Do You Understand Field's Logic? I Don't

[RichardJensen]

Well, it's really like this: a Prius is about the same in cost for fuel over 5 years, but compared to a Jetta TdI it's a lot more expensive over 7-10 (especially in resale after 5 years) because it has something like a $5-7,000 battery in it. The diesel doesn't face the slow degradation of power, performance, or fuel economy as the battery ages.

 

Again, I understand you're not going to agree with me, and I'll just trust we can re-visit in 6 months. The market has changed; that's why more diesels are becoming available. Finally, the Prius doesn't get better mileage in the real world. Even with the older generation diesels (tuned for higher sulfur fuel, or running on bio-diesel) the Jetta's won consistently in comparo's. The new ones barely cost more than a regular gas model with the tax credit. Buying a hybrid is just an excellent way to demonstrate that you don't understand economics or mechanics.

 

http://www.autoblog.com/tag/2009JettaTdi/

How do you figure the Prius is the same in cost of fuel? Further, the only mileage worth comparing is the EPA regimen, or a similarly structured evaluation from another country (e.g. UK). In the UK, the Jetta is rated at 50.7 miles/imperial gallon vs. 65.7 for the Prius. "Real world comparos" are only as good as the people doing the driving.

 

Also, one might ask how buying a vehicle that recaptures mechanical energy otherwise lost to heat (braking) demonstrates a lack of understanding of mechanics? I mean, I'm not saying that people who buy Priuses get this, I'm just saying that hybrids represent an improvement in mechanical efficiency.

[Ford Jellymoulds]

How do you figure the Prius is the same in cost of fuel? Further, the only mileage worth comparing is the EPA regimen, or a similarly structured evaluation from another country (e.g. UK). In the UK, the Jetta is rated at 50.7 miles/imperial gallon vs. 65.7 for the Prius. "Real world comparos" are only as good as the people doing the driving.

 

Also, one might ask how buying a vehicle that recaptures mechanical energy otherwise lost to heat (braking) demonstrates a lack of understanding of mechanics? I mean, I'm not saying that people who buy Priuses get this, I'm just saying that hybrids represent an improvement in mechanical efficiency.

 

Gotta say l would prefer Volvo Stationwagon diesel that averages 76 UK MPG than a small cramped gas guzzling Prius that you can't swing a mouse in that only averages 65.7 UK MPG and no dought will cost a lot more, and how much do them batteries cost replace.

http://www.autoblog.com/2008/09/09/paris-p...sel-drive-trio/

Edited September 10, 2008 by Ford Jellymoulds

[LSFan00]

Show me one evaluation where a Prius got 65.7 on the highway. I think you can find lots where the Jetta got more than 40. The one I pointed to illustrated that the only way to do anything close to that in a PRius is to drive it around 50.

 

Theoretically, recapturing that energy through a regenerative system sounds wonderful. In the real world, you are adding the battery, regenerative energy breaking gear, the electrical motor, and the split input second drive system. All of that adds up to massive maintenance costs if Joe consumer keeps it in running order for 200,000 miles/or 10 years.

 

The diesel by comparison, adds, err, well, it takes away the spark plug and lowers the vehicle weight/engine speeds.

[P71_CrownVic]

I've avoided this thread as this has been discussed in detail at least 10 times since I've been here (including before the BON crash). Diesel is not a niche solution. Yes NA offers some challenges for diesel designers, but it'll continue to grow in the market place, if fuel costs keep rising.

 

While diesel's, will replace SI (spark ignition) as the main ICE in the US just like it is in the rest of the world, it'll never completely take over the market. EB and other SI techs will keep gasser's current, but diesel tech is not sitting still either.

 

Yes I'm a fan of diesels, but I'm also a fan of SI's. Both techs will coexist untill the ICE is rendered obsolete by some new tech.

 

I agree. Saying that diesel is a "niche solution" is asinine.

 

Fact is, with a diesel, you get more power with every stroke of the piston than with a gasoline engine. It is a viable technology. Ford thinks so...they have had diesel trucks for years and now they are putting a diesel into the F-150 and Expy.

