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

[Deanh]

Oh, btw, Ford NA's answer to higher-mileage vehicles is (gas) twin turbo's. You may have heard of that. Heat does affect things like wear inside engines, and especially happens where things run faster. Valves, pistons, cranks, all of that runs faster on gas engines. There aren't any industrial gas engine applications to speak of precisely because, well, you are wrong about diesel; it is a superior technology. The 6.8 is not an argument against diesel. It's an argument against poor subcontracting and manufacturing quality, period.

 

Thanks for playing, though.

please...come visit our service drive, open invitation....now back in the sand pit.....and yes, my opinion is based on the Navistars and Duramaxes and VW's prior TDI issues....not much else to gauge opinion on really is there? And bringing up industrial applications has NOTHING to do with vehicular applications....loping constantly at 1500 rpms is SO far removed from on the road parameters makes me wonder why the point was even brought up...........

Edited September 12, 2008 by Deanh

[Edstock]

Oh, btw, Ford NA's answer to higher-mileage vehicles is (gas) twin turbo's. You may have heard of that.

Plus hybrids. You may have heard of them, even though you forgot to metion them.

 

Also, as you may know, Ford sees diesel as part of the equation, with diesel taking some 10% of production around 2015. That is from a Ford slide-presentation from almost a year ago.

 

So, Ford is using EB, hybrid and diesel. Thanks for playing.

[Deanh]

Plus hybrids. You may have heard of them, even though you forgot to metion them.

 

Also, as you may know, Ford sees diesel as part of the equation, with diesel taking some 10% of production around 2015. That is from a Ford slide-presentation from almost a year ago.

 

So, Ford is using EB, hybrid and diesel. Thanks for playing.

funny how everyone has this beleif of a diesels longevity.......I have one customer with a fleet of 10 E-150 vans north of 800k per unit....4.6l engines faithfully maintained......I for one would LOVE a small 6 speed diesel Connect....but hey....I am NOT a firm beleiver in diesels superiority, maintain a gas engine, don't beat the crap outa it and it can last a lifetime as well...or, more importantly, as long as one OWNS the car....

Edited September 12, 2008 by Deanh

[Hemiman]

Yeah, but that doesn't necessarily translate to passenger applications. I wonder how well passenger diesels will stand up to the kind of abuse the typical owner gives his typical automobile (i.e. deferred maintenance, jackrabbit starts, etc.)

 

I would guess that your diesels don't get run at 11/10ths and do get all their scheduled maintenance spot-on-time.

 

 

We have great mechanics. We HAD (past-tense), a great maint program. First thing cut when executives want more money in their pockets is preventive maint. We'll see........

 

My main experience with pass diesels, has been with MB 4 & 5 Cyl as well as GM 6.2L (military Chevy's). Biggest problem in those old school prechamber types was glow plugs. Otherwise rock solid.

 

Just a note. The legendary longevity of diesels may be a thing of the past, especially light duty pass apps. The advent of EFI with staged injection events, has reduced initial combustion pressures, allowing lighter (less durable?) construction.

[LSFan00]

Plus hybrids. You may have heard of them, even though you forgot to metion them.

 

Also, as you may know, Ford sees diesel as part of the equation, with diesel taking some 10% of production around 2015. That is from a Ford slide-presentation from almost a year ago.

 

So, Ford is using EB, hybrid and diesel. Thanks for playing.

 

Thanks, I've seen the slide. One slide saying they might implement some passenger diesel in the US in the next 7 years isn't really a strategy, it's a fallback. I like how you fault me for not mentioning hybrids and then explain that Ford (and you I guess) are also doing diesels, based on that one slide, in the next 7 years so everyone should just be happy and shut up about it already. My whole point, around 5 pages ago, was that we should just wait 6 months and see at this point, how strong the VW sales are and what Honda rolls out, because Ford NA ain't doing anything in the mean time here and no one wins a fight on the internet.

 

My secondary point is that Ford has great passenger duratorq diesels (and Mazda is bringing some to the US apparently), and that by procrastinating in putting them in Ford-badged products, here, they may be missing an opportunity to appear both green and as a leader. If this board weren't so obsessed with browbeating disagreeing opinions I think this could be understood fairly quickly.

[mlhm5]

At this point, yes I do.

