azulejost

Yes, back when I had a VW it did the same thing when you held the key in the switch a few seconds. I was active on a mailing list (remember when those were the rage?) and a guy developed a small device that could be added to the wiring in the door to allow the remote control to control the windows. I believe it had the novel name of "Window Remote Control" by Alien Technologies or something similar. Electronics makes many things possible. As a big fan and hopeful future buyer of the Fiesta, I am very hopeful the European rear foglight and manual leveling headlamps make the crossing of the Atlantic. The rear foglight especially adds an extra degree of safety when used appropriately--in situations of decreased visibility. Compared to BLIS, lane departure, auto panic breaking, and the like a bulb, some wiring, and a switch doesn't add much cost to the manufacturer--even less when already developed for the European market. I believe more emphasis needs to be placed on these active safety features instead of waiting for a passive system to recognize danger is miliseconds away. Improving visibilty including the rear fog light, amber rear turn signals, and turn signals in the mirror or on the sides of cars at the front quarter panel all are relatively inexpensive upgrades American cars could benefit from. Drivers' Education and enforcement also needs to improve signal and proper headlight use. And for what it's worth, DRLs seem to do more harm than good and do not need to spread to American vehicles.

Not to mention the awful memories of the last 3-cyl American made B-segment car--the maligned Metro. Three cylinders may work for the A-segment with the Ka and such things, but I don't see a larger vehicle in the US getting one at least in the next 5-10 yrs. Besides, a smaller 4-cyl EcoBoost would probably do almost as well with fuel mileage while not having the stigma of a 3-cyl. I know we're talking about a boosted 3-cyl, but at a point the efficiency gains of fewer cylinders is negated by the more strenous work cycle of an underpowered engine. Take a V6 vs. V8 pickup as an example--with similar features the V6 may cost less but the real world advantage is almost nil.

I don't think the Ford Fiesta appeal to the same crowd that buys $30k+ Minis. The regular Mini has 118hp with ~2500 lb. curb weight (21.2 lb/hp), S with 172hp/177lbft with ~2600lbs. (15.1 lb/hp), Works 208/192 with ~2700lbs. (13 lb/hp). The base Fiesta should weigh in at 2300 lbs., so let's add another 100 lbs. for an EcoBoost. That leaves the base Fiesta with 120 hp at 19.2 lb/hp, and 170 hp would give an EcoBoost 14.1 lb/hp. Dynamic-wise, the Fiesta likely wouldn't fall in the same category especially with a Works Mini but we can hope because those lb/hp numbers would be very appealing. I'd beg the wife to open the checkbooks up a little wider for that. Either way, I would be surprised to see it in the first several months because they will likely be able to sell plenty of regular 1.6Ls for a while. Also, I seem to find conflicting information--is the 1.6L Ti-VCT using a timing belt or chain for the US?

I am no fan of treating cars as appliances as I have made fairly clear in some of my posts here. A manual transmission, manual locks, doors and mirrors, and no BLIS, lane departure warning, rearview cameras, autodimming rear view mirror, auto climate control would be just fine with me. I don't represent the majority of drivers so features propogate at high rates, often with no regard for ease of use or impact prior to implementation. As far as the auto up/down goes, as others have said, it adds almost no weight or complexity to a vehicle with power windows which has to account for >95% of new car sales at this point. This feature is quite handy at drive throughs (not just food but banks, post office drop boxes, etc.) when you just need to drop the window while also getting at your wallet or find a pen or reach that envelope on the rear floorboard. Likewise, when you pull out, it's nice to just hit the switch and let the window close instead of having to wait to hold the switch before you can operate the clutch, steer, signal, pay attention to everything going on around you, and proceed. While it goes against my previous manual feature preferences, I had the chance to drive a BMW 540i a couple of years back on a long trip to several large cities. The car predated the rear parking sensor craze but had auto tilting mirrors that rotated downward permitting an improved view of the curb and rear wheels when the car shifted to reverse. Typically I would say this is just electronics for the sake of electronics, but it made parallel parking a breeze even in a car whose dimensions I was entirely unfamiliar with. I'm not saying anything with power mirrors should have these because it does generate a lot of useless movement of the mirrors for something that is almost exclusively useful in parallel parking situations. It could be better done if integrated with the turn signal, but I digress.