[RichardJensen]

Show me one evaluation where a Prius got 65.7 on the highway.

That's the UK Imperial gallon (multiply by .8 to get US gallons) rating. It was shown to illustrate yet another scientifically equivalent testing regimen that yields a higher rating than the Jetta.

 

And, as I said earlier, the only economy tests worth comparing are tests that are scientifically equivalent. That Autoweek test was not.

 

Finally, today's diesel systems contain no amount of expensive non-user-serviceable components--how much do you think replacing 4 high pressure injectors will cost? You can't have things both ways--extoling the virtue of the dirty-tech diesels, which were indeed more durable (and simpler) than gas engines, while advocating clean-tech diesels which require PM filter changes, very expensive DI equipment, as well as variable vane turbo chargers that probably don't come with a 200k mile MTBF rating.

 

As of this instant, the entry-level diesel 'invasion' consists of a Jetta. The only other company to promise a diesel on an entry-level product in the near term, Honda, has subsequently backed away from that promise.

 

Looking as far out as the end of 2010, there might be a diesel Accord to go along with one or two diesel VWs, and that's halfway to 2013, the earliest that you have projected 10% market share for diesel.

 

----

 

Is there a future for diesel passenger cars? Undoubtedly so. Do I think that diesels will make a major impact on the US market (10% of passenger cars = c. 1.5M vehicles, 10% of 'sedans'= roughly 500k) within as short a period as 5 years? Not a chance.

Edited September 10, 2008 by RichardJensen

[chucky2]

Wait until the next crisis hits in the ME (or elsewhere), giving the speculators another excuse to drive petroleum prices sky high (or sky higher than they already are) again.

 

Then have a US Honda Accord, with a clean diesel option, getting 50+ US mpg on the highway, mid 30's US mpg in the city...no batteries.

 

Explain to me how the Big 3 is going to compete with that - when they are just competing/just losing right now - when the best they're going to do is offer maybe high 30's mpg on the highway, who knows what for city? If you are not a 'I'll die before I buy foreign' type customer, then there is no way you'd not have an Accord like that at the very top of your list.

 

The point here is that other manufacturers are able to deliver clean diesel options to the US market - have or very soon will. The Big 3 delivers excuses. Excuses and trying to deliver competing vehicles tomorrow with what the oversea's competition has already delivered today/yesterday is not going to get the Big 3 retaining its steadily migrating customer base, nor woo customers who have grudgingly gone over to the other side.

 

The Big 3 needs to come out with game changing designs/options, something that is unquestioningly better than the competition. Ecoboost is promising, however, Ford Leadership - yet again - has F'd up and made the 3.5L the first to be released, rather than the much more efficient I-4. In the day of fuel economy woes (which has been going on for 3 years now), how could they make such a back@sswards decision???

 

Chuck

Edited September 10, 2008 by chucky2

[Deanh]

Wait until the next crisis hits in the ME (or elsewhere), giving the speculators another excuse to drive petroleum prices sky high (or sky higher than they already are) again.

 

Then have a US Honda Accord, with a clean diesel option, getting 50+ US mpg on the highway, mid 30's US mpg in the city...no batteries.

 

Explain to me how the Big 3 is going to compete with that - when they are just competing/just losing right now - when the best they're going to do is offer maybe high 30's mpg on the highway, who knows what for city? If you are not a 'I'll die before I buy foreign' type customer, then there is no way you'd not have an Accord like that at the very top of your list.

 

The point here is that other manufacturers are able to deliver clean diesel options to the US market - have or very soon will. The Big 3 delivers excuses. Excuses and trying to deliver competing vehicles tomorrow with what the oversea's competition has already delivered today/yesterday is not going to get the Big 3 retaining its steadily migrating customer base, nor woo customers who have grudgingly gone over to the other side.

 

The Big 3 needs to come out with game changing designs/options, something that is unquestioningly better than the competition. Ecoboost is promising, however, Ford Leadership - yet again - has F'd up and made the 3.5L the first to be released, rather than the much more efficient I-4. In the day of fuel economy woes (which has been going on for 3 years now), how could they make such a back@sswards decision???

