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?

[bhtooefr]

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?

[bfizzle]

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?

[Sique]

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?

[postbigbang]

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:Does that mean it can run on BIOdiesel?

[bill_mcgonigle]

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?

[rsw]

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?

[anonicon]

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

Re:Does that mean it can run on BIOdiesel?

[bluefoxlucid]

Nope, turbocharge the diesel engine so it has a proper fuel-air mix instead of burning dirty around the outside of the chamber, and that goes away.

Re:Does that mean it can run on BIOdiesel?

[stewbacca]

The same turbo 4 gets 263 hp if it runs on regular gas. That's one reason the US hasn't fallen in love with underpowered, stinky diesels yet. Maybe if gas were heading towards $5 a gallon instead of back to $3 a gallon, diesels might gain some traction.

Re:Does that mean it can run on BIOdiesel?

[bhtooefr]

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:Does that mean it can run on BIOdiesel?

[rtechie]

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?

[bhtooefr]

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?

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

[bfizzle]

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?

[Artuir]

Isn't this a bit negative? Bio-diesel is not snake oil in the sense it does nothing. It works, but as with anything except for gas/diesel, oil related products the manufacturing and distribution network is not there, plain and simple. Doesn't make it snake oil, though. It doesn't make it merely a "nice idea". It's all in the infrastructure.

If you carry that attitude about all of it, nothing will ever change because what's the point? It might actually take some work to get off gas/diesel dependency other than better mpg vehicles!

America, land of the optimists.

Re:Does that mean it can run on BIOdiesel?

[kraut]

It's a VW, just cheaper and with a different badge.

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?

[somersault]

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?

[daybot]

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.

Re:Does that mean it can run on BIOdiesel?

[Sj0]

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?

[Bent Mind]

Thank you.

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?

[rsw]

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

Re:Does that mean it can run on BIOdiesel?

[Flimzy]

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.

Re:Does that mean it can run on BIOdiesel?

[darkwhite]

Have you actually driven a European diesel made in the past decade?

Diesel exhaust with the particulate filters recently required in Europe is CLEANER than regular gas exhaust. In every category. Including all particulates.

Re:Does that mean it can run on BIOdiesel?

[PitaBred]

Thank you for being environmentally and fiscally conscious WITHOUT being a douchebag to everyone else on the road. Some "hypermiling" lunatics cause more problems than they solve because they fuck up traffic for everyone else, which results in more net pollution from everyone trying to deal with them on the road, even if they save a couple of dollars a week. Selfish twats...

Anyway, thanks :)

Re:Does that mean it can run on BIOdiesel?

[bhtooefr]

Car model years actually start in August (and production in July,) not January. ;)

So, model year 2009 diesel cars are on dealer lots (well, OK, in the case of VW, not on dealer lots, rather in driveways - I don't know about Mercedes) right now.

The Mercedes E320 Bluetec is a clean diesel, and came out in 2007, so my comment applies to that, too.

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?

[arth1]

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.

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?

[kwerle]

But, they don't seem to quite get that, and public perception is that diesels are dirty, so...

I'm not saying that things aren't better.
http://www.cancer.org/docroot/NWS/content/NWS_1_1x_EPA_Reports_Diesel_Linked_To_Lung_Cancer.asp

I'm just saying there are reasons that diesel has a bad image.

Re:Does that mean it can run on BIOdiesel?

[Soruk]

I drive a diesel Renault Scenic. Not the most powerful beast on the planet but on long runs I can exceed 70mpg. Then again, currently paying about £1.22/litre it's still expensive to run.

Re:Does that mean it can run on BIOdiesel?

[SylvesterTheCat]

I've gone behind my 2006 diesel Jeep Liberty many times when it is running.

There is no visible exhaust.

As far as smell, I try to use B10 whenever possible. The smell is minimal and even then I only notice if it is in an partially enclosed space, like an open garage.

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?

[Anonymous Coward]

This kind of ignorance is why diesel isn't taking off.

Re:Does that mean it can run on BIOdiesel?

[NETHED]

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?

[stewbacca]

Ok, more proof that diesel fans are incredibly biased and only hear what they want to hear. My Mazdaspeed3 small 4-cylinder engine is gas powered and turbo-charged. It gets more TORQUE than the equivalent diesel as well-280 to be exact. Granted, I don't know what the VW turbo4s get for torque, but the fact remains, whatever that number is, a gas powered engine will get more. The "torque" mystique of diesel engines is a marketing ploy, as any torque engineered into a diesel can also be engineered into the equivalent gas model.

Re:Does that mean it can run on BIOdiesel?

[NeilTheStupidHead]

Actually, in Brazil, ethanol is somewhat successfully competeing with petrol. And not this blended petrol-ethanol garbage, 100% ethanol fuel. The ethanol fuel insdustry is producing a profit with _zero_ governement subsidies. One of the reasons it is more successful than the US is that sugarcane is used instead of corn. Sugarcane is more robust and easier to grow than corn and the energy density is higher; roughly 3-4 times as much fuel comes from an acre of sugarcane versus an acre of corn.

