Ford’s “World Car Strategy” and US Fuel Economy

[44 mpg in 2010]

An OPEN Letter to: Mr. Bill Ford, Jr., Mr. Mulally, and the Board of Directors

 

 

I fully appreciate and support FORD's idea of "world cars".

 

 

In that spirit, WHEN is FORD going to provide the US/NA consumer the benefit of true fuel frugality like the small displacement turbo diesel vehicles listed below rated 52/62.8 mpg(US/Imp) combined (or higher) for the "light footed driver"?

 

Focus 2010 Onwards

1.6 Duratorq TDCi (90PS) 3/5 Door (ECO) M5 Diesel 65.7 mpg(Imp) combined

1.6 Duratorq TDCi (109PS) 3/5 Door (+DPF) M5 Diesel 62.8 mpg(Imp) combined

1.6 Duratorq TDCi (109PS) 3/5 Door (+DPF) M5 Diesel 64.2 mpg(Imp) combined

1.6 Duratorq TDCi (90PS) 3/5 Door M5 Diesel 64.2 mpg(Imp) combined

1.6 Duratorq TDCi (90PS) Estate M5 Diesel 64.2 mpg(Imp) combined

1.6 Duratorq TDCi (109PS) 5 Door (ECO +DPF) M5 Diesel 65.7 mpg(Imp) combined

1.6 Duratorq TDCi (109PS) Estate (ECO +DPF) M5 Diesel 65.7 mpg(Imp) combined

1.6 Duratorq TDCi (109PS) Estate (+DPF) M5 Diesel 64.2 mpg(Imp) combined

 

New Fiesta Model Year - Post 2009

1.6 Duratorq TDCi (90PS) (+DPF) (ECO) M5 Diesel 63/76.3 mpg(US/Imp) combined

 

 

And then there is the issue of the sale of Volvo and Volvo's "DRIVe" and "Stop/Start"/ technology [that apparently seems able to improve FE by up to 25% over standard power trains] that allows Volvo to have 4X more vehicles [ 2 - C30s, S40, and V50 ] rated ABOVE 61/72 mpg(US/Imperial) combined than FORD's one (1) diesel Fiesta. Besides, generally diesels can tow.

http://www.vcacarfueldata.org.uk/search/fuelConSearch.asp

 

 

Again, Mr. Bill Ford, Jr. and Mr. Mulally, Uwhen will the US CONSUMER be "worthy" of these "in-house" FORD technologies?

 

And please do NOT try to hide behind US diesel emissions standards as an excuse ... particularly since Audi, BMW, Mercedes, and VW ... ALL have "50 state compliant" diesel product that now constitutes roughly 20% of their US sales and increasing.

 

WHEN IS FORD ... going to address these technologies and this US MARKET SEGMENT for the US consumer ... or is FORD going to "GIFT" this segment (above 50 mpg combined) to the "foreign" OEMS as has happened with past opportunities?

 

I guess if Ford's engineers are not up to the task ... Ford could contract with Bosch's new (Jan 1, 2010) "Emissions Abatement Group" to solve the problem for them. That would export a few more engineering jobs ... but, think what US sales could be with product that could get 45~64, maybe even more, mpg(US) combined and still have the ability to tow.

 

 

MANY of US would like to know your position so that WE can PLAN future automotive purchasing strategies.

 

 

By the way, thanks for starting to deliver the dual clutch transmission in the US!

 

 

Sincerely, A CONSUMER ... looking for "44 mpg in 2010"!

Edited January 17, 2010 by 44 mpg in 2010

[Mackintire]

I can give you part of an answer.

 

As you know, US diesel regulations are now tighter than in Europe. The 1.6 Duratorq TDCi most likely would not be able to meet the US emission regulations, that's part of the reason for the Ecoboost 1.6 engine. The Eco-boost 1.6 engine will have a total power output (area under the curve) comparable to the Duratorq variation available in Europe. Unfortunately petrol has a lower specific energy level per volume than diesel. So the diesel would get better fuel economy regardless. Other issues to be considered include details covering, a cost effective production and support for the US Market. You may not find a non hybrid 44 mpg vehicle in 2010 but you will find vehicles getting closer to averaging 35+MPG. Expect 40 mpg averages by 2016.

