The 65mpg Ford the USA can't have

[StorminN]

Ford cites "business reasons"... as in people don't like diesels, and the engines are built in Britain, and expensive to import. Hmmm... what about all of the VW diesel Jettas, Golfs and such I see driving around already? Perhaps if Ford actually tried to sell these cars here, instead of making excuses (or better yet, built them here too) they would see there is a market for a vehicle like this.

The 65mpg Ford the USA can't have

I liked a couple of the comments on that page:

HMD
Ford should import this car as shows intent to help with lessening transferring funds due to energy cost outside our country. I too had VW Jetta diesel and got at times 60 MPG at 55 MPH on interstate. Was 1984 and think had only 80 something horses with stick shift. I called my congressman and US senator today and noted if Ford can not import this car then NO loan and let them go bankrupt as why should my tax dollar be used to bail them out. I was told not only caller on this issue and more thinking like I am than not. How about a diesel king cab / 4 door ranger HUH ??

Nick
If Ford only always did the opposite of what they thought was a good idea they would be the most successful car companies unfortunately they are running their company into the ground. I will be buying a Japanese diesel as soon as they are available since they are smart enough to realize it makes financial sense.

-Norm.

[Rocky_J]

It's not about 'consumer choice', it's all about emissions. Until last year the diesel fuel sold in the USA was high sulfer and they couldn't meet emissions guidelines for diesel cars. They changed the fuel last year to low sulfer, and they could bring in diesel motors to meet the current standards, but the bar is being raised again in 2009-2010. Emissions standards are getting so tough that even Caterpillar has announced that it is ceasing production of on-road diesel engines in the US market next year. Even the big truck guidelines are getting too tight to be met.

So Ford isn't going to bring that car over here for 1 or possibly 2 years because then diesels won't meet guidelines again. It has nothing to do with what the consumer wants, it has everything to do with government regulations.

[flip]

I have heard this argument 100 times.  Try and try to wrap your head around it.  Why would Ford not import this car if they knew they were going to sell thousands of them?  Rocky is correct, emissions.  #2 safety standards are not the same there as they are here.  By the time Ford would spend the millions to upfit this thing to USA standards it would not be profitable.  Look at the junk they are selling in India now, I would not be caught dead in some of that junk.
People think that somehow these companies spend millions of dollars each year trying to find the fuel of the future, they are actually in bed with the oil companies out to bilk the unsuspecting public.   The first company that finds said miracle fuel and is able to apply it economically they will be "the one".   

[tim1234]

In some cases the aftertreatment needed to meet the emissions is consuming so much fuel that the vehicle is getting really poor milage.  Especially when you have a Diesel Particulate Filter and have to regen it "controlled chimney fire" to burn off the soot that collects there every so often.

The emissions controls on Diesels are getting really expensive.  The suppliers and OEMs are working on more cost efficient solutions, but the regulations are pretty tough.

The smallest diesel Ford is working on is a 4.4L V8 for the F150 in 2010.  They are putting their eggs in the EcoBoost basket right now (small I4's with direct Injection and Turbo Charging).

Tim

[StorminN]

It's not about 'consumer choice', it's all about emissions. Until last year the diesel fuel sold in the USA was high sulfer and they couldn't meet emissions guidelines for diesel cars. They changed the fuel last year to low sulfer, and they could bring in diesel motors to meet the current standards, but the bar is being raised again in 2009-2010. Emissions standards are getting so tough that even Caterpillar has announced that it is ceasing production of on-road diesel engines in the US market next year. Even the big truck guidelines are getting too tight to be met.

So Ford isn't going to bring that car over here for 1 or possibly 2 years because then diesels won't meet guidelines again. It has nothing to do with what the consumer wants, it has everything to do with government regulations.