 

Chuck

chuck...diesel 20-25% more expensive than gasoline...divide your 50 mpg by 75 % and you get 37.5....correct?..........I dare say by the time the Accord diesel hits the market ( and at what MSRP ) there will be gasoline powered, perhaps $ competitive Hybrids that will compete, and probably better the city Mpgs, I don't know what everyones fixation with diesel is when better alternatives may exist.

[chucky2]

chuck...diesel 20-25% more expensive than gasoline...divide your 50 mpg by 75 % and you get 37.5....correct?..........I dare say by the time the Accord diesel hits the market ( and at what MSRP ) there will be gasoline powered, perhaps $ competitive Hybrids that will compete, and probably better the city Mpgs, I don't know what everyones fixation with diesel is when better alternatives may exist.

 

I've already done the multiply by .75 to take the hit on tougher US emissions, and the imperial to US conversion. If you look at UK diesel mpg (which is in Imperial), the mpg a diesel Focus is producing is just F'ing embarrassing - embarrassing to the US at least. 74mpg highway.

 

The % expense for diesel that's thrown out is generally 20%. Here in the Chicagoland, IL area, gas by me is say $4/gl. Diesel is $4.70/gal. Lets do some math:

 

Focus has a 14.5 gal tank. 14.5 gal x 50mpg highway (lets say the Focus got Honda's clean diesel tech, just for an example, and it only gets 50 mpg, which is really lowballing it given the real mpg the Jetta TDI's are already seeing on the highway). That's 725 miles, cost of $68.15. Now gas: We take 725 miles, lets be really generous and say 39 mpg (even though no gas option will exist that will get close to that mpg, and give near the torque performance of the diesel), we get 18.59 gallons, at $4 a gallon, gets us $74.36. A little over $8 difference, for less performance, and the inconvienence of extra fillup. Plus, since we should be trying to reduce our reliance on petroleum, that's another 4.09 gallons of finished petroleum (finished since that's what it is that you have to burn extra, which doesn't take into account the transpo costs of that additional crude here, the additional costs of refining it, and the additional costs of taking the now gas and getting it to the gas station).

 

4.09 gallons more and $8 more per 725 miles. And this example has been skewed in favor of gas. If someone drives 13k a year, that's 17.93x they'd apppy those numbers, which gets you $143.44 and 73.33 gallons of gas. Times the hundreds of thousands of small cars sold/operated in the US each year.

 

This is why, nationally (and in individual cases where more miles are driven each year), not having these high mpg diesel options is just amazing stupid. Given multi-$Billion losses quarter over quarter, the Big 3 can't afford anymore of their past stupidity.

 

Chuck

[Deanh]

I've already done the multiply by .75 to take the hit on tougher US emissions, and the imperial to US conversion. If you look at UK diesel mpg (which is in Imperial), the mpg a diesel Focus is producing is just F'ing embarrassing - embarrassing to the US at least. 74mpg highway.

 

The % expense for diesel that's thrown out is generally 20%. Here in the Chicagoland, IL area, gas by me is say $4/gl. Diesel is $4.70/gal. Lets do some math:

 

Focus has a 14.5 gal tank. 14.5 gal x 50mpg highway (lets say the Focus got Honda's clean diesel tech, just for an example, and it only gets 50 mpg, which is really lowballing it given the real mpg the Jetta TDI's are already seeing on the highway). That's 725 miles, cost of $68.15. Now gas: We take 725 miles, lets be really generous and say 39 mpg (even though no gas option will exist that will get close to that mpg, and give near the torque performance of the diesel), we get 18.59 gallons, at $4 a gallon, gets us $74.36. A little over $8 difference, for less performance, and the inconvienence of extra fillup. Plus, since we should be trying to reduce our reliance on petroleum, that's another 4.09 gallons of finished petroleum (finished since that's what it is that you have to burn extra, which doesn't take into account the transpo costs of that additional crude here, the additional costs of refining it, and the additional costs of taking the now gas and getting it to the gas station).

 

4.09 gallons more and $8 more per 725 miles. And this example has been skewed in favor of gas. If someone drives 13k a year, that's 17.93x they'd apppy those numbers, which gets you $143.44 and 73.33 gallons of gas. Times the hundreds of thousands of small cars sold/operated in the US each year.