 

All technology cost money, Audi, BMW, Mercedes, and VW know this and their customers pay accordingly based on what they find of value.

 

P.S. Ford already has plans to provide hybrid vehicles that can exceed 44 mpg.

Edited January 17, 2010 by Mackintire

[Marginal Economist]

The take rate on a small diesel engine in a small car does not justify the federalization costs of brining the engine to the US. Ford needs each vehicle to be profitable. If the US will adopt EU standards in the future, this may be a possibility.

 

When Ford can sell 100K+ engines in the US, I expect the engine to show up.

[theoldwizard]

At the moment it is all "politics" inside Ford.

 

Small diesels would impact the sales of the EcoBoost engines. Too many middle level management have already "bet their career" on EcoBoost to do anything that might cause it to be "less of a success" !

 

The only thing that could possibly change this is for the price of diesel fuel to drop to below the price of regular gasoline and stay there. It happened for a short while this past summer, but it popped back up again. "Someone" is playing games with the US diesel supply causing it to stay high. It is more than just the additional cost of ULSD.

[Ford Jellymoulds]

At the moment it is all "politics" inside Ford.

 

Small diesels would impact the sales of the EcoBoost engines.

 

It's a shame diesel engines act as a Toyota & Honda sales repellent for Ford in Europe (Why bother with the expensive new Prius when a much cheaper Fiesta or Focus Econetic will return much better fuel economy) , we are not all diesels here folk still want to like buy gasoline cars as well its still a 50:50 sales split in the UK.

 

Europe is getting very tough on diesel emissions soon so maybe Ford of Europe might have more diesel cars that comply with US regulations in the near future. All the French carmakers all have plans to produce diesel/hybrids in the future that might start hitting 90-100 US MPG mark.

[rkisler]

 

 

In that spirit, WHEN is FORD going to provide the US/NA consumer the benefit of true fuel frugality like the small displacement turbo diesel vehicles listed below rated 52/62.8 mpg(US/Imp) combined (or higher) for the "light footed driver"?

 

 

 

Again, Mr. Bill Ford, Jr. and Mr. Mulally, Uwhen will the US CONSUMER be "worthy" of these "in-house" FORD technologies?

 

And please do NOT try to hide behind US diesel emissions standards as an excuse ... particularly since Audi, BMW, Mercedes, and VW ... ALL have "50 state compliant" diesel product that now constitutes roughly 20% of their US sales and increasing.

 

WHEN IS FORD ... going to address these technologies and this US MARKET SEGMENT for the US consumer ... or is FORD going to "GIFT" this segment (above 50 mpg combined) to the "foreign" OEMS as has happened with past opportunities?

 

I guess if Ford's engineers are not up to the task ... Ford could contract with Bosch's new (Jan 1, 2010) "Emissions Abatement Group" to solve the problem for them. That would export a few more engineering jobs ... but, think what US sales could be with product that could get 45~64, maybe even more, mpg(US) combined and still have the ability to tow.

 

 

MANY of US would like to know your position so that WE can PLAN future automotive purchasing strategies.

 

 

By the way, thanks for starting to deliver the dual clutch transmission in the US!

 

 

Sincerely, A CONSUMER ... looking for "44 mpg in 2010"!

 

I'm not Bill Ford, and I'm not an insider, but I want to give you the most complete answer I can. For the record, I would enjoy having a diesel-equipped Ford vehicle in the U.S. But I've often found the tone of diesel supporters bordering on "there must be some kind of conspiracy" because Ford is "refusing to give us those really great diesels they have in Europe". So perhaps a bit of info can straighten that out.

 

European Diesels

1. After WWII, European countries (which are poor in petroleum resources) implemented taxes on engine size and fuel that discouraged fuel consumption. I've had a $125 fillup in Europe, and it tends to make you think about fuel consumption. European countries also fiddled with the pump price of diesel through taxation to make gasoline more expensive and to encourage diesel use. Diesel has a penetration rate of 50-60% in Europe.

2. Today's diesels are wonderful engines, and the old complaints (noisy, smokey) have been substantially reduced.

3. You cannot directly compare the fuel economy you have listed to what diesels would achieve in the U.S. for two key reasons. First, the fuel economy testing is different (Europe shows higher mpg), and those diesels do not have U.S. emissions equipment which reduces fuel economy.

