backtop


Print 173 comment(s) - last by JamesNW.. on Apr 19 at 9:13 PM


Focus ECOnetic
Europe gets all the goodies when it comes to diesel vehicles

North American customers are finally getting the goods when it comes to Ford's compact Focus sedan/hatchback. While the rest of the world was enjoying a much improved Focus during the latter half of the previous decade, the U.S. was soldiering on with a hacked up first generation model. 

Ford has rectified that situation with the third generation Focus, and all world markets will get the same vehicle (with minor changes to meet safety requirements for different countries). In the U.S., that means that we will get the standard Focus sedan/hatch and an upcoming all-electric variant (only available in hatchback form). 

Since U.S. car customers don't seem to care much for diesel vehicles -- well, according to Ford -- we won't be getting the newest ultra-efficient diesel model: the Focus ECOnetic. The Focus ECOnectic uses a 1.6-liter Duratorq TDCi turbodiesel engine that generates 105hp. Thanks to the use of the turbodiesel engine, low rolling resistance tires, revised final drive ratio, and Active Grille Shutter, Ford says that the Focus ECOnetic is good for 80 mpg on the European Cycle -- that translates to roughly 67 mpg using EPA calculations.

For comparison, the U.S Focus is rated at 28 mpg city and 40 mpg highway in its most fuel efficient trim (SFE).

“The Focus ECOnetic is a testament to our company’s relentless drive for technological innovation and commitment to environmental leadership,” said Gunnar Herrmann, Ford’s global C-car vehicle line director.  “It’s also going to be a great car to drive.”  

The all-new Ford Focus ECOnetic demonstrates Ford’s commitment to be a leader in fuel economy, and to offer customers a broad choice of affordable, low-CO2 options. The Focus ECOnetic uses the latest technologies to deliver outstanding fuel efficiency and an attractive low-carbon ownership proposition.”

The Focus ECOnetic will be made available next year in hatchback and wagon variants.





Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Would buy one tomorrow
By Ammohunt on 4/6/2011 5:41:26 PM , Rating: 5
My poor 2004 Prius has 230k miles on it i will be in the market for a new commuter soon i guess Ford won't be on the list for consideration.




RE: Would buy one tomorrow
By ksherman on 4/6/2011 6:09:02 PM , Rating: 3
I'd buy one in an instant.

Com'on Ford! US buyers would love a turbodiesel, if there were good options for us. VW does very well with their TDIs.


RE: Would buy one tomorrow
By Reclaimer77 on 4/6/11, Rating: -1
RE: Would buy one tomorrow
By corduroygt on 4/6/2011 7:34:16 PM , Rating: 2
Focus and cars in its class (Civic, Corolla, Elantra, Mazda3, Cruze) are not "tiny Euro turds" nor low volume sellers.


RE: Would buy one tomorrow
By Reclaimer77 on 4/6/11, Rating: -1
RE: Would buy one tomorrow
By BZDTemp on 4/6/2011 8:04:08 PM , Rating: 2
It's fun to see the Ford Focus described as tiny because here in the old world it is a normal family size car :-)

The thing is most non-US cars are much more space efficient so while it is not like they are bigger on the inside than the outside it's not far from. The difference in interior space from say a Focus and a mid-size US car is really not that great and because the Focus is lighter it's more fun to drive.


RE: Would buy one tomorrow
By Reclaimer77 on 4/6/2011 9:30:50 PM , Rating: 2
Yes but you have to admit those perceptions have been skewed because VAT taxation, taxation in general, and insane fuel taxation has changed what you in the old world consider to be "large" and "small" by slimming your choices down. So that a roomy car is really "as roomy as we can get" and so forth.


RE: Would buy one tomorrow
By Spuke on 4/6/2011 9:50:28 PM , Rating: 2
Unless that 67 mpg figure was gained via US EPA testing, it's not valid and should not be stated. Otherwise, I like the car and would buy it.


RE: Would buy one tomorrow
By Keeir on 4/7/2011 3:25:44 AM , Rating: 5
Its not. I think Brandon has his wires crossed.

On the EU combined cycle, the Focus ECOtec is expected to get 80 mile/imp gallon. This is a straight conversion to ~67 mile/US gallon.

Fortunetly, I would save the Focus and the Golf are pretty comparable.

A Golf 2.0 TDI gets ~68 mile/imp gallon EU combined cycle and 35 combined cycle US.

Thus, I would expect the Focus ECOtec to get ~40 combined EPA is a ~35/48 spread.

The downside is that a 1.6 Eco tuned Diesel is really not enough for US roads.

The Golf Bluemotion 1.6 TDI also gets ~80 mile/imp gallon EU cycle, at it would be lucky to break 11s 0-60 time.

In constrast the Golf Bluemotion 2.0 TDI only gets ~74 mile/imp gallon, but its a much more reasonable 9s 0-60 time.


RE: Would buy one tomorrow
By michael67 on 4/8/2011 12:44:15 AM , Rating: 2
It is really a mute point talking about the high efficient European diesels, you will never get them!

EU diesel is much cleaner then US diesel, and these engines will not run on the dirty US diesel


RE: Would buy one tomorrow
By interstitial on 4/8/2011 4:23:20 AM , Rating: 4
moot point.

Sorry, I don't normally do this but people get this wrong all the time.


RE: Would buy one tomorrow
By Ammohunt on 4/8/2011 3:42:02 PM , Rating: 2
Not looking to win some euro rally race just looking for a fuel effeciant car to allow me to continue living clean rurally and working in the big stinking, wretched city.


RE: Would buy one tomorrow
By Keeir on 4/10/2011 4:29:45 AM , Rating: 2
While I can agree, and if your lucky enough to have a nice smooth commute, a Diesel would probably be a close rival to the Prius....

The US has certain minimum power requirements for a car to be universally accepted.

My personal gage of the market puts this number at 9.0 second 0-60 run for a car and 10.0 second 0-60 run for CUV/SUV.

But hey, GM might bring a Cruze Eco Diesel which would likely get 48-50 MPG HWY with a Manual and get to 60 faster than a Prius.


RE: Would buy one tomorrow
By Richard875yh5 on 4/10/2011 8:12:35 AM , Rating: 1
Ford has been exaggerating on their products lately and the strategy is working for now, but for how long. The shutter behind the grill is GM's invention, the Ford HD truck does not even come close to the HD GM truck, Sync is far inferior to the OnStar Mylink and the list goes on and on.

http://gmauthority.com/blog/2010/11/chevrolet-hd-t...

http://www.autoblog.com/2011/04/05/video-gm-produc...

http://www.hybridcars.com/news/little-bit-chevy-vo...


RE: Would buy one tomorrow
By B3an on 4/7/2011 3:15:33 AM , Rating: 1
But at the same time theres more choice in Europe, as in you can actually buy cars that have way better MPG - diesel or otherwise. And cars with this level of MPG are nothing special in Europe and have been around for a long time. You're just getting screwed as usual in the US. Like with ISP's and phone companies, way less choice and competition there too.


RE: Would buy one tomorrow
By tim851 on 4/7/2011 3:46:29 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
Yes but you have to admit those perceptions have been skewed because VAT taxation, taxation in general, and insane fuel taxation has changed what you in the old world consider to be "large" and "small" by slimming your choices down.

No.
If it was about the price sticker, BMW's 3-series wouldn't single-handedly outsell the entire cheap American competition.

We buy our cars small, because Europe wasn't planned on a void field like the US 200 years. Most roads here have been around for hundreds of years. They were asphalted and all, but they still follow medieval pathways, which were guided by geographics and often feudal land owning patterns. Towns are hundreds, sometimes a thousand years old and thus everything is small and narrow.
Hence, most European roads are narrower and windier than American counterparts, which makes driving a big ass Pick-up Truck with zero rear visibility a nightmare and finding a parking space impossible.
If our roads were all 30 ft. wide and perpendicular, you'd probably see more Escalades too. Once you've been to Tokyo, you realize why Japanese cars are even smaller still. You really wouldn't want to imagine their traffic landscape if everyone drove a large SUV.

As it is, we appreciate the continuing effort of car makers to build small automobiles that are surprisingly roomy on the inside and get an even more surprising driving experience out of tiny engines.


RE: Would buy one tomorrow
By Reclaimer77 on 4/7/11, Rating: -1
RE: Would buy one tomorrow
By tim851 on 4/7/2011 6:32:26 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
The 3 series is the McDonalds of the BMW lineup. If you had said 7 series it might carry more weight :)

Well yeah. That's my point. The McDonald's class of BMW costs more than whatever Chrysler offers. And still it outsells the entire American line-up. So, obviously, price is not the reason Europeans drive small cars.
Mileage does play a factor because of high gas taxation, that is true. But most people still seem to buy with their peni... erm, heart, rather than their heads.

quote:
Having a choice, however, is still a good thing.

We do have a choice too. My boss does drive a Dodge Ram. That's why I can testify to the fact that it is a nightmare to drive. Sure, in Wyoming, where five people live on a farm the size of Denmark and asphalted roads are the devil's work it might be a nice thing to have. But driving it around Old Cologne made me feel like I got stuck in a trucker's nightmare.


RE: Would buy one tomorrow
By Spuke on 4/7/2011 9:52:45 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
And still it outsells the entire American line-up.
What do you mean by "entire American line-up"?


RE: Would buy one tomorrow
By Reclaimer77 on 4/7/11, Rating: 0
RE: Would buy one tomorrow
By YashBudini on 4/7/2011 7:34:44 PM , Rating: 1
Well the only fair comparision is 1 car company versus another. So provide some numbers if you want to address his argument.