Ethanol plants burn waste plant parts to create electricity, producing about 15% surplus over a plant's requirements to produce the fuel. Ethanol fuel also produces about 10% of the exhaust compared to petrol engines over the same distance and a fraction of the contaminants such as sulfur compounds. Perhaps more signifigantly, ethanol has almost zero carbon impact because the carbon used to produce the fuel already exists in the biosphere, where as carbon from petrol has been locked in the ground for millions of years.

Yes ethanol gets about 30% less milage than the same volume of gasoline, it has less energy. It also tends to be 30% cheaper than petrol (at least in Brazil) which makes it competative in the consumer market. Ethanol has yet to make in roads in industrial settings because the fuel cannot compete with diesel for large trucks and machinery, but improved diesel technology means that those engines aren't as ineffecient or dirty as they used to be either.

Re:Does that mean it can run on BIOdiesel?

[jgc7]

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?

[afidel]

They can tune the fractional distillation columns to give them pretty much whatever fraction they want (within reason). There are optimal setups for certain crude and certain equipment, but they will tune things to what the market demands. The changes that came about because of ULSD caused some of the interesting sulfur leftovers for lubrication applications to be no longer produced, so one enterprising refinery made non-ULSD for the Mexican market and sold these compounds at pretty good markup to the lubricants industry.

Re:Does that mean it can run on BIOdiesel?

[lordeveryman]

I have a 2000 VW Jetta TDI. It got better economy right up to around 50k miles. We run bio in it during the summer and then commercial diesel in the winter months. Pulling a small utility trailer with all our kids stuff in it for camping it still gets 42 - 45 mpg depending on elevation change.

Re:Does that mean it can run on BIOdiesel?

[JimboFBX]

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?

Re:Does that mean it can run on BIOdiesel?

[mindstrm]

I think what he means is that diesels tend to have more torque at low RPMs.

Re:Does that mean it can run on BIOdiesel?

[AmigaMMC]

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.

Re:Does that mean it can run on BIOdiesel?

[Buran]

I don't get it either, as I said in my reply elsewhere in this thread. It's not a threat unless you're one of those me-first types, and I also don't understand why people who merely obey the law are seen as something to brush aside. 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).

The most recent incident: I had an idiot in a large full-size SUV that I am doing 50 in an exit-only deceleration lane branching off a road where the limit is 60, and the upcoming exit is, due to construction, hazardous and should be navigated at 30-40mph (and in fact said idiot came an inch from my rear bumper, high-beamed (and blinded me, since he was in an SUV at night) and then swerved around me and back in front of me an inch from my FRONT bumper -- enjoy MY high beams, jackass -- and was stuck at the same red light I was at the bottom of the exit. (WTF? Dude, you have no excuse to have been doing 80 in an exit-only lane). I now call that guy Pencildick.

Seriously, why do people seem to get off on being as much of a danger as possible to others on the road?

Re:Does that mean it can run on BIOdiesel?

[MightyYar]

I have no idea why the US hasn't fallen in love with diesel yet.

I do...
1. Diesels are more expensive.
2. Diesel fuel is more expensive, wiping out much or all of the fuel cost savings.
3. Performance suffers since diesels are heavier and cannot rev as high.
4. At highway speeds they aren't that much more efficient (since the throttle plate in a gasoline engine is more open). Americans do a lot of highway driving.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a hater... for a pokey little commuter car, the small efficiency gain probably makes sense - and they tend to last longer so they are probably a better long-term investment. For trucks, diesels kick ass.

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?

[Buran]

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?

[hb253]

If you find yourself being passed on the right, you should move over to the right.

Re:Does that mean it can run on BIOdiesel?

[MrNougat]

The US had a brief foray into diesel in the early 1980s, and it was an utter failure. That's because the diesels they were putting into service then were converted gas engines. They were unreliable, noisy, smelly, and underpowered in the full-size steel cars they were trying to pull.

I think the buying public is probably ready for modern diesels, designed from the ground up as diesels. Mercedes and VW have been doing diesel the right way for a long time. But the US automotive industry still remembers the last time they tried it.

Re:Does that mean it can run on BIOdiesel?

[pintpusher]

maybe OP drove more carefully, cause dang that premium is expensive!

Re:Does that mean it can run on BIOdiesel?

[mcmonkey]

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.

..and in fact said idiot came an inch from my rear bumper, high-beamed (and blinded me, since he was in an SUV at night) and then swerved around me and back in front of me an inch from my FRONT bumper -- enjoy MY high beams, jackass...

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?

[skam240]

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?

[MightyYar]

I remember reading once that diesel engines were most efficient when run at their top RPM.

This is, in general, true of any engine. Power is related to the rotational speed and the torque output. Maximum efficiency is going to roughly coincide with the highest speed you can make before torque starts to fall off too much, which happens due to flow restrictions mostly - either fuel or air.

