mean it can run on BIOdiesel? (Score:5, Informative)
Diesel contains approximately 30% more energy per volume than gasoline does.
No it doesn't. It contains between 0-10% more energy than gasoline. Diesel engines are more efficient largely because they use higher compression. Gas engines can't increase the compression without causing pre-ignition, but diesel engines don't have this problem because the fuel is injected at the top of the compression stroke.
Re:Does that mean it can run on BIOdiesel? (Score:5, Informative)
Diesel contains approximately 30% more energy per volume than gasoline does.
No it doesn't. It contains between 0-10% more energy than gasoline.
"The density [wikipedia.org] of petroleum diesel is about 0.85 kg/l (7.09 lbs/gallon) whereas petrol (gasoline) has a density of about 0.72 kg/l (6.01 lbs/gallon), about 15% less. When burnt, diesel typically releases about 38.6 MJ/l (138,700 BTU per US gallon), whereas gasoline releases 34.9 MJ/l (125,000 BTU per US gallon), 10% lear[2] by energy density, but 45.41 MJ/kg and 48.47 MJ/kg, 6.7% more by specific energy." "Fuel Energy Density" [berkeley.edu] says automotive gasoline has a density of 34.2 MJ/litre whereas automotive diesel has a density of 38.6 MJ/litre.
Falcon
Re:Does that mean it can run on BIOdiesel? (Score:4, Interesting)
That "mistaken belief" comes as the product of a lot of research into particulate emissions.
Still, Ford misses another opportunity to do good, as the emissions of this econobox are said to be decently low-- in the face of amazingly bad gas guzzlers throughout the state.
Remember that fuel in the EU runs between 8-11euros per gallon, adjusted. The car sell will sell well there, and we need to rebalance the trade deficits away from the Chinese for a change.
Re: (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:Does that mean it can run on BIOdiesel? (Score:5, Informative)
This shouldn't matter since clean diesel was implemented nationwide in the U.S. in 2007. It requires both the fuel and the car to abide by the clean diesel standards set forth, and is about 90+% cleaner than old diesel:
http://auto.howstuffworks.com/how-clean-diesel-fuel-works.htm [howstuffworks.com]
Chuck
Re:Does that mean it can run on BIOdiesel? (Score:4, Informative)
Clean diesel fuel just means it's possible to put a $2000 particulate filter and another $1000 (or so) NOx trap on a car, it doesn't make those parts cheap.
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.
Re:Does that mean it can run on BIOdiesel? (Score:4, Informative)
Fair enough, but there still is way too much hype over European diesels.
1) The NEDC (New European Drive Cycle) is more lax than the revised EPA drivecycle -- lower speeds, less aggressive accel, etc. It more fits typical European driving. A rough conversion from the NEDC MPG to the revised EPA drivecycle is to divide by about 1.15
2) Diesel is simply a denser fuel. A gallon of diesel represents about 15% more petroleum and emits about 15% more CO2 when burned. To compare apples to apples, divide all diesel mileages by 1.15 before comparing to gasoline mpgs.
3) Sometimes when people list European car mpgs, they use miles per imperial gallons. An imperial gallon contains 1.2 times as much as a standard gallon, so divide by 1.2
In this case, the 65mpg is per US gallon, not imperial, so the equivalent US, gasoline mileage is 65 / 1.15 / 1.15 = 49mpg. You can cross-check comparisons between vehicles by comparing CO2 g/km. Since it's mainly cars sold in Europe from where we get these figures, they're almost always from the NEDC, so no need to convert. In this case, the Ford Fiesta Econetic gets just a touch under 100 g/km, while the 46mpg Prius gets just a touch over 100 g/km. So, that matches up. Lastly, an additional thing to keep in mind is that not all vehicles are the same. In this comparison, for example, the Prius is a larger, more powerful car than the Ford Fiesta Econetic. Without any changes to the body or the technology of the drivetrain, you could always downsize an engine and get better fuel economy. But of course, that's not an equivalent comparison.