4. All things being equal (and they aren't), diesels should get better fuel economy as diesel fuel contains around 15% more energy than gasoline (and ethanol contains around 30% less than gasoline).

 

Emissions

1. Emissions are a key reason we don't see more diesels in the U.S. It's not Ford "hiding behind emissions", it's a fact.

2. There are two key areas where diesel emissions are much more difficult than a gasoline engine -- NOX and particulates. NOX (oxides of nitrogen) are gasses that cause pollution -- i.e., smog. Particulates are very small bits of primarily carbon that can get into your lungs and potentially cause cancer. California's Air Resource Board (CARB) has led the way to reduce allowable limits of NOX and particulates. We can all agree or disagree, but if a manufacturer wants to sell diesels in the U.S., they have to be 50-state compliant.

3. Even Europe's latest and most stringent standard (Euro 6) is not as tough as the U.S. standard. Nevertheless, I've seen several projections that diesel use will do down in Europe as the standards become tougher. If you want a quick review of diesel emissions, you might want to read the following Autoblog article:

 

Autoblog Diesel Article.

 

Costs

Before I talk about Ford's strategy, I'm going to throw out some numbers. They are not Ford numbers, but my guesses based on a bit of experience.

 

Gasoline

EFI $base

Add DI +$100-250

Add Turbo +$350-600

So, Ford's EcoBoost on a 4-cylinder could cost around $500 or more over a base EFI engine

 

Diesel

EFI Gasoline $base

Diesel without Bluetec (urea injection) approx. $2,000-$2,500 (e.x., VW small diesel)

Diesel with Bluetec approx $3,500-$4,500 (e.g., Mercedes & BMW)

 

VW gets in just under the wire, but only with a small diesel. And they have extensive Exhaust Gas Recirculation (EGR) plumbing

 

And while I'm on the subject of costs, I saw a recent article that indicated IIRC a fill-up of a Mercedes BlueTec urea tank at over $500 at 18,000 miles. That's like adding almost a dollar a gallon to fuel!!

 

Ford's Strategy

For the best explanation of Ford's strategy, it's best to go to Ford. So I recommend you watch this ten minute video of Derrik Kuzak on Ford's Near Term, Medium Term, and Long Term CO2 strategies:

 

 

In a nutshell, here's what Ford is saying:

1. At today's technologies, diesels do not represent a good investment decision on the part of consumers, however

2. EcoBoost does represent a good payback

3. Diesels could represent around 10% of demand mid-term, but only if customers are demanding them

4. If you pause at the charts in the presentation, it seems to me that the long-term goal is much more electrification and Ford doesn't believe diesels are worth developing for the U.S. market as a mid-term solution.

 

Summary

1. I don't take the cynical view like Wizard that Ford doesn't have diesels because certain members of management have staked their careers on EcoBoost. I think the answer is that Ford, after a series of very tough discussions, has developed a plan and made a series of powertrain decisions and they are sticking to it.

2. There are always surprises. I don't think anyone expected the 2.0L in the new Focus to be DI, and I'm sure there were heated discussions inside Ford on this one. So anything can happen.

 

Hope this helps.

[Ford Jellymoulds]

I'm not Bill Ford, and I'm not an insider, but I want to give you the most complete answer I can. For the record, I would enjoy having a diesel-equipped Ford vehicle in the U.S. But I've often found the tone of diesel supporters bordering on "there must be some kind of conspiracy" because Ford is "refusing to give us those really great diesels they have in Europe". So perhaps a bit of info can straighten that out.

 

European Diesels

1. After WWII, European countries (which are poor in petroleum resources) implemented taxes on engine size and fuel that discouraged fuel consumption. I've had a $125 fillup in Europe, and it tends to make you think about fuel consumption. European countries also fiddled with the pump price of diesel through taxation to make gasoline more expensive and to encourage diesel use. Diesel has a penetration rate of 50-60% in Europe.

2. Today's diesels are wonderful engines, and the old complaints (noisy, smokey) have been substantially reduced.

3. You cannot directly compare the fuel economy you have listed to what diesels would achieve in the U.S. for two key reasons. First, the fuel economy testing is different (Europe shows higher mpg), and those diesels do not have U.S. emissions equipment which reduces fuel economy.

