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.'"
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.
No sig today...
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.
Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
..going to be owned by the Chinese within 20 years. No one doubts how revolutionary both companies efforts are in creating viable electric and hybrid cars, in the mean time they are being laughed at by anyone who has gone car shopping in the last few months with all the sales. Even with some models being 5-10k cheaper from the American manufacturers 90% of the time you can get a Japanese model that gets 20% better gas mileage, higher resale value and better crash rating. Who still buys American vehicles these days, my grandparents got a Toyota last year and my sister has a 10 year old Chevy pickup. Everyone else I know owns German or Japanese vehicles.
An Education is the Font of All Liberty
In other news, the auto industry is asking for loans, which some classify as a bail out. This is mostly because no one is buying SUVs and other low-mpg vehicles.
The irony is delicious.
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 truck market and car market tend to have different buyers.
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.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
the UAW has been running the big 5 auto makers in to the ground by feigning to fight for better wages and benefits for workers years only to line their own pockets at the same time the NTSC and DOT regulating the hell out of the auto makers too thus upping the cost of manufacturing and sticker price of automobiles it is no wonder a new car or pickup costs almost as buying a house and to do what with it?, wear it out and sell it for pennies on the dollar in 10 years only to do it all over again so not many people can get ahead with expensive auto payments and full coverage insurance, i learned my lesson once in the 1980s and i will NEVER buy a new automobile ever again...
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)
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
And where do you intend to get the energy to split the hydrogen atoms from the oxygen?
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?
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
If I have nothing to hide, don't search me
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!
So don't use corn. Or use the oil for cooking, then transesterise it. That's generally what biodiesel is made from: yellow grease. Besides, if corn is more valuable as a fuel than food, it WILL be used as fuel. There's no point in wringing your hands over it. It's the way markets work. Nobody is going to forgo the profit without laws making them. Even then, you're going to see a lot of smuggling going on as fuel prices, and thus vegetable oil and ethanol prices, skyrocket. At best such a law will make them switch to another crop that has a better oil yield, at worst you'll force the market underground.
(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.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
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.
It's been a long time.
I'm just sayin'...
Cheers,
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
"But there are business reasons why we can't sell it in the U.S."
Well fuck you very much, Ford.
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)
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
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.
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.
What was once true, is no longer so
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?
i am a soviet space shuttle
"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.
So would I. VW 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
Should there be a Law?
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.
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.
Just because you're paranoid, it doesn't mean that they're not out to get you.