To sum up:
1) All "gallons" are not created equal (if all you cared about was how many miles you got per "whatever gallon" of "whatever fuel", you might as well run a car on Zarnathian Supergallons of beryllium slurry). One shouldn't compare different-sized gallons or gallons of different fuels without a conversion factor.
2) All drivecycles are not created equal (and this includes peoples' individual driving styles), and one shouldn't compare non-equivalent drivecycles without a conversion factor.
3) All vehicles are not created equal, and one should keep this in mind when comparing vehicles (although it's still fair to compare non-equivalent vehicles so long as the difference is noted).
Re:Does that mean it can run on BIOdiesel? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Does that mean it can run on BIOdiesel? (Score:5, Interesting)
First off, my diesel hasn't been on the road for almost a year.
Second, how about getting out, going behind a 2009 diesel, and taking a whiff? There's nothing. The tailpipe is clean inside, even - can't say that about a gasoline car.
And, finally, the visible particulates from diesels settle to the ground, and if you inhale them, don't go nearly as deep as the gasoline ultrafine particulates that you can't see, and are much more likely to cause cancer. (Oh, and my gasoline car has visible emissions. I know, I know.)
Re:Bull fucking shit (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (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:Does that mean it can run on BIOdiesel? (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
For the love of God, no! As an urban cyclist in a country whose tax laws strongly favour diesel vehicles (as various taxes are based on CO2 emissions alone), I can tell you that encouraging diesel use, at least in cities, is a terrible idea. Japan understands this: they've banned many diesel vehicles from Tokyo due to the harmful emissions [wikipedia.org] they put out. And you do realise that burning 'tanks of sludge', e.g. used cooking oil, stinks, right?
My point is that cities are much better off with petrol vehicles pumping out CO2 that's non-toxic in low concentrations than they are with diesel vehicles pumping out genuinely toxic particulates.
Re:Does that mean it can run on BIOdiesel? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Does that mean it can run on BIOdiesel? (Score:5, Informative)
Addressing your first question: modern diesel engines with Diesel Particular Filters (e.g., the 2009 VW Jetta TDI) could experience some issues with biodiesel. In short, the DPF is designed to trap particulates which are periodically (every 1000 miles or so) burned off by injecting diesel into a specially designed fuel catalyst in the exhaust. This injection uses the cylinder fuel injectors during the exhaust stroke. Unfortunately, biodiesel has a higher boiling point than petroleum diesel, which leads to condensation on cylinder walls and consequent crankcase oil contamination. (reference [biodieselmagazine.com])
A recent study at MIT's Sloan Automotive Lab [energy.gov] indicates that this contamination might not be as deleterious as previously believed despite the fact that the highly polar methyl esters compete with ZDDP [wikipedia.org] on engine surfaces.
A couple drivers on the TDIClub forums [tdiclub.com] are running B100 (100% biodiesel) in their 2009 TDIs with the express intent of directly testing oil quality and engine wear. While 2 cars do not a comprehensive study make, their experiences, oil analyses, et cetera will be invaluable in allowing owners to decide what risks they're willing to take. (For reference, previous versions of the VW TDI engine came with stern warnings that no biodiesel should be run at all, and yet many owners have run B100 for 100k to 200k miles with no problems attributable to the biodiesel).
My guess is that within the next few years all diesel vehicles will be designed to work well with some percentage of biodiesel, since governments around the world (including the EU and several American states) are mandating a schedule of increased biodiesel percentage in their petroleum diesel. Combined with the maturation of BTL, diesel vehicles have a far brighter future than the brain-dead food-for-(poor)-fuel economics that is E85.
-=rsw
Re:Biodiesel would be good, but... (Score:5, Interesting)
Too bad Volkswagen can't design their cars to be even minimally user serviceable. It took me 30 minutes to replace the cabin air filter in my wife's old Jetta. Takes about 3 minutes on my Corolla. I'd like Volkswagens better if they were designed to be repaired, and not just built. You have to take half the vehicle apart to get to anything, which drives maintenance costs through the roof.