RE: Would buy one tomorrow
By FITCamaro on 4/7/2011 8:09:09 AM , Rating: 2
I would at least entertain owning a 3 series. I wouldn't drive the boat that is a 7 series.


RE: Would buy one tomorrow
By callmeroy on 4/7/2011 11:10:45 AM , Rating: 2
BMW's are nice...even if I could afford one (which actually I could -- a 3 series anyway)....I still wouldn't/didn't buy one...they are too common place.

I don't know if its just my area, my little nook of the country as it were, but honestly you just about walk down any sidewalk throw stone in a random direction near a roadway and you have a better than 50% chance you'll hit a BMW.


RE: Would buy one tomorrow
By Spuke on 4/7/2011 4:04:57 PM , Rating: 2
Not just your area. Everywhere here as well (CA) but then we have a population of 35 million too so.... My wife wants one but doesn't want to pay the $144 an hour for maintenance. Yes, maintenance is "free" but we wouldn't buy one new.


RE: Would buy one tomorrow
By cruisin3style on 4/7/2011 6:28:42 PM , Rating: 2
Yup, like the poster above said it's not just you. I live in the DC metro area and BMWs are everywhere.


RE: Would buy one tomorrow
By Dailyrant on 4/7/2011 9:56:21 AM , Rating: 2
In america the size of our cars is based on availability. Our market here is designed to reflect the customers through the car companies and social acceptable behaviors. We see the adds our neighbors, movies and we want what they want, lifestyle and all. The amount of water consumed is directly proportionate +- to the size of our baggage! If we looked at all this from a point of view of necessity we would see it very differently. All the reasons to want more are justifications of comfort(style) and luxury.

We, I think, are seeing by now, any conversion of resources has an effect at something or people(of other places usually.) We cannot continue to use that much water, so comes to mind that everything else, which is less important follows suit.
My opinion!


RE: Would buy one tomorrow
By JediJeb on 4/7/2011 5:08:14 PM , Rating: 2
I guess it depends what part of the country, here we want to get rid of water, too much everywhere.

Not all are driven by the lifestyles of our neighbors, but that trend is becoming far too common and it starts with everything targeted at our kids making them want everything they can get. If parents would once again start saying no to their kids maybe it would reverse the trend. And for the record, you will not ruin your child's self esteem if you say no once in a while.


RE: Would buy one tomorrow
By BZDTemp on 4/7/2011 4:55:16 AM , Rating: 2
Looking from the outside I can see why our taxes may be part of why we drive the cars we do but I do think that is a misunderstanding.

Our cities are different. Partly because they are old, as tim851 mentions, but that is mostly city centers and surrounding towns and partly because of less land space per capita but mostly because of history and tradition. Much industry started here before there were cars so the different types of areas are simply more mixed which also mean many people have shorter commutes and there fore less need of cars that are like living rooms on wheels.

The VAT+tax thing you mention is not really about car sizes but about car prizes except I think there was a time in France where engine size determined the tax (This is why for a long time the French were leading in Diesel cars as they gave more power for their size back in the day).

Fuel taxes is another matter and it's why what is now seen as economic cars in the US is nothing sensational over here. However for many here the fuel prices is hardly a factor when they choose what car to buy, since they most likely travel less miles everyday the car price is a bigger factor. Then again I'm sure my experience is screwed since I live in a country where there is a 180% car tax whit a 25% VAT on top (buy one car pay for three). On the other hand even a MacJob will give you an income of $3000 or so per month (37 hour working week and 5 weeks payed vacation each year).


RE: Would buy one tomorrow
By Spuke on 4/7/2011 10:04:57 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Fuel taxes is another matter and it's why what is now seen as economic cars in the US is nothing sensational over here
Yes there is a misunderstanding and articles like this don't help AT ALL in clearing things up. You say there's nothing sensational about our economy cars but there's NO direct comparison that can be made because a good chunk of cars sold here and there are NOT tested using the same methods NOR using the same measuring standards. Even if you convert the numbers, it's still inaccurate because of the testing methodology. US EPA and EU testing is totally different and CANNOT be compared!!!! That reason alone is why a lot of you Europeans are not impressed by US car fuel economy.

The few US and EU cars that CAN be directly compared prove this point. Even then, there's safety and emissions equipment you guys just don't have which may or may not affect gas mileage.

So why don't WE eliminate the confusion ourselves since the articles are not going to.


RE: Would buy one tomorrow
By Keeir on 4/7/2011 4:46:17 PM , Rating: 2
A good overview of US EPA and EU testing cycles can be found here.

http://www.epa.gov/nvfel/testing/dynamometer.htm

Having done some energy calculations for various cars, I can say that the US EPA cycles require the car to produce more energy per mile on average, and a significantly higher energy peak than the EU cycles.


RE: Would buy one tomorrow
By Spuke on 4/8/2011 5:50:20 PM , Rating: 2
Thanks for the link!!


RE: Would buy one tomorrow
By Samus on 4/7/2011 7:47:01 AM , Rating: 1
The problems with diesel are:

1) Price of vehicle is substantially higher, often higher than hybrids (a Golf TDI base model costs more than a fully loaded Prius)

2) Diesel fuel is taxed differently, and currently costs about 15% more than petrol.

3) Diesel engine maintenance is mandatory . Failure to change a timing belt on a diesel engine (usually every 60k!) results in irreversible engine damage. For those of you not familiar with diesel engines, a timing belt failure isn't the equivilent of valve damage on a petrol engine. It is more like an explosion. A quick google search will show you blown connecting rods, holes in blocks and even shattered crankshafts! A diesel engine costs 2-3 times as much as a replacement petrol engine. Intake manifold carbon, complexity/maintenance of turbocharging, $70 glow plugs that can burn out every 10k if you don't let them warm up properly every time you crank, all add up. Good luck finding a reasonably-priced mechanic.

4) Dirty. Yes, they are emissions friendly but diesel fuel eats paint, so don't spill it when filling, and it always leaves a oily residue on your hands after hanging up the pump. I take it most American's won't adjust to that very well. It also smells terrible, where petrol has a quite pleasant smell ;)

5) Noise. Yes, they rev low, but accelerating is a racket.

6) Power. Most diesels are crazy slow. Yes, they have torque, but they generally redline around 3,600 RPM and produce a very unusual power curve in automatic transmissions. You definately want to get a manual if you want any performance. Most Americans won't like that. And while you're getting the manual, reconsider the clutch replacements as Diesels have dual mass flywheels to soak up some of that driveline vibration. DMFW's fail early, usually before the clutch, which won't last long anyway considering how much torque the diesel puts down. DSG's aren't a great idea in diesels for the same reason, although this will be the trans of choice for future diesels.

7) Who is going to repair it? The stealership?

8) Resale value is often lower than hybrids, mostly because of the thousands in neccessary immediate maintenance that come along with a used diesel vehicle.

...I'm going to stop at 8.

Honestly, by the time diesel caught on in this country, we'd have a better alternative right around the corner, anyway.


RE: Would buy one tomorrow
By Mr772 on 4/7/2011 9:12:40 AM , Rating: 5
This post is so wrong in so many ways, all the misinformation is laughable. This person obviously has no clue what they are talking about. I have a 09 Jetta TDI with the new clean diesel engine and it has been flawless. Just turned over 50k miles yesterday, get it serviced every 10k miles (following factory recommended schedule) and it's silky smooth with tons of speed and power. Turbo Diesel's rock - pulls like a race car and sips fuel like Mrs. Daisy on a sunday drive.


RE: Would buy one tomorrow
By Motoman on 4/7/2011 3:22:16 PM , Rating: 2
No sh!t. That guy has no clue. My diesel motor is about at 140,000 miles now, and having had nothing more than regular oil changes, is running great.

...and no, changing the timing belt is not a regular maintenance item. And having a belt slip on a diesel motor isn't going to blow it up...it will make it not run.


RE: Would buy one tomorrow
By Keeir on 4/7/2011 5:21:57 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
1) Price of vehicle is substantially higher, often higher than hybrids (a Golf TDI base model costs more than a fully loaded Prius)


Err... Golf TDI starts at 23,225 and maxes at ~28,500 (unless you want to add goofy wheels). At 28,500 it has several things a Prius doesn't have... like 1 second faster 0-60 time, a higher gross wieght allowable, adaptive headlamps, etc.

A Prius starts at 23,000 and maxes at 34,160.

Not sure I am going to give you that... a Prius is pretty damn cheap on the interior.

A Diesel costs between 2,000-3,000 more than a traditional gasoline engine. A Strong Gasoline Electric Hybrid like the Prius is 4,000-5,000 more. A Mild Gasoline Electric Hybrid like the Insight is 2,000-3,000 more.

quote:
2) Diesel fuel is taxed differently, and currently costs about 15% more than petrol.


At the Federal Level the difference is 3 cents per gallon. Different states treat it different. Today's ULSD costs 6.5% more than E10 87 and 9% more than E0 87 on average. YMMV, but the DOE maintains the average prices for the US.

quote:
3) Diesel engine maintenance is mandatory .


Engine Maintaince should always be MANDATORY. VW TDI designs are interference engines and will require timing belt replacements. VW also makes gasoline engines with the same issue. Yes Diesels cost slightly more to maintain that the absolute cheapest gasoline engines. But they aren't any more than a Gasoline Turbo.

quote:
5) Noise. Yes, they rev low, but accelerating is a racket.


Go compare a VW TDI with a VW 2.0 Turbo. Nearly the same sound.

quote:
6) Power.


This is just stupid. Diesel engines do create a different torque curve. One that is more suited to the US. Go compare a VW TDI with a VW 2.0 Turbo.

quote:
8) Resale value is often lower than hybrids, mostly because of the thousands in neccessary immediate maintenance that come along with a used diesel vehicle.