 

Are you willing to pay $25K for a B-class car??? Now, before you answer, do understand that this engine does not meet US emissions standards. Thus, making it do so will decrease its fuel economy by a significant amount. Think fuel economy in the 40's. Also, before answering, remember that diesel fuel is still close to 20% more expensive than gasoline. Also, before you answer, remember that there is no culture of diesel cars in the US. People are dumping diesel trucks like the plague, due to the higher price of diesel.

 

With Fords current profitability issues, I just cannot see them taking a leap of faith that people in the US are going to embrace diesel cars, with their higher initial cost, higher maintenance costs, noise, and the diesel stigma. They will let a couple of the smaller manufacturers take the plunge, and see what happens.

 

When you do not have the money to throw away, you have to be cautious of how you spend it.

 

So, again, yes I do understand.

 

You are dead wrong about the price difference between diesel and regular gas. Nationally it is closer to 10% than 20% difference and dropping.

 

Ford is dead wrong on this decision and will pay for it because they will not have a diesel passenger car in the USA market and many others will.

[Deanh]

You are dead wrong about the price difference between diesel and regular gas. Nationally it is closer to 10% than 20% difference and dropping.

 

Ford is dead wrong on this decision and will pay for it because they will not have a diesel passenger car in the USA market and many others will.

please define "many" others........say hello to Chuck.

[Deanh]

Thanks, I've seen the slide. One slide saying they might implement some passenger diesel in the US in the next 7 years isn't really a strategy, it's a fallback. I like how you fault me for not mentioning hybrids and then explain that Ford (and you I guess) are also doing diesels, based on that one slide, in the next 7 years so everyone should just be happy and shut up about it already. My whole point, around 5 pages ago, was that we should just wait 6 months and see at this point, how strong the VW sales are and what Honda rolls out, because Ford NA ain't doing anything in the mean time here and no one wins a fight on the internet.

 

My secondary point is that Ford has great passenger duratorq diesels (and Mazda is bringing some to the US apparently), and that by procrastinating in putting them in Ford-badged products, here, they may be missing an opportunity to appear both green and as a leader. If this board weren't so obsessed with browbeating disagreeing opinions I think this could be understood fairly quickly.

LS....understand where you are coming from...but understand this...low sulphur diesel, and urea injection, exhaust scrubbing etc are just the tips of the iceberg when it comes to ever increasing emission requirements....AND expensive....I think diesel is in for a really rough road in the future in passenger cars.....there is a better chance of PZEV ( which may become the m,andated standard ) gas than diesel...EASILY, and the first time a manufacturer comes out with a GAS alternative that equates to within 5% of diesels so called advantage the public will ignore diesel alternatives.....I just ask this one question...why do you think it has pretty much been ignored here by EVERYONE....do you think they never sat down and made a business case for it? America is a little over the top i agree....sure would be nice to have the econectic here, but there are STRONG reasons why it was not considered viable....and people defeating to VW's TDI and Hondas vaporware is absolutely hilarious...those two cars together are not going to standthe market on its ear.....

[StevenCaylor]

You are dead wrong about the price difference between diesel and regular gas. Nationally it is closer to 10% than 20% difference and dropping.

 

Ford is dead wrong on this decision and will pay for it because they will not have a diesel passenger car in the USA market and many others will.

 

It all depends on what part of the country you're in. Just checked prices on the way back from grocery shopping. So far, we're down to $3.66 for 87 octane. Diesel is $4.39. That's approximately a 20% difference.

[7upMustang]

Don't forget too that most people are NOT car enthusiasts. There is alot of mention on here for the TDI beating the EPA milage. Most people looking at a car will never be aware of this. They look at the window sticker. Also, many will not take the time to figure out exactly if there is a payback or not. They see diesel is more exspensive than gas and are turned off immediately. People also tend to make irrational decisions. One example is a relative of mine who is definately not a car person. She does not care what she drives, but she traded in her paid off car (a gas powered new beatle) for a Prius to save on gas costs. She gave me a bewildered look when I mentioned to her how she is not spending more with the car payment she has now. She just got caught up in the whole high gas price issue.

[LSFan00]

You're right about the sticker, and Ford shouldn't (try to) copy the Jetta. But there are options, which, beyond the hyperbole of the "it can't be brought here, it would never pass emissions" crowd, could help in at least a marketing/niche product way for Ford. I seriously doubt the Nox from this engine would struggle to pass T2B5.