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.
Re:Truth (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Could it be that the cars today have tighter emissions and safety regulations, which cost efficiency and weight, respectively?
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:Truth (Score:4, Interesting)
Yup, I can't count how many times I've been stuck behind some slow poke getting onto the freeway in their 200-300HP V6 or V8. I don't know why they need such a big engine when I am barely using the 120hp in my VW's I4.
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:Truth (Score:5, Interesting)
I ride a motorcycle to work every day in the name of fuel economy. When I changed jobs last and was no longer employed at the same place as my wife, I knew I needed a vehicle (we shared hers for a few years... it's amazing how well that works once you get over the initial bump).
Before long, I was looking at motorcycles. I had never ridden one, but I took the safety courses, got licensed, and purchased one all within a few weeks. I absolutely love it. Not only was the new bike cheaper than most used cars, my insurance is a measly $40/mo and I fill up my tank for about $9 every three or four weeks. My total transportation costs are negligible.
Fortunately, I live in a climate (southern California) where it's dry and warm enough to ride all year long. I also only have to travel a few miles each way using suburban roads (no highway). I feel as safe on my bike as I do driving a car... if not safer due to the added awareness and fewer distractions riding a motorcycle gives you.
(As a side note, my employer used to be about 12 miles away and recently moved much closer... had I known that was going to be the case, I would've simply gotten a bicycle, but alas... at least I can easily get around town for groceries and the like)
Re: (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.
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
Can't they refit some of the SUV / truck lines in the US to produce the ECOnetic? I realize there are still refitting costs involved but it would readjust their production output to more closely match market demands and result in higher revenue.
Re:Truth (Score:4, Interesting)
Large, automatic transmission cars are a damn lot more comfortable than the small city-cars.
This seems to be one of the reasons that the American motor industry is so focused on hybrids: because they can make large, comfortable and lumbering cars that use as much fuel as a small one. In Europe, people have been used to small cars for a long time, but give the driver of a Crown Vic a Renault Clio and watch as they complain. Add that to the fact that the American commute can be as long as an European holiday, and it begins to seem that although diesel compacts are the most fuel-efficient technology, a car to truly be popular in the US should be a medium-large sedan with an efficient drivetrain.
Aly.
Re:Truth (Score:4, Interesting)
Add that to the fact that the American commute can be as long as an European holiday
I thought it was the other way round - most people I've spoken to in the US never do more than five or ten miles at a time in their cars. Most are pretty surprised to hear that I often rack up a couple of hundred miles a day, and that's not uncommon up here.
Re:Truth (Score:4, Informative)
Yes there are: tighter emission standards, higher safety requirements, America's penchant for higher performing engines.
Americans seem to believe that we have higher safety requirements - but its simply not true. The transportation research board http://eetd.lbl.gov/ea/teepa/pdf/TRB_Safety_1-03.pdf [lbl.gov] (see page 17) shows that import cars are consistently safer for the occupants than are american vehicles. Typical response at this point is, "But we've got SUVs on our roads, of course the foreign cars have better safety numbers" This data is for import vehicles. that is, they were driven on the same roads, with the same conditions, with the same other vehicles, and came out with significantly better safety numbers. How do you say the US has higher safety standards AND say that SUVs create a more dangerous environment to drive in? Real safety standards would improve the safety of everyone.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
We could make a 45 mp
Re: (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 her
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
"There's something behind the scenes"
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity [wikiquote.org].
I can't tell you why Ford is so stupid. Like my 3rd grade-teaching niece says, "I don't speak retard".
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, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Truth (Score:5, Funny)
but hey, what's 3000 kilometres....
14912.87 furlong
And this is why Ford and Chevy are... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (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.
That's your excuse?? (Score:5, Informative)
Down here in the south about half of the F-250's are diesel powered. The only difference is they only get 18 mpg.