Gasoline engines are lighter and have smaller stroke, so can spin a lot faster, which is why they have higher horsepower ratings despite having lower torque. Still, at their peak efficiency they aren't much worse than diesels - just a few percent.

So in my long-winded way, I'm getting around to saying that a diesel-electric would not necessarily get you a whole lot of efficiency gain over a gasoline-electric, especially since we're not on a railroad so engine weight has more importance on fuel economy. That extra weight has to be compensated for with more power, bigger brakes, etc and costs you some of the efficiency difference from combustion.

Re:Does that mean it can run on BIOdiesel?

[ArhcAngel]

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.

Like this?

" The XR3 is a "plug-in hybrid." This makes it possible to drive on battery power alone on trips of about 40 miles. And when both the diesel and the battery-electric systems are used together, and the car is driven conservatively, fuel economy increases to over 200-mpg. Fuel economy is about 125-mpg on diesel power alone. "

Re:Does that mean it can run on BIOdiesel?

[JimboFBX]

There's no traffic being directed. The workers are much farther away from you than oncoming traffic.

I live in Boise ID, there's always construction at some point on the interstate, that literally just sits there for months, even years with you driving by it and nobody actually doing anything. No lanes are closed or anything, just a reduced speed limit that people tend to ignore. However, when you get two people side-by-side who take the speed limit literally at the more busier times, traffic just stops for miles. The lanes bunch up because everyone catches up, and things get compounded when those bunched up lanes get even worse from cars trying to merge in or change to the lane they need to be in. If they hadn't had gotten bunched up from the reduced speed limit, there wouldn't have been as much of a problem. Cars would of had room between other cars to merge on smoothly or change lanes smoothly

The point I was trying to make really, was that 55 mph is still REALLY fast to be driving near a person on the side of the road, which isn't even happening, so why have it at all. Either slow it down to 25 where its safe to be near people (which is entirely not necessary in this situation), or don't bother.

Oh yeah, and the construction workers stick barriers on the shoulder for merging onto the interstate, so you have to go fairly slow if at a glance the lane your merging on to isn't completely clear, since there isn't much wiggle room to be looking one direction (behind you and to your left) and driving the other. I might add, at the on-ramp near me, they haven't done any construction at all except put up barriers and reduce the speed limit. For 5 weeks, and for probably much more.

Re:Does that mean it can run on BIOdiesel?

[hb253]

Everybody knows that speed zones (i.e. traps) are designed for revenue enhancement, not safety.

Re:Does that mean it can run on BIOdiesel?

[smittyoneeach]

Less profit margin for Big Oil?

Re:Does that mean it can run on BIOdiesel?

[LurkerXXX]

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?

[Buran]

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:Does that mean it can run on BIOdiesel?

[cayenne8]

"I also don't understand why people who merely obey the law are seen as something to brush aside. "

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?

[EXrider]

No, that is not the fact you're wrong. First of all, your Mazdaspeed3 has a 2.3L engine. The VW TDI's in cars here in the US are mostly either 1.9L or 2.0L. That is not equivalent to the TDI you're comparing it to above.

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 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 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. There are some diesels that have logged over a million miles!

Re:Does that mean it can run on BIOdiesel?

[ubercam]

Yes, but you're not considering another important factor: diesel engines have a far greater life expectancy than any gas motor. Yeah, call out that guy with the million mile Corolla or whatever, but he's a very rare exception.

Check any classified section/buy & sell car guide magazine and you'll see all the diesel cars have like 200,000+ km on the clock, many over 300,000km. How many gas cars do you see with that many kms? Would you actually want to buy any of them? A properly maintained diesel engine will last well over 600,000km. I know a guy who has a VW diesel out of a '79 Rabbit in his garage on an engine stand. Original EVERYTHING, never changed one gasket, one bolt... nothing except oil and coolant. The thing has 637,000km on it. The car disintegrated around the motor. It was being held together with aircraft cable and had to be junked about 10 years ago.

If you're willing to drive the same car for 10-15 years (God forbid!) then the initial cost of the diesel model is far outweighed by the fuel savings and you save the cost of buying a new car every 5 years or so. Do you really think your Smart Car will last 15 years?

And no, maintenance on a diesel is not any more expensive than a gas motor if you pay attention to your maintenance schedule. We have a 2002 Jetta TDI. I do most of the work yourself, have a good source for a decently priced parts (avoid the stealerships at all costs!), and know a good mechanic for the harder stuff. It's the same cost as our 1997 Golf gasser (1.8L non-turbo). One word of advice though: DO THE TIMING BELT EXACTLY WHEN IT SAYS TO OR ELSE YOU'LL BE VERY, VERY SORRY AND POOR!!! No, I'm not speaking from experience, but I know someone who has, and yeah it wasn't pretty.

Fuel mileage... 50L/1100km regularly (80/20 highway/city). On Friday gas was $1.40/L and diesel was $1.21! Fucking oil companies gauging the living shit out of us!

Re:Does that mean it can run on BIOdiesel?

[bluecrux]

So do I but some people just can't, and you can't hold it against all of them. The fact that there is a serious conversation about more efficient alternatives to American's ~20mpg tanks is a really good thing.

