Kuzak Makes Ford’s Case Against Diesels In The U.S.

[Anthony]

It's ZERO for the MKZ hybrid....

 

Correct. The only one worth buying IMHO as well.

[RichardJensen]

Correct. The only one worth buying IMHO as well.

Only about a $2.5k premium on the Fusion, factoring in similar equipment (IIRC it's an SEL with about $1k in add'l std. equipment). That's not an outrageous upfront for a roughly 50% improvement in city mileage--if you're a city commuter.

 

If you drive 10k city miles per year and 15k overall (66% vs. EPA assumed 55%), you'll pay off that $2500 @ $3/gallon gas in about 3.5 years.

Edited March 10, 2011 by RichardJensen

[mlhm5]

In standardized testing--which is to say testing in which each engine is subjected to the same style of driving, diesels do not perform significantly better than their regular fueled competitors. Take for instance the 2011 diesel jetta as opposed to the 2012 SFE Focus:

 

the difference? 33MPG SFE Focus, 34MPG diesel Jetta. That's a 3% improvement. When subjected to the same driving style.

 

Or, to take another comparison, the 38/26 standard Focus vs. the diesel Jetta: The difference is 3MPG, or 8%

 

Again: same vehicle class, diesel vs. gas.

 

Furthermore, bear in mind that the Focus has only a DI gas engine, not a small displacement turbo. A small displacement turbo will probably equal the Jetta in fuel economy.

 

The MKZ hybrid costs the same as the regular MKZ--what's the premium for the MKZ hybrid as compared to the BMW 3-series diesel?

 

I call BS again.

 

The 2011 Jetta is as large as the Ford Fusion. So compare apples to apples.

 

Look at the real world costs and mpg of the diesel Jetta. The 2011 retains the same 42mpg. Whereas the Fusion is 23 city/33 hwy/26 combined mpg.

 

 

Are you sure there is no price difference between the hybrid Fusion and the non-hybrid Fusion.

[PREMiERdrum]

I call BS again.

 

The 2011 Jetta is as large as the Ford Fusion. So compare apples to apples.

 

Look at the real world costs and mpg of the diesel Jetta. The 2011 retains the same 42mpg. Whereas the Fusion is 23 city/33 hwy/26 combined mpg.

 

 

Are you sure there is no price difference between the hybrid Fusion and the non-hybrid Fusion.

 

Oh, the irony...

 

mlhm5 "calling BS"

 

[mlhm5]

Name one Ford product that requires premium fuel.

 

66 months = 5.5 years. That's a lot less than 10 years.

 

And those same non-pragmatic buyers will line up to buy diesel Focuses? I don't think so.

 

European emissions standards permit Fiestas that are roughly as filthy as F250s.

 

Those standards are being phased out and, not surprisingly, manufacturers are increasing gas engine options in small cars.

 

 

As far as premium fuel, I did not know Ford was only interested in selling to current Ford buyers. Lots of people are certainly not pragmatic when they buy a vehicle, especially the ones that buy pick-ups, Corvettes, Surburbans, Mustangs, etc. for the daily commute.

 

Additionally, EU is actually more restrictive with respect to CO and PM emissions, less restrictive with respect to NOx. The test cycles are not identical (FTP75 for the U.S., NEDC for Europe), although based on a study by CARB, there do not appear to be any significant differences resulting from the two test cycles.

 

Based on the EU certified emissions for the 2010 Euro 5 Fiesta 1.6 liter Duratorq, the NOx emissions would be about 0.25 g/mi (155 mg/km - http://www.vcacarfueldata.org.uk/sea...s.asp?id=25511 ) which would exceed Bin 8 requirements for NOx (0.20 g/mi). All other emissions would be well below Bin 8, and even below Bin 5.

 

Let me open your eyes on sulfur content in fuel. Even you must know that know that the current ULSD standard is @15 ppm sulfur and it is nominally it is delivered @ 5-7 ppm sulfur because there are HUGE HUGE fines if fuel is delivered higher than 15 ppm, ergo they have refined the ULSD product to come 53% to 67% below (even CLEANER) to avoid any issues. As a comparo "bio diesel" is normally under 1 ppm sulfur.

 

OK got that? What do you think the sulfur standards are for RUG and PUG? How about @ 30 ppm sulfur. With off line fee mitigation, RUG to PUG can be delivered @ the pump as high as 90 ppm sulfur adn by LAW RUG to PUG can be delivered MUCH DIRTIER - 2 x to 18 times dirtier .

 

As a result the cleaner fuel (diesel) is "restricted" while the dirtier fuel is allowed to be used. The percentage of passenger vehicles is overwhelmingly HUGE (50 times greater ) . 98% of US passenger vehicles are RUG to PUG. Estimates are 9% require PUG. and 2% are "diesels" and are you ready for this - only one half of one percent are diesel cars.