 

63MPG Fiesta?

As the new Ford Fiesta goes on sale in Europe, on of the highlights of the lineup is the new ecoNetic model that gets a combined fuel efficiency rating of 63.5 mpg (U.S.) on the EU cycle. Yes, I know the European cycle is different and testing the same on the EPA cycle would probably yield something closer to 50 mpg, but the highway rating would probably still be up around 60 mpg with its 1.6L diesel engine. Ford isn't planning to offer the ecoNetic when the Fiesta launches here because the bean counters don't seem to think Americans would pay $25,000 for such car. I agree with Richard Truett at Automotive News that Ford may well be wrong on this point. If nothing else, just having the bragging rights of offering a car that gets 60 mpg or more on the highway would be worth it to Ford, and probably worth $25,000 to a decent number of buyers. In the past, automakers have offered stripped-down small cars that sold in low volumes just so they could advertise the low ball prices.

 

[RichardJensen]

http://www.vcacarfueldata.org.uk/search/ve...ls.asp?id=21745

http://www.vcacarfueldata.org.uk/search/ve...ls.asp?id=21746

 

Per the UK website, the 1.6L Fiesta engine is spewing out NOx at c. 3x Tier 2 Bin 5 levels. With more stringent Tier 2 Bin 3 standards being phased in, NOx emissions are even worse, at over 7x allowable level. PM isn't regulated under current EU standards, but the second diesel listed does come with a particulate filter.

 

I would assume that those Econetic engines run with a pretty lean burn, thus the rather high NOx levels.

Edited September 13, 2008 by RichardJensen

[FordBuyer]

LS....understand where you are coming from...but understand this...low sulphur diesel, and urea injection, exhaust scrubbing etc are just the tips of the iceberg when it comes to ever increasing emission requirements....AND expensive....I think diesel is in for a really rough road in the future in passenger cars.....there is a better chance of PZEV ( which may become the m,andated standard ) gas than diesel...EASILY, and the first time a manufacturer comes out with a GAS alternative that equates to within 5% of diesels so called advantage the public will ignore diesel alternatives.....I just ask this one question...why do you think it has pretty much been ignored here by EVERYONE....do you think they never sat down and made a business case for it? America is a little over the top i agree....sure would be nice to have the econectic here, but there are STRONG reasons why it was not considered viable....and people defeating to VW's TDI and Hondas vaporware is absolutely hilarious...those two cars together are not going to standthe market on its ear.....

 

With modern diesel, you have to stop by dealer every 10,000 miles and get a urea injection. Now that sounds gross. :hyper: And many drivers I notice would never take it in until vehicle just stops on road as they just won't do it until they have to. I don't think the urea injection problem is going to fly with most Americans. Think I'll stick with good ol regualar unleaded gas.

[mlhm5]

please define "many" others........say hello to Chuck.

 

VW, Honda, Nissan, MB, BMW, Subaru, Audi, Kia and Mahindra & Mahindra, all have announced.

[fxcomet]

VW, Honda, Nissan, MB, BMW, Subaru, Audi, Kia and Mahindra & Mahindra, all have announced.

 

And exactly how many of those will be "B Class" cars? Oopsie.

[chiefstang]

Not to mention the fact that you have to wear plastic gloves at the gas station to keep from smelling like an Army motor pool. If I want something that drives like a truck, I'll buy a truck. Don't really want my neighbors running their garbage cans out to the curb every time I go to work.

[RichardJensen]

VW, Honda, Nissan, MB, BMW, Subaru, Audi, Kia and Mahindra & Mahindra, all have announced.

Mahindra & Mahindra?

 

You MUST be kidding me.

 

Weren't we supposed to be drowning in Chinese cars by now? Wasn't there going to be MGs built in Oklahoma next year?

[Ford Jellymoulds]

http://www.vcacarfueldata.org.uk/search/ve...ls.asp?id=21745

http://www.vcacarfueldata.org.uk/search/ve...ls.asp?id=21746

 

Per the UK website, the 1.6L Fiesta engine is spewing out NOx at c. 3x Tier 2 Bin 5 levels. With more stringent Tier 2 Bin 3 standards being phased in, NOx emissions are even worse, at over 7x allowable level. PM isn't regulated under current EU standards, but the second diesel listed does come with a particulate filter.