4. All things being equal (and they aren't), diesels should get better fuel economy as diesel fuel contains around 15% more energy than gasoline (and ethanol contains around 30% less than gasoline).

 

Emissions

1. Emissions are a key reason we don't see more diesels in the U.S. It's not Ford "hiding behind emissions", it's a fact.

2. There are two key areas where diesel emissions are much more difficult than a gasoline engine -- NOX and particulates. NOX (oxides of nitrogen) are gasses that cause pollution -- i.e., smog. Particulates are very small bits of primarily carbon that can get into your lungs and potentially cause cancer. California's Air Resource Board (CARB) has led the way to reduce allowable limits of NOX and particulates. We can all agree or disagree, but if a manufacturer wants to sell diesels in the U.S., they have to be 50-state compliant.

3. Even Europe's latest and most stringent standard (Euro 6) is not as tough as the U.S. standard. Nevertheless, I've seen several projections that diesel use will do down in Europe as the standards become tougher. If you want a quick review of diesel emissions, you might want to read the following Autoblog article:

 

Autoblog Diesel Article.

 

Costs

Before I talk about Ford's strategy, I'm going to throw out some numbers. They are not Ford numbers, but my guesses based on a bit of experience.

 

Gasoline

EFI $base

Add DI +$100-250

Add Turbo +$350-600

So, Ford's EcoBoost on a 4-cylinder could cost around $500 or more over a base EFI engine

 

Diesel

EFI Gasoline $base

Diesel without Bluetec (urea injection) approx. $2,000-$2,500 (e.x., VW small diesel)

Diesel with Bluetec approx $3,500-$4,500 (e.g., Mercedes & BMW)

 

VW gets in just under the wire, but only with a small diesel. And they have extensive Exhaust Gas Recirculation (EGR) plumbing

 

And while I'm on the subject of costs, I saw a recent article that indicated IIRC a fill-up of a Mercedes BlueTec urea tank at over $500 at 18,000 miles. That's like adding almost a dollar a gallon to fuel!!

 

Ford's Strategy

For the best explanation of Ford's strategy, it's best to go to Ford. So I recommend you watch this ten minute video of Derrik Kuzak on Ford's Near Term, Medium Term, and Long Term CO2 strategies:

 

 

In a nutshell, here's what Ford is saying:

1. At today's technologies, diesels do not represent a good investment decision on the part of consumers, however

2. EcoBoost does represent a good payback

3. Diesels could represent around 10% of demand mid-term, but only if customers are demanding them

4. If you pause at the charts in the presentation, it seems to me that the long-term goal is much more electrification and Ford doesn't believe diesels are worth developing for the U.S. market as a mid-term solution.

 

Summary

1. I don't take the cynical view like Wizard that Ford doesn't have diesels because certain members of management have staked their careers on EcoBoost. I think the answer is that Ford, after a series of very tough discussions, has developed a plan and made a series of powertrain decisions and they are sticking to it.

2. There are always surprises. I don't think anyone expected the 2.0L in the new Focus to be DI, and I'm sure there were heated discussions inside Ford on this one. So anything can happen.

 

Hope this helps.

 

Your wrong about tax on fuel, the duty is the same for both regular unleaded gasoline & diesel fuels in the UK, which is the fuel nearly all Brits buy and use .

 

2009 fuel duty (as of 1 September 2009) in the United Kingdom is:

• 56.19 pence per litre for main road fuels, unleaded petrol and diesel
• 65.91 pence per litre for leaded petrol
• 36.19 pence per litre for biodiesel and bioethanol
• 22.16 pence per kg for road fuel natural gas
• 27.67 pence per kg for road fuel liquefied petroleum gas ('LPG')

LINK

 

We buy diesels because they are 30% more fuel efficent, produce a third less C02 than the same sized gasoline engine.

 

One of the main attractions of the diesel engine is its longevity they don't get run in until about 120,000 miles. My wifes 13 year old Pug diesel she brought new has just over another 700 miles to go before it reaches 200,000 miles, the car still drives like new and the engine has no signs of any black smoke at all, burns no oil at all, but has developed a very very light oil weep one that never requires a top up between oil changes. She still wants another new Pug 207 diesel, but l keep telling her she needs a new Fiesta but she wont have it, so we always end up agreeing we might as well keep what she has already got. Can't see it being a problem making it to 300,000 miles at all. I do all the maintenance myself the car sailed through the last MOT with very low emmision readings. Bodywork is immaculate on the outside, it has a few rust scabs inside the car it seems to be rotting from the inside out which might end up shortening its life.