 

So on an operative level, the US follows a burning more; yields less pollution paradigm. The corollary is we burn more to save the planet.

Edited March 11, 2011 by mlhm5

[mlhm5]

When compared to a hybrid using current tech, a modern, emissions compliant diesel can and will achieve higher highway mpg number, all other things being equal, save for the obvious differences in total vehicle weight from the lack of a battery pack, for a given targeted combined torque and horsepower amount. Wit that, I am giving an allowance for the diesel to make a bit more torque for a bit less horsepower. Given the target market of such a vehicle, that's a reasonable tradeoff. The other side of the coin is that the hybrid (and by hybrid, I mean current generation gasoline/electric hybrid system with regenerative braking and NiMH batteries) will likely make better in city mpg numbers by what could be a substantial margin.

 

Both systems add considerable expense to a vehicle. Diesels require quite a bit of expensive to buy, build, maintain and replace emissions control equipment, not to mention the possibility of needing urea refills at regular intervals. Hybrids ALSO require quite a bit of specialized and expensive to procure, build, maintain and replace components, not the least of which is the battery pack. However, since we are ONLY CONSIDERING THE AVERAGE VEHICLE LIFE IN THE US, which is, as stated above, at 66 or so months, neither should require major overhauls or expensive component replacements in that timeframe.

 

So, frankly, it comes down to the following. If you believe that more US drivers would realize that they would gain by purchasing a diesel, with it's somewhat limited fueling locations and, on average, somewhat mor expensive fuel, then you think that Ford (and the other domestics) have screwed up by not bringing over their european diesels. If you believe that more US drivers would realize that they would gain by paying a similar markup for a hybrid that can be refilled at any gas station, for less per gallon than diesel, then you think that Ford and the other domestics made the smarter decision by going the hybrid route.

 

Considering that the vast majority of miles driven near most cities is in the daily commute and in city delivery and cab roles, the hybrid route makes a lot of sense there. Are there some people that could benifit from a diesel that drive long distances on a regular basis? Sure, and their small numbers are adequately served by VW, BMW, Mercedes, Audi, etc.

 

As for ecoboost, its already well known that it's not a diesel replacement, it's a "happy medium" product meant to fit in between diesels and gasoline cars. It improves highway mileage over a comparable N/A engine while not harming the city mileage to any significant degree over a NA engine of similar displacement. For it's modest markup numbers $800-$1000, its a whole lot cheaper than a diesel in the US. And, at this point, EB is still underperforming a bit from what it could really achieve, largely due to those same emissions standards that are also reducing Diesel mpg numbers in the US at the moment.

 

I'd still love to know what the true performance and mpg numbers would be for the 4.5L (or was it 4.4L? GM has the other size, whichever it is) light diesel that Ford had developed for the F-150. I wonder how much mor expensive it would be than the EB 3.5L setup, how much more torque it would have, how much HP it would have, and what it's final EPA numbers would be. Just using the numbers between the 6.2L gasser and the 6.7L scorpion as a ballpark, I can immagine that the 4.5L diesel would be easily $5000 more to purchase than the 3.5L EB. But, would it get enough of an improvement in performance/efficiency over the 3.5L EB to really justify the cost?

 

 

I'd love to see how much the Fusion Hybrid costs to run for 300K, a figure easily obtainable by a Jetta diesel.

[Deanh]

I'd love to see how much the Fusion Hybrid costs to run for 300K, a figure easily obtainable by a Jetta diesel.

pfffffffffffffft................no one I know of keeps them much over the free service timeframe...DUE TO MAINTENENCE AND SERVICE COSTS....read some damn blogs MHLM, the TDI VW is well known to be a service writers wet dream and an owners wallet emptying anger inducing NIGHTMARE.....

[RichardJensen]

The 2011 Jetta is as large as the Ford Fusion. So compare apples to apples.

No, it's not.

 

EPA interior volume for the Jetta is 94 cubic feet.

 

Fusion interior volume is 100 cubic feet.

[Harley Lover]

I'd love to see how much the Fusion Hybrid costs to run for 300K, a figure easily obtainable by a Jetta diesel.

Do a quick search of VW TDI HPFP failures" and you'll see that VW diesel buyers have a crap shoot to even get to 10,000 miles without major repairs. VW's abysmal quality record is what steered me away from VW and to BMW. Diesel ownership in the era of urea and DPF's is not the same as just a few years ago (prior to all the pollution add ons). The jury is definitely out regarding the longevity of the new generation of diesel cars that are festooned with the afore mentioned pollution equipment. The early returns (VW and its HPFP fiasco) are not encouraging.