What? That's because the purchase price is lower! Resell value goes Strong Hybrid>Diesel>Mild Hybrid>Gasoline.

Samus, you may not personally like VW's Diesels. Thats fine. But a Honda Diesel Accord would be the answer to many of your supposed issues with Diesels. Going forward the US transportation fueling should become more diversified with

EV, EREV, Strong Hybrid, Diesel, Mild Hybrid, Normal Gasoline

taking a part (listed in order of Cost)


RE: Would buy one tomorrow
By Ammohunt on 4/8/2011 3:52:49 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
6) Power. Most diesels are crazy slow. Yes, they have torque, but they generally redline around 3,600 RPM and produce a very unusual power curve in automatic transmissions.


This one is my favorite! Since this poster has driven an Audi with a 1.9TDI at 140MPH on the autobahn loaded with 4 people plus their luggage...at roughly at 2-3k RPM (red line 5k if i remember correctly)


RE: Would buy one tomorrow
By JamesNW on 4/19/2011 9:13:04 PM , Rating: 2
You are so misinformed about diesel technology for cars. Try to read BMW or Mercedes Bluetec diesel car and educate yourself about it.

VW Jetta DTI is at least 6-8K (MSRP ~16K) less than a Prius (MSRP 22-14K). A diesel engine outlast any gas engine at least by 3X (100K miles life). The rest of the items are just nonsenses.


RE: Would buy one tomorrow
By interstitial on 4/8/2011 6:15:23 AM , Rating: 2
Actually, getting too large a car also makes it hard to park or drive. Try driving a American style truck in london and you'd regret it. The roads are not very wide and fairly curvy.

Also, people tend to think you're a tosser for driving a needlessly large car.


RE: Would buy one tomorrow
By Reclaimer77 on 4/8/2011 9:00:06 AM , Rating: 2
Depends on what's "large". I would call a land boat like a Buick Century or Chrysler Concorde large.

In Europe you would say my Subaru Impreza RS is large, which it most certainly is not.


RE: Would buy one tomorrow
By interstitial on 4/8/2011 12:02:14 PM , Rating: 2
I think in Europe we can speak for ourselves Reclaimer. You often make judgements on what we think or do without any factual basis. btw, the Subaru is a medium sized car along with the ford focus etc.


RE: Would buy one tomorrow
By YashBudini on 4/8/2011 12:14:02 PM , Rating: 1
Interstitial,

There are plenty of Americans that place an equal and fair value on the opinions of the other billions of people on this planet, as well as allow them their rights to their worldy perspectives. Unfortunately those people are either too timid to speak up or do not hang around this bunch.

To judge Americans by a few overly self-important types here would be an error.


RE: Would buy one tomorrow
By interstitial on 4/8/2011 2:05:53 PM , Rating: 1
I'm not doing so, don't worry. I'm aware that America is a large country with a wide range of people in it.

It's just that reclaimer annoys me and unfortunately is the the type of person generally associated with the USA by the outside world. Obnoxious and intent on forcing his opinion down the rest of the world's collective throats.


RE: Would buy one tomorrow
By Spuke on 4/8/2011 5:56:11 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Obnoxious and intent on forcing his opinion down the rest of the world's collective throats.
I never got that when I visited Europe so maybe not everyone feels that way. Maybe we all should stop assuming that "everyone" feels a certain way perhaps?


RE: Would buy one tomorrow
By YashBudini on 4/8/2011 11:31:41 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Maybe we all should stop assuming that "everyone" feels a certain way perhaps?

While that statement has value I suspect you don't want to a general survey on the subject.


RE: Would buy one tomorrow
By interstitial on 4/9/2011 1:08:51 AM , Rating: 1
Never said everyone. That's just the general public opinion that floats around the tabloids (which I find are a good judge of it). Not everyone feels that way, I don't. However, it's fairly prevalent. This is in the UK as well by the way which is fairly pro US. You really do not want to know what the French and to a lesser extent the Germans think of you.


RE: Would buy one tomorrow
By YashBudini on 4/8/2011 11:38:37 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It's just that reclaimer annoys me and unfortunately is the the type of person generally associated with the USA by the outside world.

I'm not sure if everything in life has a purpose, but after seeing some here I am sure the purpose doesn't need to be a good one.


RE: Would buy one tomorrow
By tayb on 4/7/2011 12:45:24 AM , Rating: 2
The are no diesel passenger cars. How the heck would you definitively know they aren't popular? I haven't talked to a single person, ever, who would refuse to buy a car just because it was diesel. Maybe you don't like diesel so you assume you are in the majority?

The car even has decent styling. I have no idea what makes you so convinced Americans would not buy it. I don't have hard data (who does) but I am extremely confident a mass poll would show the exact opposite of the opinion you are presenting.

The Volkswagen diesels are pretty popular last I checked.


RE: Would buy one tomorrow
By Keeir on 4/7/2011 3:11:53 AM , Rating: 2
Its true that there aren't any super popular diesel passenger cars in the US.

When Gasoline was less than 3.50 a gallon, it didn't make financial sense to go Diesel. As gasoline hits 3.50 and rising, Diesel starts making sense for a greater and greater fraction of the market. (It would never be 100%).

High MPG Cars. Prius, Jetta TDI, Insight (usually the Sedan and the Wagen each individual sell more than the Insight).


RE: Would buy one tomorrow
By theapparition on 4/7/2011 7:02:32 AM , Rating: 2
When gas hit $4.00/gal, diesel was over $5.00/gal. For almost anyone except trucks, diesel didn't make sense.


RE: Would buy one tomorrow
By Keeir on 4/7/2011 5:00:40 PM , Rating: 2
I really don't understand. I've seen temporary prices in my area of Gasoline prices significantly higher than Diesel. Should I base my car buying on a single data point?

Diesel typically costs 7-13% more than "Regular" Gasoline. (See DOE pricing charts for the past 2 years)

High Mileage Users (more than 15,000 a year) who like to buy and hold a car for a long time are probably going to be pretty interested in a Diesel Car, provided they can save 2-3 cents per mile.

Since when you refine oil, you end up with a certain amount of Diesel anyway, it is good to have an end car market made up of gasoline electric hybrid, diesels, and normal gasoline cars. This will stretch our oil and our refining capacity.


RE: Would buy one tomorrow
By Spuke on 4/8/2011 5:59:50 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Should I base my car buying on a single data point?
Nope but buying a diesel car based on diesel prices in another area is just as silly. Where I live diesel is a good 20 cents a gallon more than 91. I live where I live and those are the prices I pay so it makes perfect sense to consider that.


RE: Would buy one tomorrow
By Keeir on 4/10/2011 4:23:47 AM , Rating: 2
Spuke,

The poster I was responding too was, to paraphrase, saying "I would never buy a Diesel Car because this one time in the past, Diesel was super expensive".

The truth is the X dollar amount between gasoline and diesel doesn't really matter. Its the ratio. Since Diesel cars get ~20-25% better mileage when power matched and 25-30% better mileage when torque matched.

My local gas stations price for E10 87 octance was 3.87 per gallon. Provided Diesel is less than 4.83, I will go further on a dollar of Diesel than a dollar of E10 87. Sure enough, my Diesel price is 4.29 per gallon (10.8% higher than regular).

Or put in a different way, a Golf 2.5 gasoline engine costs ~14.1 cents per mile today (12.5 HWY) and a Golf TDI engine costs ~12.1 cents per mile (10.2 HWY)

Thats with Diesel costing 42 more cents per gallon. I am still saving 2 cents per mile.

Diesel Engine costs ~3,000 more than the 2.5 gasoline engine, though it is the superior engine. If the car last 150,000 miles, or I happen to drive alot of Highway miles, the Diesel would likely cost less TCO even with the significantly higher fuel prices.


RE: Would buy one tomorrow
By theapparition on 4/9/2011 7:26:35 AM , Rating: 2
And that's why I specifically mentioned trucks, which on average log many more miles than cars.

Not to mention a diesel engines advantages for truck applications.


RE: Would buy one tomorrow
By Reclaimer77 on 4/7/11, Rating: 0
RE: Would buy one tomorrow
By wyrmslair on 4/7/2011 12:40:22 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
"I mean, do you think automakers are complete bungling idiots that have no idea what their customers want?"


Yes. The last few years and the required adjustments to their process prove that. They were bungling idiots and only time will tell if they've learned their lessons.


RE: Would buy one tomorrow
By Reclaimer77 on 4/7/2011 2:30:37 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Yes. The last few years and the required adjustments to their process prove that. They were bungling idiots and only time will tell if they've learned their lessons.


I guess you are talking about GM and Chrysler?

Well wrong again. The year before GM got in bailout trouble, they sold about exactly the same amount of vehicles world wide as Toyota. The problem was NOT delivering products the consumers wanted. Sales had NOTHING to do with the collapse of domestic auto-makers.


RE: Would buy one tomorrow
By YashBudini on 4/8/2011 12:31:08 PM , Rating: 2
So people all over the world bought vehicles they did not want.

quote:
Well wrong again.

Except you and FC, of course.

Someone else evaluate this statement for us.


RE: Would buy one tomorrow
By JediJeb on 4/7/2011 4:59:37 PM , Rating: 2
They may not be top sellers yet, but I do know around here you have to be on a waiting list to get VW diesels if you want one because they sell as soon as they arrive. Even used ones are difficult to find.

I would like to see this in something like a Ford Ranger. Of course the current Ranger has become rather bloated from what it began as and would be under powered with this, but if it were in it's original size it would probably work as well as the 2.3L gasoline engine those had, and definitely better than the 2.0L diesel from back in the mid 80s.