Rocky and flip,
Nowhere in this article does it mention that this Ford won't meet US safety or emission standards. Further... if Mercedes-Benz and Volkswagen cars have met the US standards all along, and their cars, along with Nissan and Honda diesels will meet the standards (as the article states they plan to import diesels in 2010) then why the heck can't Ford do the same?

Yes, the standards might be tighter now, and emission controls might cost more... but these other companies, instead of being like Ford and saying "it's tough to do, it can't be done, these cars aren't profitable"... they're just doing it... just making cars and selling them.

-Norm.

[moonhill]

"Americans see hybrids as the darling," and "and diesel as old-tech." Here are two quotes from that link.  I say someone else is calling them "darling" not the American people.  Combine the two and see what happens.    There is something about that link, it is full of innuendoes.   It's as if some organization is trying to suppress the real story on diesel technology.  Maybe it's my imagination. 

Subaru has a boxer diesel out now as well.  It's performance is on par with its 6 cylinder and more efficent than the 4 cylinder. 

Here is a link to a place in Texas which does conversions for Toyota diesels.   Tim

http://www.dieseltoyz.com/Home.html

[Ron Wenrich]

I had a Toyota diesel.  It wasn't a good thing.  I kept on taking out the transmission bearings every 20,000 miles because they didn't rework the transmission.

The simple solution for Ford is to offer those diesels in the US.  It seems that their yardstick is that they wouldn't sell better than a SUV.  It isn't only about "consumer tastes", but you also have to factor in that the smaller cars don't make as much profit per unit.  Mercedes and the rest sell diesels and make a profit.  They have all the market share in the US, Ford has zero percent.  Good business?

Right now, I could use a new car and have money sitting on the sidelines waiting for someone to come up with a decent car that can get as good of gas mileage as my '02 Saturn (38mpg).  Until that happens, my money stays in my pocket and out of the auto makers.  I guess they can wait me out,.  How many others are there like me?

[moonhill]

My experience with Toyota transmissions has been reasonable, I had issues when the tire size wen to 36" and adverse conditions, mud.  In general they are quite tough.   Ron, maybe you just got a bad one.

Right now we have a 1996 Toyota with the V6 and the milage is about 15 mpg.  I had a Ford P/U with the 6.0 liter diesel that got 17 mpg, and was way more truck, but still not enough.  I now run a Mitsubishi, Fuso FG140, 4cyl diesel,  a nice big, small truck.  The Ford was just a car with a bigger trunk.   Tim

[flip]

I see the Mercedes name popping up quite a bit.  So why are only a small percentage of Americans buying them  Couldn't be cost could it?  If a manufacturer wants to build all of their vehicles on an international platform they can but the cost to make and cost to the consumer is greater (Mercedes, BMW, Aston Martin, Jag etc..)  Ford has plants in Europe and South America that produce products that meet those countries safety and emission regulations.  If a person wants to cast stones might we look at the laws that made this conversation possible.  First off the cars that are built here in America meet and surpass all safety and emission regulations in the world so esentially any of our cars could be shipped to any country and pass inspection.  Regulations.  Why do some states have tougher emission standards than others???  Regulations.  Why do cars built here have to pass certain impact and survivability standards?  Regulations.  Why does roughly $1800 dollars of every car built by the big 3 go to worker health care and pension funds.  Unions/regulations.  Other countries don't have these which allows them to produce cheap cars and I do mean cheap.  I'm all for small efficient diesels and I am sure they can make the euro diesels work in domestic cars it is the BUT factor (government regulations) that make them a no go for now.  
All this artice is about is stirring the you-know-what and was poorly researched by the writer. Another fine example of poor journalism.

[OneWithWood]

Could it be that the diesel regs have been getting so strict because it is easier to pass a bill with tighter diesel emission regs than it is to pass a higher CAFE or tougher gasoline regs?

Might it also be that the formulas used in the US regs distort the actual *total* pollution when comparing diesels to gasoline engines?

 

[Gary_C]

I agree with flip. There is not much in that article that I would repeat as true.