I would like to note that when I lived in Columbia, MD, I biked what I know a lot of people in the area would never consider riding. It was 5 miles, and easy. I do think that a lot of people dismiss riding because they think their roads aren't safe enough, or they think that 10 miles round trip is just too far, which are both ridiculous reasons not to ride.

Re:Does that mean it can run on BIOdiesel?

[Buran]

Go ahead. I don't care. All the wit in the world doesn't change the fact that you gambled, and you lost.

Re:Does that mean it can run on BIOdiesel?

[Rei]

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?

[MrResistor]

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?

[Duhavid]

The first rule of TDI Club is that you do not speak of TDI Club.

Re:Does that mean it can run on BIOdiesel?

[himi]

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

Re:Does that mean it can run on BIOdiesel?

[Toonol]

The irrational anger driving at the speed limit generates is really interesting. If people not breaking the law causes intense frustration and feeling of anger in you, something is wrong in you.

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?

[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.

Re:Does that mean it can run on BIOdiesel?

[falconwolf]

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

Re:Does that mean it can run on BIOdiesel?

[Footsienabackyard]

Your close. All Diesel engines currently produced for all vehicles in the US-America are Tier II compliant. By 2010 they must meet Tier III regulations. Rather than produce "filters" for the end production of smog, it was decided to make a lean motor from scratch.
California emission standards effectively killed the Isuzu Diesel, which was also to be used in the Chevy S10, that's why you see Diesel repair in the early S10(& GMC S15) repair manuals.

Re:Does that mean it can run on BIOdiesel?

[hab136]

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.

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?

[ozmanjusri]

This was posted to the wrong thread.

You're in the wrong lane again?

Geez, some people never learn.

Re:Does that mean it can run on BIOdiesel?

[somersault]

You mean you don't torque about it? Har de har har!

Re:Does that mean it can run on BIOdiesel?

[thannine]

1. No, that doesn't cause traffic jams in itself. Following too closely and having to brake sharply when the car in front of you does (due to lack of two seconds of space) causes traffic jams.

Yes, it does. In itself. People are not computers. So in any deceleration there is a delay and then harder deceleration in the car behind you. If you keep the 2 second gap, you'll need to break when you realize some tenths of a second later that the guy before you is decelerating. This all adds up, and there'll be traffic jam in no time. Smooth acceleration is working the same way. It'll take more time fore the guys behind you until they can start accelerating again. Once again, we have a jam. BTW, have you ever considered that maintaining the 2 second gap lowers the throughput of the road? That also causes jams, if not on the road you're driving, the on some other road. I'm not saying the 2 second gap is wrong nor that you shouldn't be allowed to decelerate. Just get the facts staright.

Re:Does that mean it can run on BIOdiesel?

[Skye16]

Well, in PA, you'd never be where you needed to be for good reason. Ramps are *only* on the right hand side of the road, and "driving" on the left while not engaged in a passing manuever is also illegal.

I know some states are different, and everytime I'm in MD it blows my mind when a ramp shoots off to the left. So if he's coming from a state like PA, you genuinely never will have an excuse to be driving on the left hand side of the road. It's a passing lane and only a passing lane, and if you're not engaged in passing, you are breaking the law :)

Re:Does that mean it can run on BIOdiesel?

[PingSpike]

Biking to work is great, if you can swing it. But in cold weather states it just isn't an option for a large portion of the year. And with the poor condition of many states roads, its a wonder you can actually drive a regular car on them, nevermind a road bike.

But I see a lot of people bring up "just bike the 5 miles to work to save gas". The trouble is, the people that live 5 miles from work are the same ones that can drive a Hummer without breaking the bank on a gasoline bill. The people that really need to save money are the ones that live far out...but most of them don't have 4 extra hours a day for the bike ride to work either.

Re:Does that mean it can run on BIOdiesel?

[VeNoM0619]

and someone obeying the rules regarding decleration lanes would not even be nearly hit ONCE, let alone TWICE.

but YOU are responsible for not hitting cars in front of you

and then swerved around me and back in front of me an inch from my FRONT bumper -- enjoy MY high beams, jackass

Case and point...-ONCE- by your own reasoning. Not to mention, being rude to others because they were "rude" first is not justifiable...

By the way... you can stop calling everyone internet strangers... If you didn't want "internet strangers" opinions, then you shouldn't have posted the story.

Re:Does that mean it can run on BIOdiesel?

[Mr. Slippery]

You were sitting in the left-hand lane and (obviously) not passing. You were not obeying the law.

Don't know where the original poster was, but the law on that varies by state.

And one can be in the left lane, gradually overtaking a slower vehicle (or group thereof) in the right lane, and still have some asshole come zooming up behind you, ride your ass, and blind you with his highbeams because, dammit, you made him slow down from his 90mph fsck-you-all tear along the highway.

Re:Does that mean it can run on BIOdiesel?