 

This is why, nationally (and in individual cases where more miles are driven each year), not having these high mpg diesel options is just amazing stupid. Given multi-$Billion losses quarter over quarter, the Big 3 can't afford anymore of their past stupidity.

 

Chuck

so for ( and lets skew a little in favor of the diesel ) approx $20 bucks a month, or $5 dollars a week one only has to spend how much more to get a car with a diesel engine?????????????? Ballpark 3-4 grand extra for a diesel....that means in 150-200 months you will start to re-coup your $......real smart.....thats 12.5 - 16.6 years.........you brainwashed MPG slaves are missing the MOST important $ figure of all.....OVERALL cost of ownership....

[chucky2]

so for ( and lets skew a little in favor of the diesel ) approx $20 bucks a month, or $5 dollars a week one only has to spend how much more to get a car with a diesel engine?????????????? Ballpark 3-4 grand extra for a diesel....that means in 150-200 months you will start to re-coup your $......real smart.....thats 12.5 - 16.6 years.........you brainwashed MPG slaves are missing the MOST important $ figure of all.....OVERALL cost of ownership....

 

Yes, except in my example we said gassers were going to get 39 mpg on the highway, and diesel was only going to get 50. These ratio's btw do not hold anywhere true where gas and diesel options exist in the same platform (go check out the Focus mpg numbers in the UK if you want a prime example of this), to say nothing of performance (when taking that fuel efficient gas option the car becomes a dog, going with diesel gets you far far far better mpg and doesn't castrate performance).

 

Next we have you applying 3-4 grand extra for a diesel...where did you get that number??? Here we have a publication saying VW will be charging $2k more for the '09 Jetta TDI...which is the first offering (read: it's niche, hasn't even hit economy of scale, meaning, it's as expensive as it'll get). Then we have a $1300 dollar tax credit the Fed. will give those buyers.

 

Suddenly your math isn't working out so well against diesel.....

 

Chuck

Edited September 10, 2008 by chucky2

[LSFan00]

chuck...diesel 20-25% more expensive than gasoline...divide your 50 mpg by 75 % and you get 37.5....correct?..........I dare say by the time the Accord diesel hits the market ( and at what MSRP ) there will be gasoline powered, perhaps $ competitive Hybrids that will compete, and probably better the city Mpgs, I don't know what everyones fixation with diesel is when better alternatives may exist.

 

Better alternatives exist if you like to pay more for maintenance for a vehicle that won't last as long. For those of you paying attention, "the $2,000 premium for the TDI engine will be lessened somewhat by the Fed's $1,300 tax credit which applies to either TDI model."

[joihan777]

Have you considered repairs & maintenance? That adds to the cost of ownership.

 

Diesel mechanics are few and far between compared to gasoline mechanics.

 

Also, I've seen a few VW diesels (~2003, 2005 MY?) that are already ticking.

 

Don't know if that annoying ticking is for VW's only or is it inherent to diesel engines in general.

[Deanh]

Yes, except in my example we said gassers were going to get 39 mpg on the highway, and diesel was only going to get 50. These ratio's btw do not hold anywhere true where gas and diesel options exist in the same platform (go check out the Focus mpg numbers in the UK if you want a prime example of this), to say nothing of performance (when taking that fuel efficient gas option the car becomes a dog, going with diesel gets you far far far better mpg and doesn't castrate performance).

 

Next we have you applying 3-4 grand extra for a diesel...where did you get that number??? Here we have a publication saying VW will be charging $2k more for the '09 Jetta TDI...which is the first offering (read: it's niche, hasn't even hit economy of scale, meaning, it's as expensive as it'll get). Then we have a $1300 dollar tax credit the Fed. will give those buyers.

 

Suddenly your math isn't working out so well against diesel.....