The primary problem for any diesel engine for the US market is the new clean burn or particle emission standards. All engine builders are struggling to meet those regs right now and the EU has been holding back because they have and sell so many diesel engine cars in Europe.

Plus these new clean burn engines are not as efficient with fuel. 

Up until this year VW was the only company with an approved diesel car engine and their engine barely passed the US standards and was having reliability problems. Mercedes just got their engine passed this year.

So there is no bias against diesel cars in the US and in fact there has been a large unfilled demand for a reasonably priced, reliable diesel car in the US.

As far as the reason for the clean burn regs in the US, I believe it came from those commuter busses spewing those clouds of black smoke in the large metro areas and they did it at every stop. 

[Tom]

I've only owned one diesel road vehicle in my life and it's sitting at the side of the house right now.  It's the Chevrolet Kodiak C60 that I used in my sawing business.  It as a 16' flat bed and a 3116 Caterpillar Diesel engine that gets 12 mpg whether I am loaded or not.

12 MPG!?! cry the greenies.

Yep, it has hauled my sawmill, my office supplies, my personal belongings, my spare parts, my fuel, my tools and keeps me comfortable with a radio and a/c at 50mph. 

So many folks talk about miles per gallon and a little zip-around car, then they go the long way.  I poke around at a reasonable 50-55 mph and measure the miles to the destination.   I can control the time I spend on the road, I can't shorten the trip beyond the length of the road.

While I might be able to accomplish most of the same things with a one ton truck, I couldn't with a sedan.  Yet, most of the people who make the most noise about conservation never consider the use of the vehicle, but only measure the "size" and MPG.   I'd be willing to bet that very few of them know anything about a spark plug, the difference in 2 cycle and 4 cycle engines, the carrying capacity of a vehicle relative to the 'load per gallon', nor the driving habits of the operator.

The general public, I'd venture to say, knows nothing about the differences between Diesel engines and Gasoline engines.  As pro-electric as some are, they don't even know about the electrically driven vehicles, or they wouldn't be so all-fired anxious to have one.

Diesel isn't a "zip-around" engine.  Diesel works good for those who are steady drivers and plan their trips (tactics) to avoid jack rabbit starts.  Diesel is a working engine and, because of its heft, can take the abuse of using it for a brake and providing long uninterrupted periods of travel.

We live in a zip-around world.  I never could "get out of the way" of the folks in gasoline powered cars, so I quit trying.  They get real upset when you don't smoke your tires getting away from a red light, or when you take too long (in their opinion) to pass someone, or you coast to stop so that your load doesn't shift rather than running up behind someone and skidding the tires.   These little gasoline 'fleas' ride on each others bumper and get so close behind my truck that I can't see them.  Then, when they get tired of my doing the speed limit, roar around me and dive under my left fender to show me their disdain.   I figure they are all going to a Greenie concert somewhere. 

[flip]

Could it be that the diesel regs have been getting so strict because it is easier to pass a bill with tighter diesel emission regs than it is to pass a higher CAFE or tougher gasoline regs?

Might it also be that the formulas used in the US regs distort the actual *total* pollution when comparing diesels to gasoline engines?

 

The feds and auto makers know we have hit a glass ceiling with MPG on gas (for now), so I would have to say yes it is easier for them to pick on diesel than on gassers.  We had a run a few years ago on heavy OTR and day cab trucks, sold the bejesus out of them because the new regs. The new regs. were going to cost companies millions a year not to mention adding 5-10G in emmission equipment to the new trucks.  Diesels biggest problem has always been the soot, now we either have to catch it and trade out the filter every 100K miles or burn it in regen.  As far as gasseous emissions they are a lot cleaner than what gas puts out.  Of course there is one "standard" diesel now in the  form of ULSD.  Gas can have 17 different concoctions depending on which state you are in and what season it is. 
I have a good plan   any new truck (half ton-1 ton) after 2012 will have diesel standard.  If you eliminate the trucks from the CAFE calc. 35mpg standard will not be a problem.  Diesel is not rated for MPG and it is not taken into account in the CAFE standards calculations it's the 10-12mph 3/4 tons like mine that kill CAFE. There, that should passify the greenies.   (As long as it looks good on recycled paper, right)