RE: Would buy one tomorrow
By FITCamaro on 4/7/2011 8:06:54 AM , Rating: 2
Diesel isn't popular because of the stigma that they're dirty and the higher fuel price. Also people aren't educated about the fact that diesels get drastically higher mileage.

If average people were actually educated about the fact that they could get 50-60+ mpg, they might change their mind.

Over 300 miles:

40 mpg gasoline car on regular at $3.55/gallon (local price) is $26.63 in fuel costs.

65 mpg of this thing on diesel at $3.90/gallon (local price) is $18 in fuel costs.

It would add up quick. Add in the fact that we can essentially "grow" diesel fuel, and you have yourself a winner.


RE: Would buy one tomorrow
By marvdmartian on 4/7/2011 9:29:01 AM , Rating: 2
Another problem that car makers run into is the type of diesel fuel we use here in the USA.

USA switched over to ultra-low sulfur diesel a number of years ago. Europe doesn't use that "cleaner" diesel, so they don't have to design the engines to burn it. A diesel engine that works fine in Europe may or may not work well in the USA, simply because it's not designed for the ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel (which is drier than the older low sulfur fuel).


RE: Would buy one tomorrow
By FITCamaro on 4/7/2011 9:47:24 AM , Rating: 2
Another failure at the hands of our government. Not diesel tech.

Motor oil in the US is getting similar crap done to it. They keep removing many compounds put in oil that aid in its ability to properly lubricate. The result is older engines designed with these compounds being present in mind experience more wear or additives must be used to reintroduce these compounds into the oil.


RE: Would buy one tomorrow
By Spuke on 4/7/2011 4:59:33 PM , Rating: 2
Europe has been ULSD for quite a while now. It's the US that's just gotten started on it.


RE: Would buy one tomorrow
By interstitial on 4/8/2011 4:47:05 AM , Rating: 1
People like you are the reason that most of Europe dislikes the US. This car is useful in a certain set of circumstances and for you to describe it as a turd because you personally don't like it is pretty unfair.

Some people only need a vehicle to get from A to B cheaply and this car fits that need. Remember, things are generally not very far away here in Europe.

P.S. Also, however big and shiny your mode of transportation is, it doesn't really compensate for your lack of character.

P.P.S Or your stunted genital growth

Or your stunted


RE: Would buy one tomorrow
By FITCamaro on 4/7/2011 8:01:32 AM , Rating: 4
Seriously. I'd much rather have something like this for a daily driver than a damn hybrid.

Could actually extract some performance out of that turbo-diesel to make it a little more fun. It isn't going to be a speed demon. But you could have some fun with the riced out Civics out there.


RE: Would buy one tomorrow
By Mr772 on 4/7/2011 8:52:09 AM , Rating: 2
US Auto Makers are total idiots. BMW, VW, Audi and Mercedes-Benz don't seem to have any problem with diesel sales. Diesel cars would sell well here and they would know that if they bothered to produce an american diesel passenger car. I wouldn't own a vechicle that isn't diesel powered.

We only buy and drive oil burners in our household. In the garage currently - Diesel Excursion, Diesel VW TDI, both trouble free and fun to drive.

Do US auto makers notice the trend? Mercedes-Benz, BMW, VW, and Audi all offer diesel cars. And none of those companies have been in financial troubles like the one US auto makers have been in.


RE: Would buy one tomorrow
By FITCamaro on 4/7/2011 9:50:47 AM , Rating: 1
God I hate Excursions. I hope you have a boat or something to tow to justify driving that behemoth. Your right to drive it however and for whatever reason you want. But my right to despise those things.

The height of "mine has to be bigger".


RE: Would buy one tomorrow
By NullSubroutine on 4/7/2011 11:44:01 AM , Rating: 3
You do know that some of the diesel Excursions can get more then 20mpg on highway right? In addition diesel got better mileage under load. It was the gas models that had horrible mileage (close to 10mpg).


RE: Would buy one tomorrow
By FITCamaro on 4/7/2011 1:02:28 PM , Rating: 2
I hate them for their utter size. Not their mileage. You wanna buy the gas for it, your choice. But that thing makes regular SUVs look like passenger cars. I passed one on the highway the other day and was like "god damn".

They built it solely for the purpose of having the biggest vehicle on the road. They could have accomplished the same towing capacity with a heavy duty Expedition.

And whatever the mileage, I can't imagine the pain of filling up that things fuel tank from empty.


RE: Would buy one tomorrow
By Spuke on 4/7/2011 5:07:23 PM , Rating: 2
It's on the same platform as the 3/4 and 1 tons so it should have at least a 29 gallon tank (probably not the larger 40 gallon). I have a 3/4 ton and it takes $100 to fill it with the 29 gallon tank (I don't fill it at empty).


RE: Would buy one tomorrow
By Spuke on 4/7/2011 5:15:30 PM , Rating: 2
To clarify, I have the pickup. A few of my neighbors have Excursions, most of them are gas. I don't see the point of them. There's no extra seating in the back but I would suppose if Ford still made them today, they would have 7 or 8 passenger seating. Still with only a 10,000 lb towing capacity, doesn't makes much sense. A crew cab pickup will have the same seating room AND tow MUCH more weight. Put a camper shell on the back if you want your stuff out of the elements.


RE: Would buy one tomorrow
By Regected on 4/6/2011 6:11:51 PM , Rating: 2
I would buy one too if it were reasonably priced. The problem I've seen with diesel cars is the price premium has been way too high


RE: Would buy one tomorrow
By Motoman on 4/6/2011 6:18:21 PM , Rating: 2
At 67mpg vs., what, 40mpg - that price difference would get eaten up in a hurry.


RE: Would buy one tomorrow
By bjacobson on 4/6/2011 6:31:18 PM , Rating: 2
not exactly, don't forget the 30cent diesel tax per gallon...means you should inflate the miles-per-gallon of gas rating by roughly 10% to get an equivalent metric-- so that 40mpg becomes 44. From there the 67mpg costs you 2/3rds as much in transportation. OK, I guess 66% less cost isn't so bad.


RE: Would buy one tomorrow
By bjacobson on 4/6/2011 6:32:41 PM , Rating: 2
edit: phrased it wrong, not 66% less, that would be 33% less cost. Bonus: you're not paying for energy-starved ethanol in your fuel.


RE: Would buy one tomorrow
By Shig on 4/6/2011 6:55:07 PM , Rating: 2
@bjacobson

I live in Chicago and when gas hits 4.00$ a gallon (which it is now), diesel is cheaper than unleaded.

Depends how long gas stays at 4.00$ a gallon and up. I'm not sure how it is in other cities.


RE: Would buy one tomorrow
By YashBudini on 4/6/2011 7:11:53 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
diesel is cheaper than unleaded.

I can't recall the last time I saw diesel cost less than premium, let alone regular. We're talking years.

But that's just here.


RE: Would buy one tomorrow
By Motoman on 4/6/2011 11:35:42 PM , Rating: 2
When I bought my brand-new 2003 Dodge Ram 3500 with the diesel, diesel was WAY cheaper than gas. And had been for quite a while. Then it changed.


RE: Would buy one tomorrow
By Samus on 4/7/2011 7:55:13 AM , Rating: 2
Diesel is taxed differently. Each state has a different set of metrics for taxing petrol and diesel, and they are independant from one another in their respective brackets.

For example, Nebraska, Wisconsin and Texas, huge frieght hubs, have high taxes on Diesel because they know there are no alternative routes. Illinois, also a huge frieght hub, taxes diesel high, too, but corruption and lobbyists keep diesels tax fixed where it has been for over a decade. So as petrol has been on the up, diesel prices haven't changed in 8 years.


RE: Would buy one tomorrow
By FITCamaro on 4/7/2011 8:10:22 AM , Rating: 1
Depends on the area of the country. In areas that see a lot of trucking or farms, diesel is cheaper. In most metropolitan areas, diesel is more expensive.

Supply and demand.


RE: Would buy one tomorrow
By YashBudini on 4/7/2011 12:50:49 PM , Rating: 2
Thanks for repeating what I said.


RE: Would buy one tomorrow
By Regected on 4/6/2011 6:37:57 PM , Rating: 2
Yea, a large difference like that would make it worth purchasing right now, but historically the MPG difference has been only ~10-15MPG with a 10k price premium.


RE: Would buy one tomorrow
By Mr772 on 4/7/2011 8:58:47 AM , Rating: 2
Diesel option on my VW Jetta TDI was only about 2K more but I also got a $1500 instant tax credit at the end of the year so the true cost was only 500. Not bad for a daily driver that is a ton of fun, with lots of low end torqe and averages about 45 MPG.


RE: Would buy one tomorrow
By EddyKilowatt on 4/6/2011 8:15:56 PM , Rating: 3
The problem I've seen with diesel cars is that your choice is... Volkswagen (excluding high-end driveway jewelry).

There are a non-trivial number of people who "will never buy a VW again"... usually meaning they won't subject themselves to VW of North America's idea of customer service. I drive a VW TDI and I'm one of them.

I wish just ONE competent major manufacturer would take a chance and market a credible small turbodiesel car. It'd be the automotive equivalent of the Verizon iPhone.

p.s. I don't see much relief in sight for the price-premium issue. You've got to build a sturdier motor, then you've got to hang a micron-tolerance 20,000psi injection system on the intake side, and a turbo and elaborate cleanup system on the exhaust side. They always have and probably always will be more attractive to people who view them as capital investments.


RE: Would buy one tomorrow
By Mr772 on 4/7/2011 9:18:44 AM , Rating: 2
Well said. US auto maker are just stupid. They have already put in the R&D to build these cars in europe. Why not bring them home and see how they do. I bet they would be hot sellers in this market. Especially after people started driving them and saw how great they are.