Nothing I've seen has anything confirmed outside of the 1.6L for the Fiesta. Some internet outlets have taken the Fiesta Movement's website option poll including a turbo kit as indication there will be such a model released by Ford. This would be a great deal if the hp/lb-ft could come in with at least 150/150 in a vehicle weighing around 2300 lbs. That's a respectable power-to-weight ratio without intruding onto anything an upcoming Focus might offer. I don't see three models happening in the B-segment. Sure, Europe may get the ST and RS, but I believe the US will see at most an ST. An ST would likely be in the $20-21k range and an RS another $2-3k. That's a lot to ask for a vehicle in a segment that accounts for well under 10% of US sales regardless of performance. I'm not saying there wouldn't be a market for an RS, I just don't think the business case would be worth it. A small, lightly boosted EcoBoost seems to be the better way to go and the aftermarket can increase boost to wherever they may. To Ford, the Fiesta will likely be the fun sporty model while a performance Focus will be the serious model with more power.

I agree, anything with power windows should have auto up/down on every window. It's not much to add in and adds a lot of convenience. Sometimes it's just nice to drive with all the windows down then you have the ease of hitting 4 switches to button back up. Hopefully it spreads through the entire lineup.

Symmetry is an under appreciated component of car design. I have seen only one Cube on the streets, and it looked silly. The way the D-pillar curves around and such denies the vehicle any sort of seriousness, and the front grille looks like an old electric razor. Not to mention the small wheels. I haven't driven or been inside one, so I cannot comment there. Nissan's products are very hit or miss in my mind--the Cube is a miss. The Kia Soul is the best little box on the market as far as design goes. Just my thoughts.

So when you're driving down the highway in your 10-car laser linked train in the right lane and someone merging onto the road forces the lead car to change lanes, what happens if there's a vehicle in the left lane preventing all 10 cars to have space in the left lane--seems like an wreck waiting to happen for at least a few of the vehicles in the train, plus since it likely wouldn't affect the lead car, all of the other drivers could be so disconnected from the operation of their car it creates a massive disaster with multiple cars going 70mph with no one at the wheel. Also, what if a driver not in a chain is distracted and veers into one of the cars in the train? Not a place I'd want to be. That's not the only scenario that could go poorly, just the first that came to mind. The roads can be safer, but the vast majority of wrecks occur due to inattention and failure to maintain proper control of a vehicle. Removing control and allowing additional opportunities for distraction while behind the wheel make about as much sense as offering shots of bourbon at toll booths. We need to provide improved driving education with exposure to car control strategies and increased penalties for failing to maintain control of a car. I understand that not everyone enjoys driving or wants to have to pay attention to the chore that is driving. If you cannot get to where you need to go any other way than via car, you are taking the responsibility to operate a vehicle and it is up to you to not make the roads less safe. It's not someone else's responsibility to provide a way for you to get where you need to be so you don't have to drive.

It seems LLN has left out a reasonable chunk of info regarding the details on shipping. Automotive News reports the Connects are shipping from a Baltimore port now to the dealers, not that the shipping has begun from Turkey (Link). Hate to spoil the Thanksgiving jokes, but it sounds like they'll start showing up before the month is over.