 

A Fiesta gasoline car with the same sized engine capacity as a Fiesta diesel, is more expensive to buy in the UK not the other way round like you have quoted.

If you are interested in the differences between MPG of Gasoline/Diesel Fiesta with the same sized engine capacity in the UK click on "running costs" in the link.

LINK

Edited January 18, 2010 by Ford Jellymoulds

[theoldwizard]

2. There are always surprises. I don't think anyone expected the 2.0L in the new Focus to be DI, and I'm sure there were heated discussions inside Ford on this one.

You have NO idea how heated those debates really were !

 

EU wanted it because they have different emission standards that let them run leaner and get better fuel economy. It will be interesting how EU Focus fuel economy lines up against its brother world car the US Focus with the same powertrain.

 

IMHO, the marketeers stepped in (again) and said Americans would feel they got the short end of the stick if they also did not get the non-turbo 2.0L DI as the base engine. Does non-turbo DI get better fuel economy than PFI ? Probably, but not enough to warrant the costs for the average person. It can also backfire on low end vehicles where people just want something cheap (that's how the Korean's got their foot in the door.)

[Inselaffe]

You have NO idea how heated those debates really were !

 

EU wanted it because they have different emission standards that let them run leaner and get better fuel economy. It will be interesting how EU Focus fuel economy lines up against its brother world car the US Focus with the same powertrain.

 

I think there are some embellishments going on about "heated debates" and also there is a sense of deja-vu on the point on european emissions but I will re-iterate:

 

Ford of Europe WILL NOT have lean burn on their gasoline for the forseeable future. In fact FoE's new range of DI engines have been specially designed for Stoichiometric operation. The emissions regulations in Europe, whilst not as strict as EPA or CARB, are too strict for lean burn without some sort of de-NOx aftertreatment and have been for several years.

 

The only OEMs that use lean burn in Europe are Mercedes and BMW and they have de-NOx catalysts. They can do this because they are the only manufacturers that can afford to charge the customer for the privilege.

 

My guess about the stoich DI nat-asp 2.0 is that it is a stop gap until the 1.6 DI turbo starts being produced at the new Sigma engine facility in Brazil (currently only in Bridgend). Also it might be a way of keeping volume up on the 2.0 lines, which they put a lot of money into.

Edited January 19, 2010 by Inselaffe

[Ford Jellymoulds]

I think there are some embellishments going on about "heated debates" and also there is a sense of deja-vu on the point on european emissions but I will re-iterate:

 

Ford of Europe WILL NOT have lean burn on their gasoline for the forseeable future. In fact FoE's new range of DI engines have been specially designed for Stoichiometric operation. The emissions regulations in Europe, whilst not as strict as EPA or CARB, are too strict for lean burn without some sort of de-NOx aftertreatment and have been for several years.

 

The only OEMs that use lean burn in Europe are Mercedes and BMW and they have de-NOx catalysts. They can do this because they are the only manufacturers that can afford to charge the customer for the privilege.

 

My guess about the stoich DI nat-asp 2.0 is that it is a stop gap until the 1.6 DI turbo starts being produced at the new Sigma engine facility in Brazil (currently only in Bridgend). Also it might be a way of keeping volume up on the 2.0 lines, which they put a lot of money into.

 

EU legislation is C02 based to cut down on Global Warming something l think is a load of ole rubbish myself, and one thing you have omitted in your post is the big C02 fines that have aleady been passed by the EU. Diesel produce one third less C02 so they wont be fined bigtime like gasoline cars will be, come 2015 a typical gasoline car will be 0.9L 999cc or 1.6L 1,600cc if its a diesel and bigger if its a gasoline/diesel hybrid. Anything bigger that will come with a big EU fine on every car of type of that car. All manufacturers will have pay the fine in 2015 on all their cars that exceed 130g/km of C02, there will be no concessions C02 offsetting allowed against more fuel efficient cars from 2015 onwards.

