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.'"
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?
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).
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.
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.)
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.
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 :)
which is totally what she said
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 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.
Diesel contains approximately 30% more energy per volume than gasoline does. This means that as long as diesel costs less than 30% more than gasoline, diesel is cheaper on a per-mile basis than gasoline (all other factors in the vehicle being equal). Incidentally, ethanol contains roughly 30% LESS energy per volume than gasoline. So if your E85 costs more than ~25% (85% x 30% = 25.5%) less than standard gasoline, you pay more per mile to drive on E85. If E10 costs more than 3% less than standard gasoline, you pay more to drive on E10 than on standard gasoline. Etc, etc.
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)
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.
My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.
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.
And less than a year ago it was proven that you could drive in a circle with absolutely no reason to brake, and having to slow down even a tiny amount will eventually lead to people coming to a complete stop.
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?
I understand that in the U.S. (where I live, but I grew up in Europe and still spend 2 months there every year) people are under the misconception that diesel emission are the most polluting thing there is. Well, it's not true. Green Diesel (it's actually of a white color) has been available in Europe for many years now and pollution laws in the European Union are as strict, if not stricter, than those in the States. Yes you can have diesel that pollutes less than gasoline, it exists and people outside of the US use it. I don't trust Wikipedia on everything, I just use it for a general idea. If Tokyo has banned diesel I'd like to know what type they were using. I was just in Japan in April and I didn't pay attention to cars in Tokyo, but I've seen diesel cars and they didn't strike me as being more pollutant than gasoline ones. On the other hand, in Peru, diesel cars were not running green diesel, just like trucks in the U.S. don't.