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.'"

Comments

Does that mean it can run on BIOdiesel?

[Joce640k]

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?

[IronMagnus]

Assume a 10 gallon tank

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?

[superdave80]

...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?

[zakezuke]

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?

[Buran]

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?

[MrResistor]

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.

Truth

[Renraku]

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

[0100010001010011]

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.

The reason is 30 years old

[damn_registrars]

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.

Re:probably the UAW

[plopez]

Check this out:

http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/webfeatures_snapshots_20060621

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/

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.