 

Chuck

I hear what you are saying...but we were talking the Honda....watch...as for the Jetta...try and get a discount let alone MSRP....now add in the fact i doubt it has subveened interest rates.....and what actually is MSRP for the most popular model?......must admit I do not know, and last i looked they were not even avail yet...i am going to guess there is a certain fusion hybrid that will sticker for a similar # and perform better with HOPEFULLY similar #;s.....but I STILL think there are better and fiscally wiser alternatives...especially in light of VW;s NOTORIOUSLY expensive maintenence records....

[Deanh]

Better alternatives exist if you like to pay more for maintenance for a vehicle that won't last as long. For those of you paying attention, "the $2,000 premium for the TDI engine will be lessened somewhat by the Fed's $1,300 tax credit which applies to either TDI model."

note to LS....most people do NOT keep a car longer than 4 years max.....most trades are 60k or less....which adds to my point.....and seriously, i think the whole means of propulsion is going to be stood on its ear soon....ethanol gas injection anyone? according to readings THAT powerplant completely makes diesel redundant in terms of HP, torque AND potential mpgs....another could be the gas engine that operates similarly to the diesel ( called diesotto I think )....I really think diesels days are numbered.....

[Deanh]

Better alternatives exist if you like to pay more for maintenance for a vehicle that won't last as long. For those of you paying attention, "the $2,000 premium for the TDI engine will be lessened somewhat by the Fed's $1,300 tax credit which applies to either TDI model."

last i looked a diesel engined oil change was close to 2 1/2 times that of a gasser ( referencing F-250 obviously....but I am curious if the VW will be approx 60-70 dollars )

[RichardJensen]

Then have a US Honda Accord, with a clean diesel option, getting 50+ US mpg on the highway, mid 30's US mpg in the city...no batteries.

 

The point here is that other manufacturers are able to deliver clean diesel options to the US market - have or very soon will.

 

The Big 3 needs to come out with game changing designs/options, something that is unquestioningly better than the competition.

http://www.blueovalforums.com/forums/index...st&p=400724

 

Not an ounce of support for the assertion that a US SPEC ACCORD weighing several hundred pounds more than the EU spec Accord and with much more restrictive exhaust management will get the same mileage. Just a link to a NY Times article.

 

with only ONE entry level clean diesel on the market and a vague and already delayed promise of another, you are prepared to hail the imports, generally, as triumphing over the domestics.

 

Frankly, and feel free to correct me on this, but you are unlikely to be pleased by anything Ford does. Why? I don't know, and to be brutally honest, I don't particularly care.

[chucky2]

I hear what you are saying...but we were talking the Honda....watch...as for the Jetta...try and get a discount let alone MSRP....now add in the fact i doubt it has subveened interest rates.....and what actually is MSRP for the most popular model?......must admit I do not know, and last i looked they were not even avail yet...i am going to guess there is a certain fusion hybrid that will sticker for a similar # and perform better with HOPEFULLY similar #;s.....but I STILL think there are better and fiscally wiser alternatives...especially in light of VW;s NOTORIOUSLY expensive maintenence records....

 

Oh, I understand on the discounts...I'm applying my diesel scenario to Ford Focus's, Ford Taurus's, Ford Flex's, Ford Edge's, Ford Rangers, Ford F-150's, etc. No problem getting discounts on those, or dealing with snobby Stealership people. Plus given the recent bump in Big 3 quality efforts, there is no VW maintenance argument to contend with - I wouldn't buy a VW on that point alone...no such worries with Ford.

 

The Fusion hybrid uses batteries, and as such, due to the creation and disposal of such tech, is an automatic No Buy for me.

 

Chuck

[RichardJensen]

due to the creation and disposal of such tech

Hmmm.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So how do you turn your TV on?

 

But seriously--batteries are recycled. As to manufacturing, well, what about the lead-acid battery in your car? Where, exactly, do you draw the line in pollution you tolerate and pollution you just can't conscience?

[chucky2]

http://www.blueovalforums.com/forums/index...st&p=400724

 

Not an ounce of support for the assertion that a US SPEC ACCORD weighing several hundred pounds more than the EU spec Accord and with much more restrictive exhaust management will get the same mileage. Just a link to a NY Times article.