RE: Would buy one tomorrow
By Reclaimer77 on 4/6/11, Rating: -1
RE: Would buy one tomorrow
By YashBudini on 4/6/11, Rating: -1
RE: Would buy one tomorrow
By rudolphna on 4/6/2011 8:00:22 PM , Rating: 2
Not sure if troll or just stupid.


RE: Would buy one tomorrow
By YashBudini on 4/6/11, Rating: 0
RE: Would buy one tomorrow
By Reclaimer77 on 4/6/11, Rating: 0
RE: Would buy one tomorrow
By YashBudini on 4/6/2011 9:55:01 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
It's a stereotype joke.

So you admit you perpetuate bias? That does what? Add to credibility?


RE: Would buy one tomorrow
By FITCamaro on 4/7/2011 8:12:38 AM , Rating: 2
Pisses off you.


RE: Would buy one tomorrow
By YashBudini on 4/7/2011 11:22:38 AM , Rating: 2
Immaturity is hardly an admirable trait. Plenty of children do things for spite. Most outgrow it. Others remains stagnant.

I pity you.


RE: Would buy one tomorrow
By YashBudini on 4/7/2011 12:12:37 PM , Rating: 2
I see we are also returning to the 2 against 1 business. Wonder why that is.


RE: Would buy one tomorrow
By Spuke on 4/7/2011 5:19:09 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I see we are also returning to the 2 against 1 business. Wonder why that is.
Because they can?


RE: Would buy one tomorrow
By YashBudini on 4/7/2011 5:28:36 PM , Rating: 2
Or they feel they have to?

Perhaps they doubt the other's capabilities?

quote:
Because they can?

That's rather Clinton-ish, isn't it?


RE: Would buy one tomorrow
By DigitalFreak on 4/7/2011 8:37:34 AM , Rating: 2
Both


RE: Would buy one tomorrow
By sleepeeg3 on 4/6/2011 11:33:13 PM , Rating: 2
I rented a Ford Focus and it was one of the scariest, most rickety cars I have ever been in. The suspension felt like a board with tires - you could feel every bump in the road and the low resistance tires felt like they were going to rock the paperthin doors off.

I am completely in favor of supporting Ford as the last American car company that has not stolen taxpayer money, but the Focus feels like a death trap and the economy version of it is unlikely to be any safer. In comparison, I have been in a Prius and the ride felt relatively smooth. My first car was an '80 something econobox Toyota Cresida and even it felt light years more solid than the Focus deathbox. Mileage is not everything...


RE: Would buy one tomorrow
By omnicronx on 4/7/2011 12:02:26 AM , Rating: 3
The focus is on a redesign this year (its a completely different car with a completely different feel), and I don't agree with your statements even if you were talking 2011 or older.

The car drives fine and does not feel unsafe, at least in more recent years.

You get what you pay for, so its not like its amazing around corners, but I'd rather drive a Focus than a Toyota Matrix or many other cars in that price range..


RE: Would buy one tomorrow
By Reclaimer77 on 4/7/11, Rating: 0
RE: Would buy one tomorrow
By Reclaimer77 on 4/7/2011 2:33:27 PM , Rating: 2
Ok that totally really happened. Sorry it offended you Mr. Two Accounts.


RE: Would buy one tomorrow
By gregpet on 4/7/2011 3:28:54 PM , Rating: 2
So you REALLY wanted the Sentra??

It totally may be just me but I cringe when I get stuck with a Toyota, Nissan, Asian whatever when I'm renting a car. I always ask for a Chevy Malibu which I think is a great car with amazing gas mileage (4 cyl) for a car its size (maybe a little under powered).

I know the Japanese make good cars but everyone that I have ever been in seems to have a cheap feel (especially the interiors).

Just my opinion!


RE: Would buy one tomorrow
By Reclaimer77 on 4/7/2011 3:32:54 PM , Rating: 2
My insurance company wouldn't cover anything bigger. The Sentra was pretty cool. It was an 09 with the CVT tranny so it felt like it had way more zip than it's horsepower indicated.


RE: Would buy one tomorrow
By Spuke on 4/7/2011 5:46:47 PM , Rating: 2
Most eco cars are cheap IMO. Up till late 2006, that's all I've driven. Sentra's are good cars. Anecdotal, for sure, but I owned two and they were great.


RE: Would buy one tomorrow
By tayb on 4/7/2011 12:52:48 AM , Rating: 2
Wow. Way to exaggerate to a ridiculous level. Sorry but either that car has been in, oh, a dozen accidents, or you are horribly embellishing your experience with that Ford Focus. I've driven various models from various years and I've never experienced anything like you are talking about. Prior to 2009 the car was not really a good buy but it still wasn't a junker like you are describing but since then it has gone through a serious redesign almost beyond recognition.

You were in a Prius and it felt smoother than the Focus? Yeah, um, how many more tens of thousands was that Prius than the $16k Focus? That's like saying your $400 laptop is slow, overheats, and is a general pile of crap. But you love your $2,5000 Macbook Pro. Yawn.


RE: Would buy one tomorrow
By rudolphna on 4/7/2011 7:50:44 AM , Rating: 2
Interesting, considering I have a 2011 SES. Solid feeling car.


1.6 L TDI
By PlasmaBomb on 4/6/2011 7:05:22 PM , Rating: 3
With only a 1.6L engine and 105 BHP, wouldn't most Americans complain that it lacks power?

At least the American reviews I have read, who have tested the 2.0L Gas Focus with 160BHP have complained that it's not that nippy...

(Yes I know there's more to engines than just BHP)




RE: 1.6 L TDI
By Reclaimer77 on 4/6/2011 7:09:17 PM , Rating: 1
Why just Americans? With Porsche, Ferrari, Lotus, BMW etc etc all coming from Europe, why does everyone assume Americans are all about HP?

Hell we bought more Japanese economy cars in the 1980-2000's than the Japanese and their neighbors put together!


RE: 1.6 L TDI
By YashBudini on 4/6/2011 7:14:07 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Hell we bought more Japanese economy cars in the 1980-2000's than the Japanese and their neighbors put together!

And all too often with larger engines than their global counterparts, and only offered here.


RE: 1.6 L TDI
By Reclaimer77 on 4/6/2011 7:15:40 PM , Rating: 2
Umm wrong, the European and Japanese models are usually ALWAYS more desirable than what we get here. Please don't make me link examples. Many a car/model have I desired only to learn it isn't sold here.


RE: 1.6 L TDI
By Reclaimer77 on 4/6/2011 7:22:16 PM , Rating: 2
And once again you are using a Straw Man to make a negative connotation toward Americans where none exists. If the models are bigger/different it's because of our extreme safety standards, emissions standards, and the continuing of our stupid policy of using lower octane rated fuel than the rest of the world.

It's NOT because "Americans" wouldn't buy them.


RE: 1.6 L TDI
By YashBudini on 4/6/11, Rating: 0
RE: 1.6 L TDI
By Reclaimer77 on 4/6/2011 7:43:54 PM , Rating: 2
Lol Ok Yash, so I guess the American CRX, which we bought millions of, was bigger and more powerful than the Japanese one? How about the Civic? No doubt our Mazda Miata was a big pig compared to theirs...

Honestly you're pathetic. Must everything be anti-American with you?

Your cause and effect skills are in poor working order. By the way, Americans don't get to pick which version of car we get. I don't remember anyone letting me vote on it or any CEO of an auto-company asking me what I thought.


RE: 1.6 L TDI
By YashBudini on 4/6/2011 8:04:53 PM , Rating: 1
Excuse me but 1 model alone doesn't make your argument. You may believe that, history suggests otherwise. Seens any SUVs on the road in the last decade?

Todays Civic is larger and more powerful than the original Accord.

quote:
Honestly you're pathetic


Since you routinely scream at ad hominem attacks it would seem your double standard capabilities are as sharp as ever.


RE: 1.6 L TDI
By Reclaimer77 on 4/6/2011 9:33:27 PM , Rating: 2
All cars become more powerful, hello? It's called evolution. 10 years ago 175-200 HP was a lot, now it's standard. Fuel economy has ALSO gone up WITH power, by the way.

As far as being larger, it's called "crash testing". Look it up.


RE: 1.6 L TDI
By YashBudini on 4/6/2011 9:46:28 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
All cars become more powerful, hello? It's called evolution.

And is this a world wide event? Or are cars outside the US more consistent in size?

quote:
As far as being larger, it's called "crash testing". Look it up.

Are you suggesting people buy larger cars for more crash worthiness over more room? That's your stance?


RE: 1.6 L TDI
By Reclaimer77 on 4/6/2011 10:31:37 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Are you suggesting people buy larger cars for more crash worthiness over more room? That's your stance?


OH MY GOD!

You can't...you can't be that thick. You can't be actually missing the obliviousness of what I'm saying.

Cars are larger because mandated safety requirements MAKE them become larger because of crash testing! HELLO?


RE: 1.6 L TDI
By YashBudini on 4/7/2011 12:31:20 PM , Rating: 2
Inconclusive. Cars got bigger way before safety standards were enacted in the US.

You seem to despise history. Or did you simply not learn from it?


RE: 1.6 L TDI
By YashBudini on 4/7/2011 12:34:52 PM , Rating: 2
Hello - Smart Car

"Its 2010 ratings (which aren't comparable to 2011 tests) resulted in four out of five stars for frontal crash protection of the driver and three stars for passenger protection. In side impacts, the Smart was awarded a perfect five out of five stars. The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety awarded the Smart its highest rating of "Good" for both frontal- and side-impact protection."

http://www.edmunds.com/smart/fortwo/2011/?mktcat=s...