I, too, am unsure why so many people get so up in arms over the PT Cruiser as if it is some horrible, Aztec-like monstrosity. My father ordered one before they hit the lots in 2000 (if memory serves) and has kept it in perfect condition ever since. Sure, it's underpowered with the 4-spd auto, can't turn on a dime or an acre, and doesn't get great fuel economy, but it has a ton of interior space making it comfortable for 4 passengers and a good amount of cargo as well. It hasn't been without an occassional problem, but it serves a useful purpose and has that retro, gangster look while doing it. One of the more embarassing features is that it continually gets outshown in the fuel efficiency category by his 1999 Town Car. Two old platforms, but in the TC it's impressive to watch a big V8 that so many people say is outdated and a guzzler get 25+ mpg on highway trips. The PT needs updating, moved to a new platform with better engine/transmission, and lose a few pounds, but it has done well for Chysler. Redesigning risk taking and retro designs is always a challenge, so it will be interesting to see what a next gen PT would be like. The same goes for the New Beetle, a car currently in its 11th model year with only 1 light front/rear change (for the worse in my opinion). VW's decision to go with the 2.5L seemed like a great idea from the 120 hp 2.0L that had been standard, but their non-boosted gasoline engines have never won any fuel mileage competition and adding an extra cylinder certainly didn't help. While both the PT and NB lack ideal aerodynamics, it is certainly possible to utilize their footprints and general style in a more fuel efficient drivetrain.

Link

Well if you want to exclude enjoyment or any enthusiast pleasure fine, but there will remain a segment of the population that takes their driving as something more than a chore to get from point A to B. Dismiss it all you want because it's not the majority, but read any car magazine's review of the Prius and Insight and you will see that hybrids do not measure up. The Fusion Hybrid is a bit different in that it's an actually nice looking vehicle yet it does not have the same driving dynamics or capabilities as cars without regenerative breaking, low-rolling resistance tires, and hybrid drivetrain. That can work for most of the population who view their cars as little more than expensive appliances. It doesn't satisfy those that want to have some fun that doesn't include watching green leaves grow on the instrument panel. I would be highly surprised if the Fiesta has an average of 42 mpg as most agents I've seen report in the ~34 mpg range average. Maybe a 6-spd manual and the Powershift will help get the highway rating above 40, not the combined rating. Having heard nothing suggesting an "eco tech super efficiency" model for the US I will not even go there. I was actually the one that said to not dismiss alternatives. For some people, the way the diesel drives is more appealing to them regardless of if it comes down to saving money in the long run or not. A lot of factors go into buying a vehicle, enjoyment and personal tastes have a lot to do with the decision making process regardless of efficiency and mpgs. Personally, the light clatter of the diesel engine, while much subdued from decades past, is still a sound I greatly prefer to the near silent idle of gasoline engines. As far as city comparos, the C&D articles I cited show the Fusion returning 36.9 in their city loop. The Jetta rating is not given as it was a short test not a complete test over multiple scenarios. It is worth noting that, in your words, it's about efficiency--the Fusion Hybrid starts at $28k and the C&D as tested was $32,555. The Jetta TDI is smaller, but is also only $22,640. So, don't close the door on the alternatives because hybrids don't cut it for everybody.

Without diesel constraints but with hybrid constraints--heavier due to the batteries, lack of manual transmission for enthusiasts that enjoy shifting their own gears, etc. Personally, I am no fan of hybrids as they do not permit what I enjoy about driving. You do enjoy them, and that is great for you. The car market is plenty big enough to support more than one "solution" to the CAFE problem. The Fusion Hybrid that "absolutely TRUMPS the vaunted TDI" got 34 mpg on a recent Car&Driver test (Link) meanwhile on another C&D test, the TDI returned 33 mpg (link). The 1 mpg difference would certainly be within the margin of error due to different drivers and different conditions. So we'll call it a toss-up. You can drive the Fusion Hybrid, meanwhile I'd like to have a Fiesta/Focus diesel to suit my driving style and preferences. There's no reason to dismiss diesels with the role that they can play. Maybe they aren't the team's all-star MVP player, but they have their role and do very well at it. And you can't expect to win it all without some quality role players on the team.