[moonhill]

I could put two of these on the back of my FG and it would almost not even know they are there.

http://www.geistweg.com/blog/?p=721

The Chevy Volt has been announced, at a cost of $40,000.   The Aygo sells for $8-10,000.  Figure that into the equation.   Tim

[tim1234]

Diesel isn't a "zip-around" engine.  Diesel works good for those who are steady drivers and plan their trips (tactics) to avoid jack rabbit starts.  Diesel is a working engine and, because of its heft, can take the abuse of using it for a brake and providing long uninterrupted periods of travel. 

Tom,

You haven't driven the right diesel.   I've driven both a 1.6 L and 2.0 L Audi A4 Turbo Diesel on the Autobahn in Germany.  And you would never know they were diesels except for all that Torque.  No problem jumping off the line because Diesel's have their peak torque at a much lower RPM than Gas and maintain a pretty high torque over a broad RPM range.  Also at 100 mph, you can still put your foot into it and it'll still pull your head back. 

I wish they offered more diesel's like that here, but also in Europe Diesels were subsidised with rebates from the goverenment to help them get established.  At least in Germany.  I think now they have removed most of the rebates, but Diesel is about 50/50 with Gasoline engines in Europe.

Tim

[ksu_chainsaw]

When I was deployed to Iraq, we had several 4-door Ford Rangers with diesels.  I loved those trucks- not speed demons, but they would go for almost a week of short trips on one tank of fuel.  I wish we could get them over here, but they would not meet the safety standards that the US has, let alone the emission standards.  Plastic and fiberglass were not to be found, just metal- you could beat on them and have very little damage.  I would compare them to the Toyota and Datsun pickups that were around in the early 80's- bare bones and easy to fix.

Just my opinion

Charles

[John Mc]

When I was deployed to Iraq, we had several 4-door Ford Rangers with diesels.

I'd love to have one of those. We generally have one "big" vehicle (Ford Explorer or AWD minivan) which can haul the kids and a good bit of "stuff", and rated to tow at least 3500# (5000# would be better). Then a small one with decent gas mileage (my favorite was the first model-year Saturn w/ manual tranny). When we retire the current minivan, I'd love to get a 4WD 4-door small pickup. The better ground clearance would be a plus. Who knows what we'll end up with for the next small car.

I'm holding off on both as long as I can. It seems there are a lot of new options which may come out in the next couple of years.

John Mc

[Dale Hatfield]

Everything we drive is now diesel.  I have driven a diesel chainsaw once it wernt pretty when it ran.It would have run better if it had a turbo .

[jesse]

I've only owned one diesel road vehicle in my life and it's sitting at the side of the house right now.  It's the Chevrolet Kodiak C60 that I used in my sawing business.  It as a 16' flat bed and a 3116 Caterpillar Diesel engine that gets 12 mpg whether I am loaded or not.

While I might be able to accomplish most of the same things with a one ton truck, I couldn't with a sedan.  Yet, most of the people who make the most noise about conservation never consider the use of the vehicle, but only measure the "size" and MPG.   I'd be willing to bet that very few of them know anything about a spark plug, the difference in 2 cycle and 4 cycle engines, the carrying capacity of a vehicle relative to the 'load per gallon', nor the driving habits of the operator.

the one ton truck might not get any better mpg and only have half the truck

[WH_Conley]

I have a F-Super Duty. I think must have been the first year they came out, no # on the side. Just Super Duty.. At 9mpg, common sense says use it for what it is. I would not use this thing as a family sedan. But with the trailer behind I don't think twice about pulling 3 mbf . Try that with a Ranger or an S10.