 

What is there for me to say??? The US spec Accord, for which we already have gas mpg numbers for, already weighs more to meet crash specs. The same diesel tech that will - undoubtably - make it's way from the US Acura TSX to the US Accord will go into the same US crash worthy Accord. I fail to see your point here on weight - a torquey diesel is going to suffer much less in terms of weight than the less torquey gassers we already have here. Are you trying to make a point for diesel here??? Beause, you're doing a good job of it by bringing that up...

 

Next you bring up restrictive exhaust management...to which I say, So? We've already seen the hit the Imperial to US gallon conversion does, along with the (allegedly) more restrictive exhaust (and precisely how much more was that again???)...they were getting 53+ US mpg driving 75 mph... So again, you're trying to make a point for diesel here, Right???

 

with only ONE entry level clean diesel on the market and a vague and already delayed promise of another, you are prepared to hail the imports, generally, as triumphing over the domestics.

 

I'm not hailing anyone...yet. I am bemoaning that I see the Big 3 innovating against today and last years targets, and their "innovations" when they finally hit the market will be 2-4 years behind what the competition is selling at that point....and of course, will not be as good. If this is acceptable to you (as it is to Ford Leadership), then by all means, Hail the Big 3 away.

 

Answer this clearly though: When Acura rolls out the TSX this year, and it gets 50+mpg, and then Honda sees those sales numbers and rolls that ready to go design into the Accord, Odessy, Ridgeline, etc., thereby making big cuts into the near death Big 3, what will be your excuse then? I fail to see your logic here in blind dismissal of a promising tech (that has proved itself without question in Europe already), while doing blind acceptance of a tech from Ford (Ecoboost, which has yet to have any real mpg numbers produced for it) and declaring a winner. I have to ask, given your attitude: Are you a member of Ford Leadership? Because you sure think a lot like them...

 

Frankly, and feel free to correct me on this, but you are unlikely to be pleased by anything Ford does. Why? I don't know, and to be brutally honest, I don't particularly care.

 

Well, let me correct you then: I am pleased by things Ford does. The Focus and Fusion are great, I love the Flex, the Edge is 90% there IMHO. I'm not sure on the new F-150...I like the 70's designs more (78'ish), but I understand that's not doable...still though, when I think of an F-150, a '78 is what pops into my mind. Taurus/Taurus X I like, although I like the Taurus more. The Mazda3 and Mazda6, while not Ford, are still great designs. I'd k1ll for a Volvo C70 hardtop, or a nice S60 R...

 

I don't bash Ford Leadership decisions because I hate FoMoCo, I bash them because I love FoMoCo. That's why it's unacceptable to me that they, again and again, make bad decisions. Worse, they collect multi-$Million packages, and the people that suffer are the blue and white collar peons...and with the $50B bailout that's going to be asked for, now us as taxpayers (after we've already suffered with lack of options/competition).

 

Blind acceptance of Ford Leadership decision is exactly what got Ford in this mess in the first place though, so continuing to slurp slurp them isn't going to get FoMoCo fixed, help the peon workers, help us (through products of tax burden), or help US manufacturing/economy.

 

Chuck

Edited September 10, 2008 by chucky2

[Edstock]

along with the (allegedly) more restrictive exhaust (and precisely how much more was that again???)

There's nothing "(allegedly)" about it. US diesel regs are WAY more restrictive than EU ones, with power and fuel economy losses.

 

Elsewhere on the site is a video of Bob Lutz explaining this in terms even you can understand. Here it is.

 

As the doughty PCSario says, "Watch this and get back to us."

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xXA22Q0qXNM

[chucky2]

There's nothing "(allegedly)" about it. US diesel regs are WAY more restrictive than EU ones, with power and fuel economy losses.

 

US diesel regs being more restrictive then EU diesel regs (something I've never once disputed), has nothing to do with alleging that because of those tougher regs, the exhaust will somehow become so all consuming restrictive that the mpg hit will make it not worth it. Maybe they are, but, to what degree? Is there a detune that is responsible for some of the mpg loss? Some of it, undoubtabley, will come from weight. So we have: Imperial to US conversion loss, probably detune loss, loss due to weight gain for crash standards loss...and whatever is left will be the exhaust loss. What you two are saying is you know it's the exhaust restriction that's causing the big disparity in EU diesel mpg and US diesel mpg. To which I ask: How do you know???