I've gotta say I completely disagree with Mr. Ford on this one. The implication that because every single gas station doesn't have a diesel pump, the infrastructure for diesel is unacceptable is ludicrous. I don't think diesel will occupy a huge share of the US market, but if more options were made available I do believe it would constitute a share sufficient to be profitable for the auto makers. Let's face it, nearly every item in every store throughout the country has been transported in a vehicle using diesel at one point or another. Ford's recent comments including this article suggest to me that no one is willing to take any risks, preferring instead to do what the government supports. Ford wants someone else to decide what the regulations, strategies, and technologies will be instead of having put anything on the line. To me, this is the opposite of innovative and is a cowardly way to act regardless of what business you happen to run. Certainly you must be conservative and not over-extend yourself, but with the prospects of alternative fuels and new auto energy sources, I must agree with Mr. Manganello--it's too early to bet the farm on any one strategy. With EcoBoost, hybrids, and Electrics Ford isn't doing exactly that, but there is no reason to not explore another alternative especially if diesels could be so "easily" brought from Europe to the US. For the Fusion, the V6 is a $2500 option on the SE. I find it hard to believe that it would cost Ford any more to make a diesel option than it would the V6, and a $2500 premium is not too much to ask for a diesel. In the trucks, the diesels cost a lot more because they have capabilities far beyond what many use a pickup for. Sure, the EPA testing strategy punishes diesels' ratings, but just as Ford did for the Fusion hybrid, they can do independent tests that will generate substantially better numbers. Again, I understand the economic situation promoting diesel as a commercial fuel while gasoline is the primary personal-use fuel. Nevertheless, a well done diesel engine would likely prove profitable especially considering how "easily" existing engines could be used in the US. I know Ford will not give it a try, but it certainly would be nice to see. How about a Panther with a diesel to directly compete with the Carbon Motors police car?...ha.

Link Here's a press release for this venture. I am somewhat taken off guard by this. LLN seems convinced it will be an NGV, but other sources range from saying "gas-powered" to high-mileage so I think it's a bit premature to say it's certainly going to be an NGV. With their desire to be in production in 18 months, NGV infrastructure certainly isn't going to be much more readily available than it is today. At least this deal seems to be targeted toward a realistic price point instead of Fisker and Tesla's niche. Still, if it's truly a micro-car the appeal is going to be vastly limited toward very urban environments. I applaud ventures seeking to fill some prominent niches in the auto industry, but I believe a B/C-segment starting point is the most palatable tradeoff between public reception and economy at this time. A bit of background research shows the main investors in V-Vehicle Co. are also funding Fisker and several other tech related corporations. Also, apparently they spent some $30k in lobbying which is likely what has helped get the LA gov. and community behind them at this stage where almost nothing is known about what they intend to actually produce. Gotta start somewhere, and this should be an interesting group to follow with all of Pickens recent foray into media and environmental causes. One article I read earlier (link) states Al Gore of all people is an investor, which makes for another curious turn of events. At least they do have a well respected Mazda designer, so hopefully whatever type of vehicle it is, it will turn out looking better than a lot of upstarts' efforts.