Re:That's your excuse?? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:That's your excuse?? (Score:5, Funny)
Well, it running diesel is pretty important.... (Score:3)
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)?
Re: (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: (Score:3, Informative)
Uhm... but the difference between 30 mpg and 50 mpg easily makes up the difference in fuel costs... I owned a VM tdi and easily got 50 mpg on the highway.
Out of a thousand miles, you'd buy 20 gallons versus 33 gallons (assuming 30 mpg gas and 50 mpg diesel). The price difference (even using the inaccurate figure of $1.50 more per gallon means you save about $10 dollars. For a more reasonable 5% difference in price, means you save about $35 per 1000 miles total.
Anyway, I'm sure you can find plenty situatio
"Astonishing"? Only in the USA (Score:3, Informative)
Yer Right (Score:3, Informative)
Yep the MINI Cooper Diesel is rated at 72mpg and from the forum posts I've read gets between 56 and 60 mpg. Keep in mind that this Ford will get less than the factory rated 65mpg. Yes, astonishing for the US but not so for Europe. Europeans have far more options on the fuel efficient spectrum that Americans do.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Better for taxes than for rich-snot profits (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm just sayin'...
Cheers,
Auto industry asking for loans (Score:3, Insightful)
The irony is delicious.
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.
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: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.
65 MPG? (Score:3, Informative)
That's ok, but pretty much the norm these days for a small diesel car. The Ibiza Ecomotive does 74 mpg.
After seeing the picture of the car ... (Score:3, Funny)
... One reason they can't sell them in the US is because they put the steering wheel on the wrong side - Idiots.
* It's an F'n joke.
Quick summary (Score:5, Informative)
If you can't be bothered to RTFA, please read this.
Ford makes the engines in Britain. The British pound is high compared to the dollar, so the cars would cost more than a Prius; their best case is that a diesel tax credit might make the car cost only slightly more than a Prius. Their market research indicates that Americans prefer a hybrid gasoline car (such as a Prius) to a diesel, so they don't think the car would sell at the price they would have to charge. It doesn't help that diesel is taxed more than gasoline and thus costs $0.40 to $1.00 more per gallon. Ford could reduce the cost if they start building the diesel engines in Mexico, but they will lose money unless they can sell at least 350,000 diesel engines per year; given their bleak financials they are reluctant to take that risk right now.
Note that VW is selling Jettas with diesel engines, and several other auto makers are introducing diesel models. If American consumers go for these new diesels, Ford may reconsider their decision.
steveha
We're forgetting a couple of things: (Score:4, Interesting)
1) The Duratorq engine used on this model of the new Ford Fiesta doesn't come close to meeting the EPA Tier 2 Bin 5 emissions standard for internal combustion engines, which is necessary for 50-state sales of the vehicle.
2) Ford did a number of "tricks" to get that very high fuel economy number, notably using very high gearing, low-rolling resistance tires, and removing a number of accessories considered standard for a modern car. As such, you'll have to forgo air conditioning and put up with sluggish acceleration, both of which are unacceptable to American drivers!
If Ford does offer the Duratorq turbodiesel engine on the North American-market Fiesta, it will likely be a larger displacement unit (1.6 liters) with modern emission controls to make the engine meet EPA Tier 2 Bin 5 standard. It may also use the new Powershift six-speed dual-clutch transmission, which is starting to become available on European-market Ford Focus models. Sure, it won't get the extreme fuel economy of the ECOnetic Fiesta, but fuel economy approaching 50 mpg with the current EPA highway fuel economy test may be possible.
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:What about the VW Golf? (Score:5, Interesting)
When I was living in France on of our neighbors did a house swap with a family in Michigan. The guy worked for Ford. He was AMAZED at the EU Fords. He knew that they were supposedly superior to the US versions, but always assumed that the supposed difference was mostly hype to try to convince the US workers to work harder.
Until he drove one around.
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:Why not here in the USA? (Score:4, Funny)
Cars in Europe run on rich history and generations-old tradition. That's how they get such great gas mileage.