 

Elsewhere on the site is a video of Bob Lutz explaining this in terms even you can understand. Here it is.

 

As the doughty PCSario says, "Watch this and get back to us."

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xXA22Q0qXNM

 

That's actually how I entered this thread. That VW has the TDI (something the Big 3 couldn't handle producing), and that Acura (Honda) will have the TSX sometime in '09 with a diesel option (one that has already put up 53+ US mpg as a demo sample), tells me Lutz, and the Big 3 Leadership, is at their game again....that game being excuses instead of production. Honda and VW are producing, Big 3 making excuses. Nothing new here folks, move along......

 

Chuck

[RichardJensen]

When Acura rolls out the TSX this year, and it gets 50+mpg

 

 

 

WHEN?????????????

 

What the heck is WRONG with you? Don't you mean IF???????

 

 

 

 

 

 

Here, let me SHOW you something:

 

DIESEL JETTA US RATING: 30 & 41mpg

DIESEL JETTA UK RATING: 32 & 47mpg

 

DIESEL ACCORD UK RATING: 32 & 50mpg

DIESEL TSX US RATING? 30 mpg & 43mpg--maybe?

 

Combined rating? 36mpg.

 

Combined rating for a vehicle hundreds of pounds heavier? Not likely to be higher.

 

Estimated combined rating of the Fusion hybrid? c. 35mpg.

 

 

But of course, we're all about declaiming against hybrids. Even real hybirds with job 1 dates in a matter of weeks. We would prefer a Ford Motor Company that was only making vague promises of a diesel Fusion sometime in the indefinite future.

[chucky2]

WHEN?????????????

 

What the heck is WRONG with you? Don't you mean IF???????

 

It's not a rumor (as in the past), they've actually announced it (just, not the exact date). This would be like saying, Ecoboost WHEN, Don't you mean IF??? Do you understand this?

 

Here, let me SHOW you something:

 

DIESEL JETTA US RATING: 30 & 41mpg

DIESEL JETTA UK RATING: 32 & 47mpg

 

DIESEL ACCORD UK RATING: 32 & 50mpg

DIESEL TSX US RATING? 30 mpg & 43mpg--maybe?

 

Combined rating? 36mpg.

 

Combined rating for a vehicle hundreds of pounds heavier? Not likely to be higher.

 

So the Jetta took a 6mpg hit between the Imperial to US conversion, greater weight due to crash standards, and meeting US emissions. 3rd party testing has it at 44mpg on the highway, but, we may be able to make that same argument for a gasser, so, lets leave it out. 47 EU mpg to 41 US mpg, a 13% overall loss. Lets think about this now: The diesel 1.6L EU Ford Focus gets 74.2 mpg (Imperial gallons); incidentally, that's 61.9 US mpg, if the EU method of testing was used. So, lets take 74.2 EU mpg and, hey, I'll give you 20%, instead of 13%...lets skew it far in your favor. 74.2 * .80 = ????? Well, it equals.....59.36 mpg (estimated). I far skewed the number to be in your favor, and I'm at an estimated US 59.36 mpg. Do you seriously want to keep playing with numbers???? You (and Ford Leadership) keep losing here, drastically.

 

 

Estimated combined rating of the Fusion hybrid? c. 35mpg.

 

 

But of course, we're all about declaiming against hybrids. Even real hybirds with job 1 dates in a matter of weeks. We would prefer a Ford Motor Company that was only making vague promises of a diesel Fusion sometime in the indefinite future.

 

You just did it again...you just made a case against what Ford's doing. You just took estimated lowball diesel '09 TSX numbers, and showed how the expensive battery assisted Fusion is going to get the same combined mpg. You took what will be a vehicle that for it's life, will get high mpg (and most likely higher than what you put in to make it look bad), against a vehicle that will need expensive batteries replaced later in its life. And they get the same mpg. Good job there.

 

Just stop. Please. We can agree to just disagree. The hybrid Fusion that will need expensive battery replacement will be out in a few weeks...sometime in '09 the TSX will be out. We can revisit then when the real options are available with real numbers, and real pricing.