There are so many omissions and statistics presented that belie the facts of the US medical system vs. that of Canada it would take quite some length to cover. Healthcare is best left to those that do healthcare as is evidenced by this thread and some of the many comments. As a current medical student, I have been presented with all manner of presentations on our system vs. Canada/UK/etc. that continually use statistics such as those in this article to say how terrible US healthcare is compared to any other industrialized nation. The fact is, US healthcare is the most advanced, leading edge system in place in the world. Our research continues to develop new drugs and treatments that, while costly and expensive, promote the human condition. Demonizing drug companies can just as easily be turned into saying that any corporation or individual that makes a profit is evil and deserves to have the money taken from them. Why is it wrong for a company to attempt to make money to allow for future drug development and research with a drug that positively benefits patients? The US was established as a different type of country compared to Europe and Canada, one that places the individual as the focus instead of the collective. Heathcare for everyone for "free" sounds all well and good, but healthcare is not an inalienable right that accompanies one's birth. The nation does not have a responsibilty to provide coverage for anyone or everyone, instead only that the opportunities for each citizen be such that life can be lived as he or she sees fit within the confines of the law. Our system has its faults, but the elderly and poor are already covered by Medicare/Medicaid. Plus, we have coverage for children. Those are the only populations that should be safeguarded by some government sponsored insurance program. That is not to say that healthcare costs and coverage for those that are above the Medicaid line should be ignored. Forcing people to have insurance is not acceptable according to my understanding of the Constitution, nor should that be offered as one of the ways of approaching this. Should the forced coverage be required, people near the limit on the income determined sufficient to afford coverage will likely find it easier to just stay at home and use the government plan instead of working and living as they had. That will decrease tax income. If someone could afford coverage and doesn't choose to buy it, it's too bad for them when an emergent operation has to be performed and they find themselves thousands of dollars in debt. That was the risk they took, and turns out the roulette wheel of life didn't go their way. For those that are denied coverage due to pre-existing conditions and the like, that is a tricky area, but forcing insurance companies to cover any applicant is only going to make healthcare more expensive for everyone. Also, should the government have their own plan to "compete" with the private companies, it will be a situation much like the GM/Chrysler vs. Ford scenario now. Everyone will question how much favoritism the government will have especially given the fact only Uncle Sam can spend money without having a source for the money. This will drive up taxes while driving down the quality of health care until the US system becomes like that of Canada/UK wherein those that can afford to have private coverage in addition to their government "free" coverage do so. Another aspect of government care to be considered is its impact on the number of practicing physicians. The road to an M.D. is a long, frustrating, and highly expensive one. The current trends show fewer physicians are specializing, and with government coverage that would almost certainly be exacerbated due to the decreased financial gain that would be likely in specialties vs. primary care. The US healthcare system is not perfect, but it's far and away the best system ever created.

Pedestrian safety starts by people not walking into the streets where they can get hit in the first place. I would like to know the details on how much (or little) damage new "pedestrian designed" bumpers save a person from impact. If Europe or Asia have such a massive concern to believe exterior airbags and other absurd modifications are needed at the car owner and auto manufacturer's expense, they can have them. They have more urban areas where their cars operate. I hope the US never gets to that point as people have to realize there is danger and risk inherent in every action, be it crossing a street or buying stock. I want to buy a car that is designed to survive a collision with another vehicle, not one that I can let veer onto a sidewalk while I'm changing my iPod, eating my hamburger, texting my friend, and reading a book without fear of injuring someone because I know the exterior airbag will help them. To me, the whole idea of pedestrian safety is an issue that is best and most easily solved by driver and pedestrian responsibility and attention. It requires no design changes such as higher hood lines and rounder bumpers because car vs. person isn't a battle that can be in favor of the person regardless of what is done to the car. The automobile is targeted as the guilty culprit for so many things that society deems to be important. In this case, it's a moving car that causes the harm, and every moving car should have a responsible teenager/adult behind the wheel. The problem isn't the car, it's the lack of responsibility the individual takes in operating the vehicle. Blame licensing tests or the vehicle or whatever you may, but ultimately drivers must be in control of their vehicle and aware of their surroundings to the fullest extent possible at all times. The same goes for pedestrians.

Good to know the technology is advancing as well. For those interested, pics of the crashed Fiesta are now available. Link

As the release said, the damage to the Rio was 30% of its purchase price in one of the four tests for a total aggregate damage of some 75% of the purchase price in accidents each at 6 mph or less. The Fit did only marginally better at 25% of its purchase price in one test but in total only about 48% of the purchase price. The Yaris starts around $12,500, so one of the tests was 27% of the purchase price and total 53%. In a way the total amount of damage isn't entirely relevant as it's unlikely you'll have all four collisions. On the other hand, there are some terrible drivers on the roads driving pretty banged up cars. Of the current models tested by the IIHS, the VW Rabbit and Prius have the highest average damage from these four tests. Nice to see the Focus with a $200 average advantage over the nearest competition and requiring about $3000 to repair all four tests.

Link I hope the Fiesta does considerably better than these. 5/7 tested earned poor ratings.