 

EU C02 LAW - Fines on Car Makers

2012 - 75% of fleet must be below 130 g/km or face a eu 5 euros fine per gram of C02 over the limit on every car over the limit .

 

2013 - 80% of the fleet must be below 130 g/km

 

2014 - 100% of fleet must be below 130 g/kg

 

2015 - 100% of the fleet must be below 130g/kg or face a EU 20 euros fine per gram of C02 over the limit on every car over the limit.

 

2020 - 100% of the fleet must be below 95g/kg or face a EU 95 euros fine per gram of CO2 over the limit on every car over the limit.

 

 

Cars that will become dinosaurs after 2015 - Examples of FINES car makers will have to pay in Europe on every car thay make.

Chrysler Grand Voyager gasoline (302 g/km)

2012 - $1,238

2015 - $4,952

2020 - $28,311

 

Chevrolet Captivia gasoline (217 g/km)

2012 - $626

2015 - $2,505

2020 - $16,686

 

Dodge Caliber gasoline (192 g/kg)

2012 - $446

2015 - $1,785

2020 - $13,266

 

Ford Mondeo 2.5 Titanium gasoline (222 g/km)

2012 - $662

2015 - $2,649

2020 - $17,369

 

Cars that have a future in Europe with low C02 emmisions with no/low fines.

 

Ford KA 1.2 gasoline (119 g/kg)

2012 - $0

2015 - $0

2020 - $3,283

 

Ford Fiesta Econetic diesel 1.6 (98 g/km)

2012 - $0

2015 - $0

2020 - $410

 

Ford Focus Econetic diesel 1.6 (104 g/km)

2012 - $0

2015 - $0

2020 - $1,230

 

Ford & Chevloret should be OK until 2014 they will be able scrape through thanks to Ka's, Fiesta, Econetic diesels, Matiz, Sparks & Aveo's offsetting some of the big cars, come 2014 C02 offsetting ends on all cars, and car makers must pay fines on every car they make that pumps out more than 130g/km of C02, 2020 - 95 g/km .

 

EPA now also recognises C02 as a pollutant, l wonder if your cars will get fines based on C02 by the EPA in the future?

Edited January 19, 2010 by Ford Jellymoulds

[92merc]

EPA now also recognises C02 as a pollutant, l wonder if your cars will get fines based on C02 by the EPA in the future?

 

Don't count on that sticking real well in the US. There are a bunch of senators and congressmen a bit peeved that "non-elected" bureaucrats are going to be setting standards. They plan on writing a bill to take the power away from the EPA and put it into the Congress.

[Ford Jellymoulds]

Don't count on that sticking real well in the US. There are a bunch of senators and congressmen a bit peeved that "non-elected" bureaucrats are going to be setting standards. They plan on writing a bill to take the power away from the EPA and put it into the Congress.

 

Gordon Bean will sort things out with Obama when he visits him next.

 

 

Our "Unelected one-eyed Scottish idiot" the worlds champion of Global Warming something in the olden days that used to be once known as the "weather", will lecture congress on the million and one ways you can raise huge sums of taxes by reaming, raping, shafting the motorist in a million and one unimaginable ways that you never thought were possible with billions in taxes, once smitten congress will see all those billion of $$$ rolling in before their eyes.

Edited January 19, 2010 by Ford Jellymoulds

[theoldwizard]

Don't count on that sticking real well in the US. There are a bunch of senators and congressmen a bit peeved that "non-elected" bureaucrats are going to be setting standards. They plan on writing a bill to take the power away from the EPA and put it into the Congress.

Oh great !

 

Transfer authority from one bunch of idiots to another !

[theoldwizard]

Ford of Europe WILL NOT have lean burn on their gasoline for the forseeable future. In fact FoE's new range of DI engines have been specially designed for Stoichiometric operation. The emissions regulations in Europe, whilst not as strict as EPA or CARB, are too strict for lean burn without some sort of de-NOx aftertreatment and have been for several years.

Well, there is lean burn and then there is lean burn !

 

In fact, from friends "in the right places", the DI engine are designed to run leaner than stoich, it is just a matter of "how far". No, we are not talking 22:1, but a lot leaner than 14:1 !

 

The EU 2.0L DI definitely runs leaner than the US version of the same engine. Why, because the EU standards allow it and leaner operation give better fuel economy.