Apparently size is not a neccessity.


RE: 1.6 L TDI
By Reclaimer77 on 4/7/2011 2:44:47 PM , Rating: 2
Umm three stars ties it for one of the worst scores of that year. I personally would not set my rear end in a vehicle that virtually guarantees death or serious injury in a side impact. Hell look at the thing, it has NO A pillar for christ sake!

Lots is made about crash test ratings on the VEHICLE, when it came to crash testing passenger's safety, the Smart Car rated one of the worst that year.

You have to be somewhat insane to think that a vehicle that only scores 4/3 stars in a frontal collision against only itself at 1600lbs stands a chance against a 4500+lb vehicle with 5 star ratings. They should run it into the wall at 90mph to get an idea how it would do against a ‘normal’ large car, let alone a truck. Even the side tests are based on the vehicle being able to move after being hit. A 4 star driver/3 star passenger rating with only 1600lbs of mass? Thats horrible. An Expedition EL scores quadruple 5-star ratings against 6000lbs of mass, an exponential resistance to damage.

"Good" when it comes to the safety of me and my loves ones is not "good" enough. And all for what? To make some political/environmental statement. Not worth it.


RE: 1.6 L TDI
By YashBudini on 4/7/2011 4:52:20 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
three stars ties it for one of the worst scores of that year

You can choose to dance around the point instead of addressing, but the fact remains this vehicle scored better than older and far larger/heavier vehicles, which shows that safety doesn't automatically result in more weight. Indy cars are another example of how your broad generalization fails in reality.

But continue to overly posture if you feels it's needed.


RE: 1.6 L TDI
By Reclaimer77 on 4/7/2011 4:56:31 PM , Rating: 1
You know what, you really are an idiot. Do you understand how running a car that weights 1600lbs into a wall is not anywhere NEARLY indicative of what happens when something with 4klbs of mass slams into said 1600lb car?

If it were to hit head on with an SUV, both traveling at 25mph, the SUV would completely reverse the direction of travel of a Smart, nearly tripling the tested impact forces, at that point it would be a slaughter of the smart occupants. The smart would feel a 90mph impact force, the SUV about 25mph. And owners are driving them thinking they are ‘safe’.

I have always wondered why there is no standard of impact energy in crash testing(probably because it would be a horror show for smaller vehicles), nor any record of reported injuries per accident for vehicles in the real world. I have seen many ’5-star’ small cars with the owners having to be cut out of them when the other larger vehicle has an unscathed driver standing on the side of the road watching.

You either have no understanding of the testing methodology or you know shit about physics. But please keep on pretending that I'm somehow "dancing" around a point here. I'm not dancing, I'm shoving it down your throat.


RE: 1.6 L TDI
By YashBudini on 4/7/2011 5:42:49 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You know what, you really are an idiot.

And obviously your POV is so correct that you've returned to ad hominem attacks. Seems like you're having more issues with your opinion than anyone else. It must be wonderful to have a belief system that supports a double standard.

quote:
I'm shoving it down your throat.

You flatter yourself. But please continue, your contortions are most amusing.

Weight alone is not indicative of safety. Cars of the 40's and 50's and even 60's were heavy and unsafe. The Smart, while never claiming to be perfect, does well relatively for its mass.

And another aspect you chose to ignore. Smart is more likely to maneuver better than an SUV. Avoidance capabilities play a role in safety.

But overall what you fail to see is your rant is the very basis and reason for why US cars are the way they are. Is anyone surprised your temper answered the question better than your words?


RE: 1.6 L TDI
By Reclaimer77 on 4/7/2011 6:18:38 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Weight alone is not indicative of safety. Cars of the 40's and 50's and even 60's were heavy and unsafe.


Because they were crashing into other poorly designed heavy cars maybe? How is this argument here or there? Where did I say weight = more safety? I'm pretty sure way back when this started, the inverse was the argument. That cars weigh more as a side effect of safety equipment. Not because, as you say, Americans just have a big car fetish. Which you haven't even proved either.

quote:
And another aspect you chose to ignore. Smart is more likely to maneuver better than an SUV. Avoidance capabilities play a role in safety.


A completely intangible number that can't be calculated. Good luck finding statistics on "accidents avoided due to maneuvering ability". And hey, don't think it would take an SUV to kill a Smart Car. A decent sized 5 star sedan would transfer a LETHAL amount of force to the passengers of the SmartCar. That's the point.

quote:
But overall what you fail to see is your rant is the very basis and reason for why US cars are the way they are.


Which is? You still haven't told me or proved this point. You haven't even so much as provided a link of all these US models that are supposedly bigger and heavier because that's just something we crave like candy here.

As usual talking to you is a waste of time. So I'll just stop doing it.

quote:
And obviously your POV is so correct that you've returned to ad hominem attacks.


P.S. Not an attack or ad hominem. Several people have tried talking sense into you, seeing you ignore basic fifth grade physics to move the goalposts yet again was simply the last straw.


RE: 1.6 L TDI
By Reclaimer77 on 4/7/2011 6:23:35 PM , Rating: 2
Here just do me a favor and watch this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4k0FWvGoSM&feature...

Any questions? And that's a C class Mercedes at a very common 40mph, NOT a Suburban. Does that look "safe" to you?


RE: 1.6 L TDI
By Reclaimer77 on 4/7/2011 6:31:23 PM , Rating: 2
I'll give them credit, the passenger compartment holds up surprisingly well, given the mass offset. But again, you can't engineer your way through physics. The Mercedes completely absorbs all the inertia and mass of the Smart Car while also transferring an apparently LETHAL blow to the driver of the Smart. Sure the airbag deploys, but the dash and the steering column is visibly forced into the face of the Smart driver.

Also the distance that this huge mass offset propels the Smart is just disturbing. On a real road the Smart would most likely be thrown into another vehicle, or another lane to be hit again by oncoming traffic. Even possibly thrown into pedestrians on the sidewalk or bus stop etc etc.

The Mercedes driver wouldn't suffer a single injury. Hell I doubt the dummy got a headache.


RE: 1.6 L TDI
By Reclaimer77 on 4/7/2011 6:43:29 PM , Rating: 2
Oh what the hell. Here Yash notice the part in big bold letters, it's called a title, that clearly states IIHS Finds Small Cars do Poorly Against Mid-Size ?

These Insurance Institute for Highway Safety tests are about the physics of car crashes, which dictate that very small cars generally can't protect people in crashes as well as bigger, heavier models.

http://www.carpictures.com/Toyota/Yaris-IIHS-Finds...

"There are good reasons people buy minicars," says Institute president Adrian Lund. "They're more affordable, and they use less gas. But the safety trade-offs are clear from our new tests. Equally clear are the implications when it comes to fuel economy. If automakers downsize cars so their fleets use less fuel, occupant safety will be compromised.

Are you going to ignore this too?


RE: 1.6 L TDI
By YashBudini on 4/7/2011 7:16:54 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Several people have tried talking sense into you

Your "I'm totally right and you're totally wrong" stance does not amount to sense, no matter what you tell yourself. Such techniques wouldn't hold up in a high school debate.

Since you can't separate how much weight is added to cars through more sound insulation, more power options, etc, you really have zero actual numbers for safety related weight. I wonder why Spuke didn't ask you for any?


RE: 1.6 L TDI
By YashBudini on 4/7/2011 7:31:57 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Not an attack or ad hominem.

You've managed 2 already, why stop now?

As for your early anti-US remarks I'm considering a Ford Fusion, so far the only requirements I have is that the final assembly point is not China or S.C.


RE: 1.6 L TDI
By Reclaimer77 on 4/7/2011 7:05:48 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
And another aspect you chose to ignore. Smart is more likely to maneuver better than an SUV. Avoidance capabilities play a role in safety.


Oh btw...

Yet another claim is that minicars are easier to maneuver, so their drivers can avoid crashes in the first place. Insurance claims experience says otherwise. The frequency of claims filed for crash damage is higher for mini 4-door cars than for midsize ones.

http://www.carpictures.com/Toyota/Yaris-IIHS-Finds...


RE: 1.6 L TDI
By YashBudini on 4/7/2011 7:21:31 PM , Rating: 1
A car's capabilities and the driver's capabilities are 2 different things. Insurance companies are stuck with both. If they issued driver's licenses here the same way as they do in Europe the results could and probably would be quite different.

I'm sure you'll find more straws.


RE: 1.6 L TDI
By Reclaimer77 on 4/6/2011 9:40:29 PM , Rating: 2
Also you are moving the goalposts of the argument. You were saying that American versions WERE bigger than Euro counterparts AT THE TIME. Now you are saying cars ARE getting bigger. Which is it?


RE: 1.6 L TDI
By YashBudini on 4/6/2011 9:49:41 PM , Rating: 2
Can it be both? When global cars end up here they have larger engines, and then continue the "more" process?


RE: 1.6 L TDI
By Spuke on 4/6/2011 10:07:26 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Can it be both? When global cars end up here they have larger engines, and then continue the "more" process?
We also have more stringent safety requirements than most anywhere or are you going to continue to ignore that little tidbit? Why would a car be lighter or smaller with that extra requirement? How about the extra emissions requirements? I suppose that doesn't add weight nor require re-packaging either right?

PS - Let's see if you ignore this.


RE: 1.6 L TDI
By Reclaimer77 on 4/6/2011 10:16:59 PM , Rating: 2
I swear to god, he's so thick to argue with. It's like he doesn't really read what you said, and just enters a new argument.