 

Chuck

[RichardJensen]

So the Jetta took a 6mpg hit between the Imperial to US conversion, greater weight due to crash standards, and meeting US emissions.

 

I already DID the imperial to US conversion.

 

Also, apparently you DIDN'T read the substantial documentation supplied to underline the difference in fuel economy testing regimens.

 

You just took estimated lowball diesel '09 TSX numbers, and showed how the expensive battery assisted Fusion is going to get the same combined mpg. You took what will be a vehicle that for it's life, will get high mpg (and most likely higher than what you put in to make it look bad), against a vehicle that will need expensive batteries replaced later in its life. And they get the same mpg. Good job there.

 

1: The TSX is NOT THE SAME SIZE as the FUSION. IT IS SMALLER.

 

2: Where do you get this 'diesels will last forever and ever and nothing will ever break on them' crap? Do you think those diesel fuel injectors will last forever? You think you ain't going to be out well over a grand to replace them? And how much is that PM filter going to cost to replace? Or are you just going to put a piece of black electrical tape over the check engine light?

 

----

 

Feel free to disagree, but for crying out loud, try and separate fact from speculation.

[chucky2]

I already DID the imperial to US conversion.

 

Yes, I know...that's why I stated that, along with the other likely contributors of the mpg hit. What was your point in stating you already did the conversion???

 

Also, apparently you DIDN'T read the substantial documentation supplied to underline the difference in fuel economy testing regimens.

 

I read most of it...but, it's overall irrelevant. There is no possible way that the difference between EU Block IV emissions testing and US EPA 2008 scale emissions testing could possibly lead to such a large discrepency in numbers. I saw you totally ignored the whole breakdown of mpg figures I did for the diesel 1.6L UK Ford Focus...here, I'll give you the relevant numbers again: 74.2 mpg (EU emissions testing, Imperial gallons) * 20% (which takes into account when looking at the diesel Jetta numbers you so nicely provided, all relevant emissions testing, Imperial to US gallon conversion, etc.....plus, gives 35% more leeway against my argument and for yours). The result: 59.36 US mpg highway. Even giving another 10 US mpg highway, that's 49+ mph highway. That number is so incredibly skewed toward your argument as to basically invalidate any excuse you could possibly come up with, and it still makes the incoming Ford Fusion Hybrid your slobbering over look weak - no $5000 USD replacement batteries down the road needed, either.

 

Your, and Lutz's video, argument will be that clean diesel in the US isn't doable. Well, these crazy companies called VW, Mercedes, and Honda beg to differ. The Big 3 (and your) excuse: It's too hard!!! Waaaaa!!!

 

After the ownage above, I guess I'll comment on your below, even though it's not really relevant either:

 

1: The TSX is NOT THE SAME SIZE as the FUSION. IT IS SMALLER.

 

Not really (and, I just went an compared interior dimensions...it's really not that much smaller at all, if any). But, nice strawman argument there. I never compared Fusion and TSX, you did. I could care less if Fusion and TSX are totally different cars. What I want to see are Fusion's city and highway mpg's, and the US diesel '09 TSX's city and highway mpg's. Then I want to see prices. Then we'll know which is the better long term solution (don't forget to add in the $5k US cost of replacing those super duper Ford batteries in a few years). Time will tell......

 

2: Where do you get this 'diesels will last forever and ever and nothing will ever break on them' crap? Do you think those diesel fuel injectors will last forever? You think you ain't going to be out well over a grand to replace them? And how much is that PM filter going to cost to replace? Or are you just going to put a piece of black electrical tape over the check engine light?

 

Did I ever say they'd last forever? Did I ever say they'd never break? No x 2. Then again, looking at your disaster costs estimates, and then this link, tells a quite different story. The particulate filter? Wow...it has to be changed once every 75k, talk about pain and suffering.

 

----

 

Feel free to disagree, but for crying out loud, try and separate fact from speculation.

 

What's sad is that, I give fact, you go on benders. You are part of Ford Management, aren't you....

 

Chuck

Edited September 11, 2008 by chucky2