[silvrsvt]

Probably, but not enough to warrant the costs for the average person. It can also backfire on low end vehicles where people just want something cheap (that's how the Korean's got their foot in the door.)

 

But Ford won't make any money that way..by selling cheap POS...the reason's the Koreans went cheap was to get their foot in the door..now they want to sell $45K Sedans like everyone else.

[rkisler]

EPA now also recognises C02 as a pollutant, l wonder if your cars will get fines based on C02 by the EPA in the future?

 

Jelly, we already have CO2 fines.

 

If manufacturers are short of meeting U.S. Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE), they have to pay fines. Fuel economy of course is directly related to CO2. It's a civil penalty. All of the European manufacturers presently pay fines as they don't achieve the standard -- and that includes VW. The fines mount into the millions of dollars but they will be increasing rapidly in future years unless the European manufacturers are able and willing to provide more fuel-efficient vehicles to the U.S. market. Of course, it helps that they have somehow negotiated a "German Exclusion" where 25% of their fleet will be exempted for a number of years because (whine, whine) they are small manufacturers who can't possibly be expected to meet the targets..

 

None of the U.S. or Asian manufacturers have ever paid fines. For Ford, it's a matter of policy.

[rkisler]

Your wrong about tax on fuel, the duty is the same for both regular unleaded gasoline & diesel fuels in the UK, which is the fuel nearly all Brits buy and use .

 

We buy diesels because they are 30% more fuel efficent, produce a third less C02 than the same sized gasoline engine.

 

One of the main attractions of the diesel engine is its longevity they don't get run in until about 120,000 miles.

 

A Fiesta gasoline car with the same sized engine capacity as a Fiesta diesel, is more expensive to buy in the UK not the other way round like you have quoted.

If you are interested in the differences between MPG of Gasoline/Diesel Fiesta with the same sized engine capacity in the UK click on "running costs" in the link.

LINK

 

My comments were meant to portray the following:

1. Post WWII, European governments have engaged in a policy of reducing fuel consumption in large part through taxation of engine sizes and fuel prices.

2. Although the taxation situation might be true in UK, it appears to me on my end that taxation on gasoline is higher than diesel in many markets, and the prime market is Germany. But I still maintain that the governments will do what it takes to keep diesel attractively priced vs. gasoline.

3. In the U.S., we have a different situation. Diesel is generally more expensive than gasoline but the price is "all over the map". And it also influenced by fuel oil demand, primarily in the NE States.

4. The higher fuel prices in Europe have driven a lot of customers to diesels because the investment in a diesel more than pays for itself.

5. In the U.S., due to low fuel prices, it's harder to justify the purchase of any technology -- be it GTDI, diesel, hybrid or whatever -- because the payback is rather long. Of course government incentives change the equation somewhat.

6. The cost numbers I was giving were my guesses at the cost to the manufacturer of a 50-state certified vehicle. The costs of particulate filters and NOX cats, along with the other costs of a diesel over a gas engine is quite large. If the manufacturer is lucky, then can pass the cost off to the consumer. But if not, they might have to eat it. Last year, I got a coupon from my local BMW dealer for $4,500 off their diesel models, which is almost exactly what they are charging as a premium.

7. So, I summarized for the OP that Ford believes that the best payback for the consumer is to go the EcoBoost route vs. diesel. The cost equation is a lot better as there is a lot less cleanup of particulates and NOX.

 

We'll see if Ford's strategy works. But I should mention that none of Ford's key competition (Asians, not Europeans) have diesels. Nor do there seem to be any plans for them to introduce diesels to the U.S. market.

[rkisler]

Well, there is lean burn and then there is lean burn !

 

In fact, from friends "in the right places", the DI engine are designed to run leaner than stoich, it is just a matter of "how far". No, we are not talking 22:1, but a lot leaner than 14:1 !

 

The EU 2.0L DI definitely runs leaner than the US version of the same engine. Why, because the EU standards allow it and leaner operation give better fuel economy.

 

This makes sense to me.

 

I guess the beauty of DI is more precise control.

 

Since U.S. Tier2Bin5 NOX standards are substantially more stringent than even Euro6, I agree with you that it would make sense for Europe to dial back the fuel to get in under their Euro6 wire, but NA would have to run a richer calibration to meet T2B5.