Link Sounds like she got lucky with where the tire made impact, but this has to help ease the safety concerns of the Fiesta being a B-segment car. Hopefully this bodes well for the IIHS and NHTSA tests so not only can the Fiesta be the most fuel efficient, but also the safest B-segment vehicle. All at a lower weight than the Fit thanks to the Boron Steel. The article does bring up an interesting situation though. Apparently the boron steel cannot be cut with the Jaws of life? Some of the people making comments seem to think that makes it less safe, but I am not so quick to dismiss it. I suppose there are other ways of going about removing sections instead of cutting the A pillar such as cutting between the A & B pillar then above the windshield? Anybody know how such things work?

Excellent post. I concur with your comments. This article's assessment of how the Auto Task Force is handling both GM and Chrysler is wildly optimistic and overly simplified. Guess there's a reason it's on GreenCarReports.com.

Link Now I'm not going to sit here and claim I think a GM/Chrysler alliance made sense either, but it calls into question how "hands off" the task force's approach is really going to be.

Link I apologize if you have to register to see that article, it's free though. "The economic boom drove auto sales to a peak of 17 million vehicles in 2005, but the market crash has pushed sales to a projected 10 million in 2009 -- nearly 42 percent below the peak. Through last year, the average annual total this decade was 16.4 million. [...] The credit bubble distorted the market and sales were much higher than they should have been," said independent auto analyst Erich Merkle. "Sales simply couldn't be sustained at those levels." But Merkle believes that, while the U.S. car market is going to be smaller, the long-term sales trend will be for around 15 million vehicles annually -- around 12 percent below the peak. "It may take a while, but the U.S. market will come back," he said. "There is a lot of pent-up demand out there." Mirko Mikelic, an analyst at Fifth Third Bank, said that while he also sees pent-up demand for cars, he expects 13 million to 14 million units annually will be the "new normal." "The market was juiced up on easy credit," he said. "With the deleveraging of the U.S. consumer, the market will be flat to depressed for years."" So GM thinks they can be profitable with 16 mil US annual sells in 2012, yet the analysts suggest nothing more than 13-15 million annually. Hmm, sounds like some funny math to me and the reason GM has been losing money for years already--overly optimistic projections of the market and their seeming ignoring of their dwindling market share. The article also states the future volume leaders will be mid-size cars. I thought they have been the leaders for many years other than the F-150? Yes, SUVs sold well in the past, but Accords, Camrys, and Tauruses before them also outpaced in total volume.

I find the mom&pop dealerships to be much more welcoming and relaxed to deal with than the mega-advertising, "we'll pay off your trade no matter how much you owe," volume places. Just a few years back my father drove 2 hrs. away past at least 3 Dodge/Chrysler dealers in order to buy from an owner/operator Chrysler Dodge dealer/service station that kept around 4 vehicles on the lot at any given time. A throwback to days gone by with hardwood floors in the showroom that fit just one car. He closed down the dealership when family health concerns came up, but he still keeps the service stations going. I fear that closing down a lot of the more rural and smaller stores will lead to decreased sales for Chrysler & GM because it's precisely the rural and small-town population that holds tightest to the drive American ideal (except for UAW workers of course). If the hometown brands are gone and they have to drive an hour into a large market, it becomes much easier to check out the Toyotas, Hondas, and other brands that locate there. Also, service is another issue some people have held as a reason to stick with the local (American) dealers versus the import brands. When there's a problem, no one wants to drive (or have the car towed) an extra hour each way to get it fixed. It has been my experience that these dealerships are as well-informed and competitive in pricing as the high volume places, and it's a shame that so many will gone to the wayside in the next couple of years. While I will not be in the market for a new vehicle for at least a couple of years, I plan to give the dealership back in my hometown and any other small market place a chance before I head to a chain establishment. I realize the market and demand has shifted to people wanting to go out and buy a car right off the lot as soon as they decide to get a new car, but it's a great feeling when you special order your car, go through the whole order book with the salesman and get exactly what you want a few weeks or months later.