Slashdot Mirror
Ford's 65MPG Due In November, But Not In the US
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.'"
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...
"The Fiesta ECOnetic runs on diesel."
Down here in the south about half of the F-250's are diesel powered. The only difference is they only get 18 mpg.
No comprende? Let me type that a little slower for you...
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.
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.
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
Chuck
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
lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
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.
It's a VW, just cheaper and with a different badge.
no taxation without representation!
Actually, BTL (biomass-to-liquid fuel) is a viable alternative to biodiesel. On the upside, it is much closer chemically to petroleum diesel than biodiesel (methyl or ethyl esters). This has the advantage of not violating warranties (Bio does, in some cases) and being more energy dense than B100. On the downside, it takes a lot of energy to run the BTL process, so it pushes the carbon bubble elsewhere (hopefully, IMHO, to nuclear power).
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)
A recent study at MIT's Sloan Automotive Lab indicates that this contamination might not be as deleterious as previously believed despite the fact that the highly polar methyl esters compete with ZDDP on engine surfaces.
A couple drivers on the TDIClub forums 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
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.
70% of statistics are made up.
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.
i am a soviet space shuttle
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 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" says automotive gasoline has a density of 34.2 MJ/litre whereas automotive diesel has a density of 38.6 MJ/litre.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?