[Edstock]

As far as premium fuel, I did not know Ford was only interested in selling to current Ford buyers. Lots of people are certainly not pragmatic when they buy a vehicle, especially the ones that buy pick-ups, Corvettes, Surburbans, Mustangs, etc. for the daily commute.

A Mustang V-6 is high on my list for a daily commute. I get a pragmatic RWD drivetrain and great gas milage with the manual.

 

Trollage.

 

 

 

[mlhm5]

Do a quick search of VW TDI HPFP failures" and you'll see that VW diesel buyers have a crap shoot to even get to 10,000 miles without major repairs. VW's abysmal quality record is what steered me away from VW and to BMW. Diesel ownership in the era of urea and DPF's is not the same as just a few years ago (prior to all the pollution add ons). The jury is definitely out regarding the longevity of the new generation of diesel cars that are festooned with the afore mentioned pollution equipment. The early returns (VW and its HPFP fiasco) are not encouraging.

 

When a normal gasoline engined car/truck goes 250K they put it in an auto ad.

[Bob Rosadini]

Name one Ford product that requires premium fuel. 2010 SHOO'smanual says..3.5 Eco .."designed for 87 but 91 recommended- I usually run 89 with a dose of 93 every third tank.

 

66 months = 5.5 years. That's a lot less than 10 years.

 

And those same non-pragmatic buyers will line up to buy diesel Focuses? I don't think so.

 

European emissions standards permit Fiestas that are roughly as filthy as F250s.

 

Those standards are being phased out and, not surprisingly, manufacturers are increasing gas engine options in small cars.

[CurtisH]

When a normal gasoline engined car/truck goes 250K they put it in an auto ad.

About the only person I know that keeps vehicles for 250K miles is my oldest brother. He buys Rangers, F-250's, and E-150's for his company. I don't think he has ever sold a company vehicle with less than 250K miles. The only engine problems he has encountered were result of driver error (like driving the vehicle when the water pump went out). With regular maintenance, gas engines can easily go 250K miles.

 

One other person I can think of is a co-worker with a 2001 Escape. He has 242K miles on it so far. He had to have the throttle position sensor replaced. No other work has been done to the engine.

[RichardJensen]

2010 SHO's manual says..3.5 Eco .."designed for 87 but 91 recommended

 

The GT500 is probably the only vehicle where premium is required--and even there, I have my doubts.

[jpd80]

Next generation Ecoboost will turn diesel advocates into true believers and the next round of

diesel emission equipment is going to be expensive pill for Europeans to swallow, I'm betting

that a lot more Continentals run to petrol Ecoboost as the efficiency approaches diesel..

 

We saw it recently with Mondeo the 2.3 I-4 was replaced by 2.0 EB and that more powerful engine dropped combined fuel consumption from 9.3 liters/100 km down to 7.5 liters/100km.

2.0 diesel is still arond 5.5 liters/100 km but ther about 20% more energy in a given quantity of diesel compared to gasoline. On that count it won't take much to get the EBs nearer to diesel.

All of that with superior horsepower that puts a smile on the customer's face....

Edited March 11, 2011 by jpd80

[Extreme4x4]

There is one thing that people forget, when bringing up the VW diesel arguement. VW has a huge built in diesel fanbase. It truly borders on the obsessive. Still, compared to other manufacturers offerings, they sell relatively few diesels.

 

Nobody is going to look at a Fiesta diesel, in the states, and say "wow, my Powerstroke dually was fabulous, so I will happily pay $3K more for a tiny diesel in a Fiesta............... bring on that .50c a gallon higher fuel and higher maintenance costs. Woohoo."

 

Diesel is $.50 a gallon higher here also. I had a guy in a diesel HD talk to me about my V10 F250, when we were both fueling one day. He was crying that his truck was eating him out of house and home, and he wished he would have bought a gasser HD.

 

Bitch, whine, and complain all you want, but Ford is in business to make money. If there was a pile of money to be had, by offering diesel cars or LD trucks, they would be on it in a second. There is a reason that almost all manufacturers have abandoned their diesel car plans for the US. It isn't mass stupidity.

[Blue II]

1.6 EB, 1.3 EB 3 cyl, DI, TIVCT. Plasma ignition. :shades:

[lfeg]

Seems like two more reasons for no Ford diesel cars in North America.

[lfeg]

And the cost premium for a manufacturer to offer a diesel in a car is much more than the added cost of the engine itself. There is added parts inventory and the costs of maintaining and managing the inventory. There are compliance costs (EPA testing and such ain't cheap). Marketing costs (additional literature and manuals) (printing may be relatively cheap, but inventorying and managing are not). And do not forget training.