[flyboyfred]

That's for big trucks that have engine brakes such as Jake Brake, which basically turn the diesel engine into a big air compressor. This discussion is referring to simply downshifting in a passenger car or light truck, which doesn't make the jackhammer sound you're thinking of.

Re:Does that mean it can run on BIOdiesel?

[Dread_ed]

Everyone seems to have the same basic assumption that consuming less fuel is an indesputably positive thing. Have we, as a society, fully explored this almost subconscious devotion to a questionable ideal? I think not.

Personally, I enjoy driving my car and am willing to spend whatever I think necessary on fuel to further that enjoyment. If other people question me on this they do so to their own detriment. Take care of your own house and I will take care of mine.

PArt of my enjoyment comes from my motivation to drive politely with other drivers. This means that if I need to speed up or slow down to accomodate another driver I will do it. I will put the apparent needs and wants of other drivers ahead of any attempted or perceived fuel savings on my part. Seriously, if I save $15.00 a week in gas and piss people off while I am driving that is not worth it to me. Apparently I lack sufficient self-righteousness to gain pleasure from "teaching people a lesson."

Like I said, I enjoy driving and I don't like to make other people's driving a stressful or frustrating experience. Just think to yourself that the other car contains a person with needs wants and desires that you cannot fathom from the distance of 3 car lengths but are just as valid as your own. Internally appealing to "higher standards" of whatever origin (better fuel economy, proper speed, driving technique, etc.) just leads to everyone acting like a total jackass. Other people are more important than petty internal self-considerations, at least for me.

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

[djh101010]

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

[jonbryce]

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

[Flavio]

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

[the_humeister]

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.

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).

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.

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:Truth

[Gat0r30y]

Ford sells cars? Wow, I need to pay more attention.

Re:Truth

[Bill, Shooter of Bul]

Read the story. They believe that it would have to retail for more than the Prius, and that they wouldn't the 300K per year to make the investment in converting its north American plants to diesel engine tech. Combined with the fact that they are hemorrhaging money, they are simply too afraid of making the investment. That might just be a way of rephrasing the first point you made about it outselling the other cars, in another way. But your tin foil hat, just makes you look stupid ;)

We could make a 45 mpg gas burning only car today and it would be wildly popular. It would look a lot like the geo metro and have a top speed of 55, with a single passenger weighing less than 150 lbs. I think the main reasons why we don't are our previous infatuation with large suv's combined with the lead time needed to build a car that people now want. The story did say that a gas burning version would be available in the united states. Lets see how well that turns out.

Re:Truth

[jhfry]

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 here in the US. May not seem like much, but it cuts the MPG savings down a bit.

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.

Re:Truth

[Anonymous Coward]

Oil sands in Ontario??? You mean Alberta, but hey, what's 3000 kilometres....

Re:Truth

[AncientPC]

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

[the_humeister]

Actually, 45MPG isn't a big deal if people would just drive more slowly. For example, my 2008 Jetta with a 170 HP engine is rated at 29 MPG on the highway. I can actually get around 40 MPG by just driving 55 mph. Different driving techniques can increase that further such as "pulse and glide." (eg I can get 40mpg by pulsing to 70 mph and then putting my car in neutral and coast to 60 mph and repeat). The problem is that people are both impatient and lazy. People bitch and moan about the high cost of fuel, and yet they don't do anything about driving slower.

Re:Truth

[elynnia]

Also, just to play devil's advocate,

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

[Bryansix]

Exactly. Ontario is always trying to screw Alberta.

Re:Truth

[rickb928]

"There's something behind the scenes"

Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.

I can't tell you why Ford is so stupid. Like my 3rd grade-teaching niece says, "I don't speak retard".

Re:Truth

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah. The same thing that kept Google's hybrid car from using diesel: California emissions red tape. IIRC, CA rates the emissions by each unit of fuel burned. So a 230mpg hybrid rates the same as a 15mpg truck. Yet another reason for ONE national emissions standard.

Re:Truth

[Shark]

but hey, what's 3000 kilometres....

14912.87 furlong

Re:Truth

[Gordonjcp]

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

[SuperQ]

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

[Michael Wardle]

Hmm... NOx versus CO2.
http://www.epa.gov/air/urbanair/nox/hlth.html

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

[Sj0]

If it makes you feel any better, I've got the same 90HP you do, but in a V6.

I think I get about 18MPG. Gotta love the '80s.

Re:Truth

[BlackSnake112]

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:Truth

[Matteo522]

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:Truth

[MojoRilla]

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.

Or the illusion of SUV safety.

Re:Truth

[asynchronous13]

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 (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:Truth

[anagama]

There must be other costs involved than simply digging it up. Total recently indicated that with oil at $90/bbl, their oil sand project provides a 12.5% return. That means converting oil sand into usable product costs $80/bbl.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/dc3b9c66-8053-11dd-99a9-000077b07658.html

Re:Truth

[R3d M3rcury]

People bitch and moan about the high cost of fuel, and yet they don't do anything about driving slower.

Actually, I believe people with the big-honkin' SUVs started driving slower when gas was over $4.00 per gallon.