RE: 1.6 L TDI
By YashBudini on 4/7/2011 12:24:41 PM , Rating: 2
I realize that presenting an argument to someone who refuses to wear the same horse blinders you wear presents quite a challenge. But it is your choice to wear them, and nobody else's.


RE: 1.6 L TDI
By YashBudini on 4/7/2011 12:22:22 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Why would a car be lighter or smaller with that extra requirement?

American cars often carry more sound insulation as well. In other cases the same cars arrive here with the same features and capabilities and still have a larger engine. That may well be because fuel is cheaper here and simply more emphasis on speed than most other places.

You think Japanese requirements are lower than the US? Yeah Europe didn't have catalysts for a long time, where are they today?

Your kind is quick to blame all weight gains on government, without any kind of a breakdown. What TV channel runs your life?


RE: 1.6 L TDI
By Spuke on 4/7/2011 5:59:36 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Your kind is quick to blame all weight gains on government, without any kind of a breakdown. What TV channel runs your life?
So since I don't support your assertions in entirety, I am accused of only watching a certain TV channel? Didn't you accuse someone of making childish remarks? But I guess since you said it that makes it alright. If a vehicle scores poorly in certain areas of a crash test and the only difference between it and a car that scores well is it's mass, then we can assume (since we're all assuming here) that the difference is mass. Is mass the be all end all? Nope! But a multiple high scoring, high mass vehicle WILL be safer than a one high score, other low score, low mass vehicle.

PS - I don't necessarily subscribe to the larger is safer argument but I won't totally dismiss it either.


RE: 1.6 L TDI
By YashBudini on 4/7/2011 6:05:58 PM , Rating: 1
I asked a question.


RE: 1.6 L TDI
By YashBudini on 4/6/2011 9:51:46 PM , Rating: 2
Why no additional ad hominem attacks?

What's up with that?


RE: 1.6 L TDI
By YashBudini on 4/7/2011 12:41:55 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Also you are moving the goalposts of the argument.

You mean like presenting the CRX as your argument and then dropping it like a hot potato?


RE: 1.6 L TDI
By omnicronx on 4/7/2011 12:11:56 AM , Rating: 2
Sorry bud, but the masses don't drive BMW's Porsches and Mercedes.(nor do I understand why you are focusing on non American manufactured vehicles)

For the masses American vehicles are generally higher HP than our European counterparts.

I'm not exactly sure why you are trying to debate this.

The fact that high end European models are generally the same or higher is completely irrelevant as these vehicles do not make up the majority of sales. Not by a longshot...

Here in North American the minimum standard for HP is generally higher, we don't see sub 120 or even 130HP engines anymore like we see in Europe.

That said, we pretty much need it. More highways and high speed situations that basic city driving in dense urban populations would not require.


RE: 1.6 L TDI
By omnicronx on 4/7/2011 12:17:32 AM , Rating: 2
and FYI as the article explains, the focus is the perfect example.

The Fiesta to Europeans is akin to the Focus to Americans.

The Focus is a family sedan in Europe.(which is one of the reasons they had different models in the US until now, it covered a completely different demographic)


RE: 1.6 L TDI
By corduroygt on 4/6/2011 7:36:00 PM , Rating: 3
Not so much, since Diesels are great for low end torque and most Americans complaining about "lack of power" are really complaining about "lack of power under 4000 rpm" which is what diesels excel at.


RE: 1.6 L TDI
By EddyKilowatt on 4/6/2011 8:26:44 PM , Rating: 1
Well, the numbers probably would scare the folks who are, uh, compensating for something.

The supremely ironic thing, though, is that the diesel character is so ideally suited to the big-block, low-end-torque way that Americans like to drive. No waiting for the tranny to lurch down two gears and the engine to flail up to flustered speeds. People really would love the diesel driving experience if they'd give it a chance.


RE: 1.6 L TDI
By tastyratz on 4/6/2011 10:24:10 PM , Rating: 3
bhp will never be impressive on a diesel, its the torque that really matters. HP is literally a calculation of torque against rpm, so high hp means it makes it up top.

Jason should have really mentioned in the article they squeeze 177lbs of torque at 1750 rpm from this teeny engine.

I for one am saddened by fords ignorance to the American public's wants.


RE: 1.6 L TDI
By Spuke on 4/6/2011 11:06:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I for one am saddened by fords ignorance to the American public's wants.
Please cite the diesel sales numbers that actually show that Americans want these cars. I've said it before and I'll say it again, if Americans wanted diesel, the VW Golf's and Jetta's would be flying off of lots. What Americans ARE buying in droves are gasoline cars and to a MUCH lesser extent, still more than diesel, hybrids.


RE: 1.6 L TDI
By tastyratz on 4/7/2011 9:45:58 AM , Rating: 2
We are talking about a chicken and egg scenario. I would love a diesel but wont get caught dead with a vw. Dilemma? I think so.
Also go price out a new ford diesel on their uk website then the usa site for comparable diesels. Diesel costs HALF what it costs here in other countries.
People don't want diesel because its EXTREMELY overpriced here vs there.

If the cost to go diesel was cut 50% sales would jump.
If practical diesel was available in popular consumer models diesel would jump.
If gas prices continue to do what gas prices will continue to do diesel will jump.

Does everyone remember the last time we had a major spike in gas prices? You could not find a hybrid OR DIESEL that was not OVER msrp on a lot, and used prices SKYROCKETED. When gas jumps AGAIN which I am sure it will, we will be unprepared to meet the demand.

The stigma of diesel has dramatically lessened in the last 5 years, yet people still think the American public views diesel like they did 20 years ago here.

Studies? Sure!
http://www.nextcars **THISISNOTSPAMDAILYTECH** . net/u-s-sales-of-clean-diesel-models-buck-auto-indu strys-slumping-trend/
Volkswagen tdi has been seeing a 30% increase in American sales year over year.

http://www.bmwblog.com/2011/03/07/diesel-economics...
2010 diesel sales doubled. BMW with a strong diesel offering has a 31% diesel to sale rate.
Audi? 48% of sales are diesel.
That proves those who can afford it choose it. Give the USA economic options like Europe and watch.

Dangle 70mpg cars in front of consumers facing $5 a gallon at the pump for only around a $3000 premium and you would be surprised as to what they do. Chicken and egg man... Chicken and egg.


RE: 1.6 L TDI
By Farfignewton on 4/7/2011 3:16:24 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The stigma of diesel has dramatically lessened in the last 5 years, yet people still think the American public views diesel like they did 20 years ago here.


Those links show large percentage increases, but between BMW (11,727), Audi (6,941), Mercedes (7440), and VW (51,769) you have combined diesel sales of just under 78,0000 in a market of 11.5 million.


RE: 1.6 L TDI
By Farfignewton on 4/7/2011 3:18:13 PM , Rating: 2
OOPS. Extra zero. 78,000.


RE: 1.6 L TDI
By tastyratz on 4/7/2011 4:02:27 PM , Rating: 2
This is true, but those are apples to apples comparisons of models which offer both a gasoline and a diesel counterpart. To compare sales for example to the corolla is not fair because they do not offer the corolla in a diesel. People generally choose a car and THEN an engine, not the other way around.

The poor diesel sales out of total sales is more of a reflection of its very poor model availability than consumer choice.


RE: 1.6 L TDI
By Spuke on 4/7/2011 7:11:40 PM , Rating: 2
I understand it's apples to apples BUT the main problem is those are niche cars. Niche sales are not reflective of the overall market. I maintain that whether or not Americans want diesel is still up in the air. I was disappointed when Honda canceled their diesel Accord. Sales of that car would've been very telling of what people actually like. We were even considering NOT buying our 3/4 ton pickup and keeping our old pickup (and buying a different trailer as much as I hate towing travel trailers) so we could get one of those.


RE: 1.6 L TDI
By tastyratz on 4/8/2011 10:43:28 AM , Rating: 2
While I see your point I disagree with Volkswagen being at all a niche car. I think the Jetta is a pretty good indicator. Granted the civic and corola both sold 26x,000 cars in 2010, but for a comparable model which still sells well diesel shows hope.

An accord diesel would be remarkable for arguments sake but I have a feeling diesel would carry quite the markup on the accord.


RE: 1.6 L TDI
By cooter on 4/7/2011 9:50:15 AM , Rating: 2
Get your facts straight before running your mouth.

Here is a cite for you:

http://green.autoblog.com/2010/09/10/u-s-sales-of-...


RE: 1.6 L TDI
By YashBudini on 4/8/2011 11:52:46 PM , Rating: 2
Ow, my eyes. I'd pay extra to have those side stripes removed.

Spuke usually thanks people for citations, I wonder what happened here? (not really)


RE: 1.6 L TDI
By xprojected on 4/7/2011 12:00:48 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, about half of the Golfs, Jettas, etc. sold are diesel versions, while only 10% or so of the Fusions, Escapes, Camrys, etc. are the hybrid version. But then, most hybrid buyers flock to the hybrid-only Prius or Insight. If it were more than just German brands offering diesels, their sales would be much closer to hybrids. Cost and emissions are the biggest roadblocks.


RE: 1.6 L TDI
By Mr772 on 4/7/2011 9:28:58 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I for one am saddened by fords ignorance to the American public's wants.


I agree, but for me it's more like frustration and anger.

To those who say american's don't buy diesels - your crazy. VW TDI's are selling very well they are everywhere, and it's a premium priced car in it's class. And other diesels would sell to if they were even avalible.


RE: 1.6 L TDI
By xprojected on 4/7/2011 12:09:19 PM , Rating: 2
Sure, we want diesels. But when we see the sticker price of thousands more than their gas counterparts, will we bite? The R&D and production costs needed to comply with CARB (California) emissions regulations (a must for any company selling a car in the US) is too high for most companies. Also, America's demand for low 0-60mph times will keep the most efficient diesels away, due to their low hp but high torque.