 

I would assume that those Econetic engines run with a pretty lean burn, thus the rather high NOx levels.

 

You drive pick-ups in the US Richard, we drive Fiesta's what are NOx numbers for a Ford pick-up 6.4L power stroke diesel that those clean living Californians would pose in, just interested?

 

Maybe Ford need to fit an environmently friendly Californian approved compliant 6.4L power stroke into a Fiesta, it might help clean up the air in Europe instead of Econetic we could call it the Fiesta Power Stroke (Approved by the State of Californiania).

 

Maybe Europe needs buy more Californian approved Ford pick-ups 1,000 sale last month, no wonder your airs so clean you buy millions every year Stateside, l can see where we are going wrong we neeeeeeeeeeeed to buy more pick-ups to clean our air.

[one2gamble]

Ya that would be funny if trucks and cars were tested on the same scales

[V8 Ford]

Ya that would be funny if trucks and cars were tested on the same scales

They are, including Heavy duty vehicles sold for personal use under 10,000lb GVWR. The way EPA ratings work is all regulated vehicles must fall within at least Tier 2 Bin 8 Standards (as of 08 model year), and all vehicles sold by a company must average out to Tier 2 Bin 5 standards.

 

You drive pick-ups in the US Richard, we drive Fiesta's what are NOx numbers for a Ford pick-up 6.4L power stroke diesel that those clean living Californians would pose in, just interested?

 

Maybe Ford need to fit an environmently friendly Californian approved compliant 6.4L power stroke into a Fiesta, it might help clean up the air in Europe instead of Econetic we could call it the Fiesta Power Stroke (Approved by the State of Californiania).

 

Maybe Europe needs buy more Californian approved Ford pick-ups 1,000 sale last month, no wonder your airs so clean you buy millions every year Stateside, l can see where we are going wrong we neeeeeeeeeeeed to buy more pick-ups to clean our air.

Acording to the links RJ provided, the econetic fiestas had NOx emisions per mile of .366g/mi, and .408g/mi. Maximum allowed in the US under Tier 2 Bin 8 is .2g/mi and the Bin 5 average is .07g/mi. I believe the F-250 with 6.4L falls under EPA Tier 2 regulations with a 10,000lb GVWR. Heavy duty vehicles (above 8500lb GWVR, not for daily driving) calculate their emmisions under a different standard based on running time and HP, so I can't compare their emmisions to other cars. Under California LEV II standards, it's .05g/mile for cars although for Heavy Duty vehicles it's the same as the EPA standards.

 

http://www.dieselnet.com/standards/us/ld_t2.php#phase-in

Edited September 14, 2008 by V8 Ford

[RichardJensen]

Actually, most 5.4L equipped F150s from 2008 are sitting at .04g/mile NOx.

 

EPA doesn't provide data for the diesels.

[Ford Jellymoulds]

Actually, most 5.4L equipped F150s from 2008 are sitting at .04g/mile NOx.

 

EPA doesn't provide data for the diesels.

 

EPA don't provide data thats convenient Richard thanks for letting me know, so you don't get much Environment Protection information from the EPA when it comes to pick-ups the vehicle most folk choose to drive Stateside.

 

Now Ford are bringing Transits and Transit Connects to the US based on the huge success of their mainly DIESEL models only in Europe will they be building only Euro unsuccessful selling gasoline only Transits loser models Stateside just Interested, when you already have the best selling E-Series that has been the best US selling van since time began?

 

Fiesta Econetic - 0.201g/km NOx

http://www.vcacarfueldata.org.uk/search/ve...ls.asp?id=15967

Transit Connect - 0.241g/km NOx

http://www.vcacarfueldata.org.uk/search/ve...ls.asp?id=20227

Transit - 0.294g/km NOx

http://www.vcacarfueldata.org.uk/search/ve...ls.asp?id=20227

[LSFan00]

For goodness sakes, yes, they'll need a PM filter that isn't sold with the smaller diesels in Europe. It ain't rocket science. Yes, this is VW, but it's pretty simple, really.

 

VW favors a continuous PM filter regeneration scheme (CRT) rather than periodic, because continuous yields lower backpressure, thus better fuel economy, he said.

 

As for steep future NOx reductions required by EPA and Europe, a periodically regenerated NOx trap is seen as much more practical than the continuous NOx reduction of urea-SCR, especially for light-duty vehicles, he said.