The problem was that they wouldn't get out of the left-hand lane! I appreciate them doing their part to save gasoline, but do they have to do it right in front oh me?!

Save gas on your own time! :^)

Re:Truth

[nospam007]

>45mpg is about average in Europe, and most of the average cars come from American manufacturers.

You must be kidding or not know what the word 'most' means. GM (only the Opel brand) and Ford with cars that are not on the market anywhere in the US have less than 21%.

Top Selling Cars in Europe in 2007 by Manufacturing Groups

The Volkswagen Group (VW, Audi, Seat, Skoda, Bentley, Bugatti & Lamborghini) comfortably maintained its lead as best selling car manufacturer in Europe by capturing 19.7% (20.2% in 2006) of the total market. Second biggest manufacturer was the French PSA Group (Peugeot & Citroen) with 12.8% (12.9%) of the European market followed by Ford with 10.5% (10.4%), GM with 10.2% (10.2%), and Renault with 8.7% (9.2%).
http://internationaltrade.suite101.com/article.cfm/top_selling_cars_in_europe_in_2007

And this is why Ford and Chevy are...

[linzeal]

..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.

Re:And this is why Ford and Chevy are...

[BitterOldGUy]

we should be so fucking lucky.

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.

Re:And this is why Ford and Chevy are...

[bcnstony]

Hah! Have you SEEN Chinese cars in crash tests? This youtube video compares a Lexus and Fiat with two Chinese Cars. It's worth the 2 minutes. Which one would you rather be in?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dimg2n2Azwg

That's your excuse??

[iamhigh]

"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.

Re:That's your excuse??

[the_humeister]

The truck market and car market tend to have different buyers.

Re:That's your excuse??

[GyroLC]

Yes, rednecks as opposed to idiots.

Re:That's your excuse??

[Temkin]

The 4.88 axle really kills you. You should have had the option of a 4.37 diff., which does a little better. But I have heard from multiple people that the 6.4l just doesn't live up to fuel economy expectations.

I've owned a tired 6.9l IDI, a 7.3l PSD, and currently a 6.0l. The 6.9l would always posted 18 mpg solo with a fresh set of injectors and pump. I never tried towing anything significant with it, but it would drop to 13 - 14 with a slide in camper. The 7.3 has the 3.73LS gears, and gets 17.5 mpg all day at 70 mph. Towing a 10k lb. TT it drops to 9.5 - 10.5 depending on speed and hills.

The 6.0l got a bad rap for some injector defects and software bugs early on. I use mine to tow a 35' bunkhouse 5er and haven't has any trouble at all. The 3.73LS gears are a little tall for mountains, but it does OK. Solo it posts 17 mpg. With a 12k lb. 5er it gets 11 mpg at 70 mph. When I visit California, I have to go 55 mph, and the fuel economy goes up to 12.

I'd seriously consider swapping out the ring and pinion in your rig.

Well, it running diesel is pretty important....

[joe_cot]

The main one: The Fiesta ECOnetic runs on diesel.

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:Well, it running diesel is pretty important....

[Etrias]

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:Well, it running diesel is pretty important....

[Panaflex]

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 situations in which the diesel looses... but for the average consumer a diesel car will be cheaper to operate... it certainly was in my case.

Now someone needs to sell a diesel minivan... parents are the most cost-conscience group I know.

"Astonishing"? Only in the USA

[whoever57]

I doubt that many people in Europe will be astonished by a diesel that will do 65MPG. Even if those gallons are US gallons (approx 5/6 of an Imperial gallon), it's still not much greater than small diesel cars have achieved for a long time.

Auto industry asking for loans

[PIPBoy3000]

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.

Yer Right

[atari2600]

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:Yer Right

[Meph0]

Exactly, we Europeans have always had an incentive to get ourselves more fuel efficient cars, because our gas was always expensive. Dutch gas is, converted, about 9$/gallon at the moment. Now the USA's prices are going up (still cheap though), suddenly Americans are interested in and astonished by what the rest of the world considers normal. Too bad it took so long, but good to see none the less.

And this is why Ford is going bankrupt

[bogjobber]

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

[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:The reason is 30 years old

[Temkin]

Actually... The reason was GM's late 70's 350 conversion. They took the venerable 350 c.i. gasoline V8 engine block and converted it to diesel. The results were quite predictable. Cracked blocks, thrown rods, blown head gaskets, etc...

Ford put the first medium duty truck engine in their F-series trucks in the early 80's and had an instant hit. I still miss my smog belching 6.9l. All kinds of fun when some punk in a Honda pulls along side you and fires up the boomity boom music. There's no way their sewing machine motor can beat 400 ft/lbs off the line. Since they wanted me to listen to their music so badly, I used to blow smoke at them. Usually in the driver's window and out the passenger's window. :-)

probably the UAW

[FudRucker]

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)

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.

65 MPG?

[edxwelch]

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 ...

[SengirV]

... 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

[steveha]

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

Re:Bull fucking shit

[Anonymous Coward]

And where do you intend to get the energy to split the hydrogen atoms from the oxygen?