 

When you have transaction prices in the range of BMW and Mercedes it is easier to carry those costs. When you are talking about the market Ford is in with the Fiesta and Focus, you can end up with some more incremental sales, but they would not cover the costs unless the diesel option was very pricey, but that then lowers incremental sales.

[mlhm5]

Next generation Ecoboost will turn diesel advocates into true believers and the next round of

diesel emission equipment is going to be expensive pill for Europeans to swallow, I'm betting

that a lot more Continentals run to petrol Ecoboost as the efficiency approaches diesel..

 

We saw it recently with Mondeo the 2.3 I-4 was replaced by 2.0 EB and that more powerful engine dropped combined fuel consumption from 9.3 liters/100 km down to 7.5 liters/100km.

2.0 diesel is still arond 5.5 liters/100 km but ther about 20% more energy in a given quantity of diesel compared to gasoline. On that count it won't take much to get the EBs nearer to diesel.

All of that with superior horsepower that puts a smile on the customer's face....

 

I am not arguing that EB engines are not first class engineering and should be available on all Fords, I am simply arguing that it is wrong to say Americans will not buy diesels for the BS reasons given in that news conference. I don't think anyone who knows anything about cars thought those reasons were believable.

 

I am sure the market for diesels is there and if Ford does not want to play in that market, then that is an executive decision and we really don't need to know the reasons behind that decision.

 

Having said that, why give BS reasons for not bringing diesels into the USA, unless they really were not the real reasons?

[mlhm5]

There is one thing that people forget, when bringing up the VW diesel arguement. VW has a huge built in diesel fanbase. It truly borders on the obsessive. Still, compared to other manufacturers offerings, they sell relatively few diesels.

 

Nobody is going to look at a Fiesta diesel, in the states, and say "wow, my Powerstroke dually was fabulous, so I will happily pay $3K more for a tiny diesel in a Fiesta............... bring on that .50c a gallon higher fuel and higher maintenance costs. Woohoo."

 

Diesel is $.50 a gallon higher here also. I had a guy in a diesel HD talk to me about my V10 F250, when we were both fueling one day. He was crying that his truck was eating him out of house and home, and he wished he would have bought a gasser HD.

 

Bitch, whine, and complain all you want, but Ford is in business to make money. If there was a pile of money to be had, by offering diesel cars or LD trucks, they would be on it in a second. There is a reason that almost all manufacturers have abandoned their diesel car plans for the US. It isn't mass stupidity.

 

Fine, then state it that way. "We don't believe it is economically viable to sell diesels in the USA", and not those BS reasons in the news conference.

 

I suspect GM's announcement that they will have a Cruze 2.0 TD will change Ford's mind, regardless of what was said in that news conference.

Edited March 11, 2011 by mlhm5

[silvrsvt]

Fine, then state it that way. "We don't believe it is economically viable to sell diesels in the USA", and not those BS reasons in the news conference.

 

I suspect GM's announcement that they will have a Cruze 2.0 TD will change Ford's mind, regardless of what was said in that news conference.

 

So a Cruze Eco gets 33 combined....and you don't have to spend .50 cents more a gallon for fuel either....

[RichardJensen]

Fine, then state it that way. "We don't believe it is economically viable to sell diesels in the USA", and not those BS reasons in the news conference.

 

I suspect GM's announcement that they will have a Cruze 2.0 TD will change Ford's mind, regardless of what was said in that news conference.

Those "BS reasons" are exactly why it's not economically viable to sell diesels.

 

And I'll believe that Cobalt TD when I see it. This isn't the first time GM's publicly announced that diesels are on the way, only to back out at a later date.

[mlhm5]

Those "BS reasons" are exactly why it's not economically viable to sell diesels.

 

And I'll believe that Cobalt TD when I see it. This isn't the first time GM's publicly announced that diesels are on the way, only to back out at a later date.

 

"Ford’s fuel economy strategy “is driven by affordability.” Is that why pragmatic Americans choose to buy an F-150 that gets 23/16 to drive around town, commute to work and never haul anything.

 

It's pretty simple and Ford knows it. "I am a guy and I drive a pick-up." Pragmatism has nothing to do with it. If Americans are not pragmatic about their diet and health, why would anyone believe they are pragmatic about a vehicle purchase.

[old_fairmont_wagon]

And the person that buys and F-150 as a daily driver with no real intention of using it's towing or hauling capabilities is not the kind of person that would go out and purchase a diesel focus in the first place. Bringing up that straw man has no bearing on the discussion at hand. As for GMs 2.0L TD cruze, it remains to be seen how expensive it will be and what it's power and efficiency ratings will be. I suspect that it will be markedly detuned to reduce the expense of the emissions equipment, and, as a result, be a poor performer as compared to its gasoline counterparts. At that point, no matter what it's eco ratings are, it won't be directly comparable.