 

To regenerate a NOx trap, "it takes about 100 seconds at 650[degrees]C," not easily achieved in light-duty diesel application unless some clever engine management and aftertreatment schemes are employed. Exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) might do part of the NOx reduction, but "you need a 10/1 NOx/PM ratio" for continuous soot oxidation "and if you use too much EGR, then CRT is not possible, and you'd need an active regeneration scheme and that penalizes fuel consumption.

 

"So, we prefer internal engine combustion management. We believe we can do this and preserve the 10/1 NOx/PM ratio.

 

"We believe that for cars up to the size of our 'Passat' class -- that is, to 100 kilowatts -- we should meet 2005 Euro 4 standards without aftertreatment. Our new 74 kW Golf engine already meets 2005 Euro standards. But for heavier and automatic transmission vehicles, we need a PM trap and later, for heavier vehicles, a NOx trap for 2005.

 

"But U.S. Tier 2 is a much tighter standard, although the heaviest vehicle 'bin' is roughly equal to Euro 4. But for final Tier 2 standards, we'll need an 80% efficiency NOx catalyst and PM filter, thus the need for sulfur-free fuel to keep diesel passenger cars alive in the U.S."

 

It's conceivable that EPA's 15 ppm sulfur limit for North America's ULSD fuel might actually be closer to the real-world 10 ppm sulfur limit as VW wants, since refiners will overcompensate on sulfur reduction to stay within test limits at terminals and retail.

 

However, if sulfur strays to the limit (or even above), then desulfurization-regeneration frequency would double compared to a consistent diet of 8 ppm sulfur fuel, Schindler told us. That would hurt fuel economy, he showed (see chart, above).

 

For the more advanced (but again, not like landing a man on the moon) solutions not requiring refills of the urea tank but hitting the more ambitions US Nox regulations, a two stage solution (addressing lean burn goals) is probably best;

the company's new dual-layer catalyst operates in three stages: During lean-burn operation, the lower layer adsorbs NOx from the exhaust stream. Then, when necessary, the engine management system switches to a richer air-fuel ratio, allowing hydrogen (H2) obtained from the exhaust stream to react with the adsorbed NOx to produce ammonia (NH3). An adsorbent upper layer then temporarily adsorbs the ammonia. As the engine resumes lean-burn operation, the adsorbed ammonia in the upper layer reacts with NOx in the exhaust stream, reducing it to nitrogen.

 

The effect is similar to having an onboard ammonia source (such as Mercedes-Benz's AdBlue urea supply), but without having to replenish the tank. Honda showed a real-time exhaust-gas trace from conventional and dual-layer-catalyst-equipped cars running the same cycle, and the new engine's emissions adhered closely to the EPA-mandated level. Only when accelerated hard did the new system spike above that level, but to a much smaller degree than did the conventional diesel.

 

Honda is naturally circumspect in regard to the exact material specification of the new catalyst, but it's clear that engine management plays a large role in the control of the new catalyst's functions. So even when competing car manufacturers reverse-engineer Honda's components, as they undoubtedly will, they will probably still face significant engineering challenges.

Link.

 

Ok, now just disparage the vapor-ware, the messenger, and wait 5 years until Ford is behind in a new niche, again. We're not talking about all new engine technology, hydrogen power, Chevy Volt's, fuel cells, or any other exotic "totally new" system (like converting the world's cars to running on $5,000 lithium battery packs within a few years), we're talking about a Nox trap for Ford diesels, folks.

[LSFan00]

nm

Edited September 14, 2008 by LSFan00

[P71_CrownVic]

You drive pick-ups in the US Richard, we drive Fiesta's what are NOx numbers for a Ford pick-up 6.4L power stroke diesel that those clean living Californians would pose in, just interested?

 

Maybe Ford need to fit an environmently friendly Californian approved compliant 6.4L power stroke into a Fiesta, it might help clean up the air in Europe instead of Econetic we could call it the Fiesta Power Stroke (Approved by the State of Californiania).

 

Maybe Europe needs buy more Californian approved Ford pick-ups 1,000 sale last month, no wonder your airs so clean you buy millions every year Stateside, l can see where we are going wrong we neeeeeeeeeeeed to buy more pick-ups to clean our air.

 

Don't forget the "pure evil" spewing 4.4 diesel.