Re:What about the VW Golf?

[PhilipPeake]

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.

Speed Humps

[aphelion_rock]

I well imaging that a Fiesta could be run over by a Hummer or a F250 and it be mistaken for a speed hump.

Re:Speed Humps

[Sj0]

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:US needs clean diesel fuel

[corsec67]

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

Biodiesel would be good, but...

[AetherBurner]

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!

Re:Biodiesel would be good, but...

[PitaBred]

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.

Re:Bull fucking shit

[Sj0]

Get the fuck out, useless telemarketer. In THIS forum, we obey the laws of thermodynamics!

Re:Bull fucking shit

[mweather]

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.

Re:Bull fucking shit

[philspear]

You know, it sounded like you may have had a point, but I really don't feel like picking it out of all that rage. Start taking decaf and then come back and try to make whatever point it was you were trying to.

It's not the diesel it's consumer usage

[WillAffleckUW]

(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.

Re:$25,700 for the subcompact Ford!

[jawtheshark]

$25,700 for the subcompact Ford! I can get two Toyotas for that price...

Not in Europe... At current rates, $25,700 is €18,116. I just jumped over to my national Toyota site and configured a Toyota Auris with a Diesel Engine (That model is similar in size to a Fiesta) and that would cost €17.185.

Even taking their smallest model, the Toyota Yaris it would still cost €12.405. (Again, I took a Diesel model to be fair).

I'm sure I'd be able to get two second hand Toyotas for that price, but that wouldn't be a fair comparison.

No

[WindBourne]

the company is based in Japan, but much of the american sold cars are BUILT in America.

who's talking out of their ass?

[SylvesterTheCat]

You see to be the one talking out of your ass...

Converting corn to bio-deisel will cause inflation of value.

Corn is not used for the creation of biodiesl. Soybeans is the current primary crop for creation of biodiesel, although other crops can be used. Maybe those other crops are used. I'm not sure and will not claim.

It takes somthing like 600 pounds of corn to create 25 gallons of ethanol, which feeds a fatass American for over 15 months.

What does that have to do with current coversation concerning diesel engines and diesel / biodiesel fuel?

You seem to fail to grasp that ethanol is not the same as biodiesel.

Re:The nineties called, they want their car back

[notwrong]

According to Google, 65 mpg is 3.6 litres per 100km.

Are you sure you used US gallons (3.7 l), rather than UK gallons (4.5 l)?

Re:Why not here in the USA?

[Sj0]

Cars in Europe run on rich history and generations-old tradition. That's how they get such great gas mileage.

Better for taxes than for rich-snot profits

[zooblethorpe]

I'm just sayin'...

Cheers,

Ford! Stop pussyfooting around!

[GrahamCox]

Also GM, and all the rest of you. You are toying with so-called "green" cars and hybrids without taking a fundamental look at what makes your products suck so much - using an IC engine at some point to provide traction to the wheels. Look at this: http://www.pmlflightlink.com/archive/news_mini.html. Someone needs to get behind this and productionise it ASAP. It's been around for over 2 years now. 0-60 mph in 5 seconds *AND* 80mpg - if it had just normal family car amounts of power it would probably manage 150-200 mpg. 65mpg is a joke.

We're forgetting a couple of things:

[MtViewGuy]

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.

My Diesel

[The AtomicPunk]

I bought a used 2005 Excursion Diesel.

I can haul 8 people and all their stuff (got a fourth kid in the planning stages, 2 parents, dogs, cats, car I tow... )

It weights 7700lbs.

I get 22-24 MPG @ 65-75 MPH.

If I granny it enough, I can get about 16 MPG around town.

I'd love to see more diesels in SMALLER vehicles.

Re:speeding

[Buran]

True, but the limit is the limit, and if you don't like it, you don't get to think you're better than the law. If you don't like it, the right way to do something about it is to get the highway department to resurvey the road and if the limit is improper it will be changed.

fuel prices

[damn_registrars]

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)

Ding of the Hill

[fm6]

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.

Diesel back then

[hdw1]

I had a early 80's Tempo diesel and got 50+ miles to the gallon on trips at 75 to 80 MPH. Bring this car to the US and I would buy one.

Re:speeding

[Brickwall]

If you don't like it, the right way to do something about it is to get the highway department to resurvey the road and if the limit is improper it will be changed.

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

[Buran]

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?

Um, what?

[JaBob]

Gasoline burns faster than diesel. You can have more complete combustion sooner in time and therefore can have a higher rpm (less time per power stroke = not burning fuel as the mixture leaves during the exhaust stroke). The reason that they're heavier is that the combustion pressures are generally higher than gas engines, so diesels have to be built sturdier (at least until we get better materials).

You get better efficiency by increasing the difference in pressures, and since newer diesels are turbocharged, you can force more fuel/air in per power stroke. This has the effect of running on a 'bigger' engine, without all the weight. When we figure out how to reliably get gas direct injection technology to work, eventually running gas in similar parameters that we run in diesels, we'll see more efficient engines. The nice thing about diesels is that you don't break things by running too lean. Running too lean in a gas engine is a great way to have an excuse to go out and buy yourself a new engine.

The bottom line is that we can get great mileage today with today's technology. Americans (and probably the rest of the world) get sold on being able to accelerate quickly. We'd all be fine with engines that have a peak output of whatever the car needs to be able to push air out of the way at whatever reasonable top speed you want. Rough estimate is something like 50 HP or so for the average car at average highway speeds in the USA. Why do you think that the hobbyists that do it for fun drive the way they do?

As far as I know, we like diesel locomotives because those diesels power big generators that run 3 phase motors, which deliver constant power. Constant power means many good things when trying to do work - less vibrations, more even wear-and-tear, etc. That, and diesel fuel is a little more transportable than most fuels that we use to make power.

The problem with diesels on the road is emissions combined with everyone wanting their own car. I understand that many many people have a basic work need to have their own car and have no public transit alternative, but there's a great deal of us that are willing to put up with the hassle and expense of having our own transportation just so we don't have to be at the hassle of other people.

Re:speeding

[Brickwall]

I did do my research. I looked up a traffic engineering thesis from the University of Toronto, The guy was quite cogent, and listed six categories of road, from A to F. A is a super highway, F is a downtown city street, and each one has a different recommended speed limit. I also play golf with a couple of cops, and they told me on the 401 they don't stop anyone going under 120 km/h, when the limit is 100. So the cops know it's not unsafe to move a little more quickly. The lower speed limits were a politically motivated sop to the greens.

Auto Analyst is wrong

[TheLongshot]

"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.

I really would love to see a diesel hybrid.

[falconwolf]

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

No, no, no, no, no, a thousand times no.

[Zaphod-AVA]

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.

Interstates have 3 lanes

[DG]

I can speak to the whole "idiots passing on the right" thing.

When I was racing, I drove a fairly large and long tow rig. Not quite as big as a full semi-trailer rig, but still pretty big and heavy.

When you drive something this size, you don't have the ability to suddenly jog left or right, because you are 2.5 cars long. A simple shoulder check won't cut it, because your "side impact zone" is 1.5 times longer than on a full size car. I could have 3 compact cars running nose-to-tail fit alongside my rig.

Furthermore, when you weigh 10,000 lbs, you cannot speed up or slow down very well. You have to be looking quite a bit farther down the road than one does driving a passenger car.

And finally, you have an absolutely MASSIVE blind spot running down the right hand side of the rig. Tow mirrors with fisheyes help a lot, but it is possible to stick a car along the right hand side of the rig and I *absolutely* cannot see you there.

On open two-lane Interstate, I keep right. I'm quite a bit slower (120 km/h) than most passenger car traffic, and on-ramps are infrequent enough that it's not a big deal to move left to avoid the merge lanes as they arrive.

On three-lane Interstate, I stay in the center lane. This gets me away from merge lanes on the right (especially in large urban environments where merges can happen with no warning) and yet still leaves the leftmost lane open for faster traffic.

On crowded 2-lane Interstate, I'm probably in the left lane. The threat to me from merging traffic is just too high for me to keep right, because 4-wheelers won't create space for me to move left as we approach a merge lane - they see the left lane as their divine right and will zip right in even as I am moving left. Rather than get caught between an idiot moving into me from the right and idiots not giving me space to temporarily move left to dodge the right-side idiot, I'll plug the left lane and stay safe. I will attempt to move right again as soon as I can, but my safety trumps your convienience.

But most Insterstate where the on-ramp frequency is high enough to pose this problem is three-lane, so I can take the middle lane and both stay safe from merges and yet not block the fast lane.

But here's what drives me nuts: an open left lane, and somebody passes me on the RIGHT. I absolutely cannot see you coming, and I don't expect to be passed on the right hand side. If I am trying to move right to unplug the left lanes (which I try to do as often as I can) I will hit you - and I cannot manouvre very well to avoid you if I *do* suddenly see you.

When you pass on the right, you seriously endanger both yourself and the vehicle you are passing - whereas if you take the open left lane, there's no danger AT ALL - and yet morons continue to pass on the right.

If I am plugging the left lane and you absolutely need by, give me a flash of the high beams, and I will move right for you as soon as I am safely able to. "Flash to pass" is a polite way of requesting the lane, and I will respect politeness.

But if I see you coming on the right, I'll probably box you, because I don't want a moron in a position where he can pose a threat.

Passing on the right is NEVER EVER EVER justified. It is just stupid dangerous.

And as rigs go, I was fairly small. The problem is way, way worse with semis. You should hear them talk on the CB when some 4-wheeler passes on the right....

You'll see some semis marked with "" on the back, and that is no exaggeration.

DG

Re:Interstates have 3 lanes

[DG]

Slashdot ate my diagram.

"Left Arrow" Passing Side | Suicide "Right Arrow"

DG

You dirty planet killer

[spun]

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.