RE: 1.6 L TDI
By Dr of crap on 4/7/2011 12:28:50 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe for you.

What about the rest of us that wnat to see MORE diesels available here?


prices of diesel gas and engine taxes in Portugal
By jub on 4/7/2011 10:37:31 AM , Rating: 2
these are current prices here in Portugal
(with google calculator)

unleaded 95 - 1.599 €/l = 8.64 US$ / US gallon
unleaded 98 - 1.754 €/l = 9.48 US$ / US gallon
diesel - 1.437 €/l = 7.77 US$ / US gallon
diesel plus - 1.509 €/l = 8.16 US$ / US gallon

and the car tax is calculated by engine size and CO2 emissions
examples:
diesel - 1.2L with 120g/Km of CO2 has a tax of 2.280,38€
diesel - 1.4L with 120g/Km of CO2 has a tax of 3.716,98€
diesel - 1.6L with 120g/Km of CO2 has a tax of 5.392,98€
diesel - 2.0L with 120g/Km of CO2 has a tax of 8.661,18€
diesel - 2.0L with 200g/Km of CO2 has a tax of 10.602,04€
diesel - 3.0L with 200g/Km of CO2 has a tax of 18.982,04€
gasoline - 3.0L with 200g/Km of CO2 has a tax of 18.982,04€

on top of that add the VAT (currently 23%)
guess why people around here prefer small engines?

in my family there's 4 cars
all four are diesel cars. guess why?

(with google calculator)
a 16 years old Toyota Corolla 2.0L diesel - 6L/100Km = 40mpg (work car)
a 11 years old 2.5L Mitsubishi truck - 11L/100Km = 21mpg (work car)
a 9 years old 1.9L diesel Renault Laguna - 6.5L/100Km = 36mpg
a 5 years old 1.6L diesel Citroen C4 - 4.8L/100Km = 49mpg

most of the driving is not at high speeds
these diesel engines last much more than a gasoline engine could ever last
example: theres some old tech diesel 2.0L corollas around here with 1.5 MILLION Km and still driving

but the new diesel engines are really something
the torque is amazing
so is the driving pleasure
and tuning these engines is quite easy
most of the driving is at low rpm and that is where these engines are good
where a gasoline engine would require you to put a gear down and up rpm and lowering mpg, with this diesel torque you just have to push the pedal and feel it going.

right now the gasoline engines seem like very old tech
subaru's impresa wrx are the only type of performance gasoline cars that don't have a equivalent in diesel

for a family/work passenger car, in this region, the diesel is the logical solution.

arguments of: not clean, not powerful enough, high cost maintenance, too much noise, and some others, for me are just like a word i ear a lot in english .... bulls..t (is that it?)
who talks like that doesn't have a clue of what they are talking about.

best regards from Portugal




By PlasmaBomb on 4/8/2011 3:53:56 AM , Rating: 2
Those prices are ridiculous, and isn't it unfair to base tax on engine size and CO2 - if both produce the same amount of CO2 you are just taxing the larger one because it is more of a "luxury"...


By sorry dog on 4/8/2011 2:45:46 PM , Rating: 2
Wow... no wonder Portugal needs a bailout. Your taxes are insane.

I think this is a prime example of what happens when you tax the living crap out of stuff. People hold on to what they have because they can't afford new stuff. And when nobody buys the new stuff there's less jobs to go around...and then the government doesn't get as much revenue as they were expecting and they go into the hole...and then interest rates go up because the outlook sucks.

I'm not pro republican or anything but this is what happens when left wingnuts start monkeying around with regulation for fuel and cars and such... JUST like the dems are trying to do with these CAFE regs and electric car incentives.

I lived in Portugal for a summer and loved living there, but I'd hate most of affordable options you guys have for cars since most of them have small underpowered engines. If I lived there, I'd have sneak over a car or two from the states. A good old loud Mustang convertible would probably get a lot of positive attention there.


Ya'll still don't get it.
By Dfere on 4/6/2011 9:29:30 PM , Rating: 1
So yer looking for non-"tiny turd" shiny shiny's like a Big Truck with a turbodiesel, huh? They got ya, they got ya..... la la la, they got ya.

If this sounds childish, I made my point. Turbodiesels are Practical. This car will take the bling out of a Prius, so why would Toyota cannibalize a part of its own line? Especially when so many Americans are willing to shell out huge bucks for a Hybrid to impress themselves with. I argued years ago here that the technology existed to make smaller cars get very similar mpg to hybrids, but the profit margins on a hybrid are outrageous. And again, the two litter streams for having two types of propulsion/energy systems aren't eco-friendly.

Well, gee ta-da, when gas finalyyyyy got high enough , and the next round of CAFE standards looms, we get a 40 MPG focus that comparatively speaking, sucks..... and we complain we need the newest, bestest, shiny shiny technology to impress .. again. I hate to say it , and it may be the higher gas prices, but just possibly Europeans are being just a bit more practical than us when it comes to demanding better value for their money.




RE: Ya'll still don't get it.
By YashBudini on 4/7/2011 12:46:54 PM , Rating: 2
You have to wonder if some people (just because they can) buy a car by their perceived best value (pounds per dollar, interior volume per dollar)as opposed to actual total running costs.


RE: Ya'll still don't get it.
By Spuke on 4/8/2011 5:35:58 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You have to wonder if some people (just because they can) buy a car by their perceived best value
I think everyone does that, including you. Your "perceived value" is total running costs. Others is wheel size. I see no difference between the too because both are based on the word "me".


Nothing To Do WIth Americans Not Buying Diesels
By Rally2xs on 4/6/2011 11:30:49 PM , Rating: 2
It is, once again, the envirowackos in the EPA's of several states that have mandated diesel pollution controls made of unobtanium. The have to have a urea container that injects the stuff to mitigate the exhaust, and that's too big a leap for most manufacturers to want to market here. But of course diesels are good enough for Europe, that doesn't necessarily have a bunch of leftists saboteurs attempting to ruin their nations under the guise of "environmentalism." (yeah... I'm P.O'ed)




By JamesNW on 4/19/2011 9:03:53 PM , Rating: 2
If Exxon-Mobile, Texaco, Chevron continue to rack in record profit every quarter, you will see no policy change regarding higher fuel efficiency for cars - The US does not have a terrible energy policy by accident. it was designed by the big oils. For the EPA, if they look at the current low MPG gasoline cars pollution over its lifetime, add the polution of the total amount of energy and chemical (transport, refine, distribute, etc) to produce the gasoline; it would be much higher than the polution by the high MPG diesel car in the same lifetime because of lesser fuel consumption. but again, Exxon Mobile needs to make money and US congress members all need the big-oils political contributions.


in USA ...
By rvd2008 on 4/6/2011 9:28:03 PM , Rating: 2
extra for diesel fuel + more money for diesel car
will level diesel efficiency advantage over gasoline




By HeavyTraffic on 4/6/2011 10:13:16 PM , Rating: 2
I'm currently in Ireland and am driving a diesel Focus, and to quote an earlier post, it's a bit of a turd. Totally serviceable and good gas mileage, but low torque, no power, and can't even start in 2nd from a slow roll. All in all, I prefer my wife's Civic Hybrid.




*sigh*
By DNAgent on 4/6/2011 10:42:14 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
U.S. car customers don't seem to care much for diesel vehicles


Maybe that's because we can't buy any that get 67 mpg???




The future is bright
By Zingam on 4/7/2011 4:05:28 AM , Rating: 2
Next time I expect that they announce a car that while you drive it, the car actually produces diesel.

I so much don't believe these claims of such great mileage.
They probably get these results in vacuum, while driving downwards on a slope.




By Dr of crap on 4/7/2011 8:47:17 AM , Rating: 2
Every time there's somenthing about the deisel cars in Europe there's this after it - The American car buyers don't want diesel cars.

Says who??
Have they even taken a poll, or did their research?? At 67mpg I'm sure there would be bigger demand for that than ANY EV or HYBRID out there!!! If you are building the damn car anyway, why not just try it and see if there is a demand.

Not one car makers will even try and see if there is a market, They always say WE DOn"t want it! Yet they will come out with yet another plug-in and say that this is our future!

I'd rather have a 60mpg car powered by gas or diesel over ANY hybrid or EV.




good
By p05esto on 4/9/2011 3:16:08 PM , Rating: 2
Americans just "say" they want these little cars... until they get to the car lot and realize these little cars are death traps and you can't fit anything in them. If you are over 5'5" or have more than 1 kid or want to transport anything except a gallon of milk these tin-can cars are useless. I own a pick-up trunk, an old Camaro and a large Tahoe SUV, all V8 engines, all powerful, fast and each serves a purpose. I would NEVER drive a tinyt car, not ever, never, no way, I value my life too much.




Stupid Ford
By JamesNW on 4/19/2011 8:48:27 PM , Rating: 2
Again, stupid Ford still do not understand its American customers. When gas is $4.50 a gallon - which is very soon, everyone will love the >40mpg vehicle regardless of what kind of fuel it used. They still make these stupid gas guzzler truck F-x50 series while the Japanese auto maker will snatch up all of the market share. They forgot the new 35MPG Focus and Fusion were the catalysts to get customers back to the Ford dealer. They still do not fundamentally understand that people want uber low consumption fuel transportation, not those red-neck big fat trucks that will stop running very soon with the high fuel price.




"So, I think the same thing of the music industry. They can't say that they're losing money, you know what I'm saying. They just probably don't have the same surplus that they had." -- Wu-Tang Clan founder RZA













botimage
Copyright 2015 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki