Hybrids bah

[johnridley]

I knew that we get stiffed in the US when it comes to economical cars, but this is the topper. Ford sells a diesel version of the Fiesta in the UK that gets 73.5 MPG and emits 93g/km of CO2. That's better than the Prius for MPG and almost exactly equal in CO2 emission.
I sure wish they'd let us get these things in the US. I expect there will be increasing pressure to do so over the next few years, as I expect permanent $4/gal gas to hit either this year or next, and we'll probably see $5/gal by 2013.

Comments

[c0nsumer.livejournal.com]

Remember that the UK uses Imperial gallons which are equal to 1.2 US gallons. Mileage figures need to be adjusted accordingly. (Still, 61.25 MPG isn't bad. I'm guessing that's highway mileage at a relatively low cruising speed, 63 MPH or so.)

[billroper]

Apparently, the problem isn't CO2 emission, but NOX emission. Diesels seem to have higher NOX emissions than gasoline engines and it's expensive to reduce them. The EU allows diesel cars to have higher NOX emissions than gasoline cars; the US doesn't.

So it appears to be less a problem of stupid manufacturers than (arguably) stupid regulators. (I say "arguably stupid", because there are probably perfectly good reasons for limiting NOX emissions...)

[johnridley.livejournal.com]

Well, even so, in the EU they have gas powered cars that get > 60 MPG, which is actually less greenhouse emissions than a full electric (I have read that the break-even is around 62 MPG).

[dave-ifversen.livejournal.com]

Up to now, the big problem with the Euro-diesels in the U.S. was the fact that Euro diesel fuel is much cleaner (lower sulfur) than U.S. diesel fuel. I say up to now, because I believe that new regulations are going into effect that will mandate the low sulfur diesel fuels here in this country.

I've been told that an engine designed to run on the low sulfur fuel will get messed up by the high sulfur diesel that was available throughout the U.S. With the low sulfur fuels mandated in the U.S., we should start to see some of the high mileage European diesels being imported.

[norfacoflandra.livejournal.com]

Having driven in Europe, those cars are a tough sell here. The "smart car" is a profile that's pretty darned common in Europe. Expand that a little bit for size - yeah, this is starting to be unappealing to the average American who drives.

The diesels are very good engines - but they are typically 3 and 4 cylinder small bore diesels, and Diesel is an evil word in the U.S. Again - would require a huge PR campaign to overcome that. Not helped by the demonization that evironmentalists cast diesel engines.

Then there's the overall power level. That's where the US could make progres now without much development. The average car hauling people only needs about a 2.6l engine. That's what happened in the 80's. People didn't like the lack of acceleration, but the fuel economy was OK. Here we are 20 years later, combustion chambers are more efficient, so if you had the same displacement/frontal area ratio things could improve significantly. (Weight, interestingly, isn't a big consideration for non-mountain driving. It's frontal area that's the big deal.)

I don't understand why Ford especially doesn't introduce the Euro models over here. There are some differences from safety standards, but it's developed, it could be imported for those who wanted it. But then again, Toyota could do it too and they didn't. Mystery to me.

[johnridley.livejournal.com]

"only needs a 2.6l engine"?????

Do you mean 1.6l, or do you have much different expectations than I do?

We have a car with a 1.8l engine and it gets away just fine with 4 people in it. I've owned multiple cars with < 2l engines and they were all fine. I don't start noticing real dropoff (won't take off as fast as I'd like) until I get down to about 1.3l engines. Even then, I don't have a real problem driving them. But I am probably anomalous for the US market, because with me behind the wheel, a 5l car will accelerate the same as a 1.6l car.

[norfacoflandra.livejournal.com]

You caught me in a less than good explanation. You're entirely correct about cars and 1.8l and smaller engines. The popular size, and where the opportunity for better fuel economy is with minimal pain, is in everything that runs bigger engines for no particular reason. Example: My 2007 Equinox doesn't need a 3.4l engine, but it's all that was offered at the time. It NEEDS something around 2.0l for normal midwestern driving, and extra if I'm going to see the parents in the NC mountains.

Personally I think as a safety measure there should be a mandated acceleration limiter on all vehicles on the road, and that you should have a time limited ability to exceed 75 mph - you can't exceed it more than 30 minutes in a 12 hour period, and that time gets reduced by how much you exceed 75mph by. The acceleration limiter in particular would probably be the biggest help with fuel economy without even redesigning engines and aeordynamics.

[madtechie2718.livejournal.com]

Prices have been steadily climbing around here (especially in more isolated areas) I've seen diesel at over $8 per US gallon, petrol slightly less. The fuel tax goes by calorific content, so diesel is slightly more expensive due to the higher density.

I drive a fair bit in the US; don't know if it is because cars are heavier or just bigger/less aerodynamic but I find the acceleration on some monster 4Litre SUV is not really any better than my 15 year old Toyota RAV4 2.0L

I only drive 400 or 500 miles per year here, so fuel economy is not really an issue for me, but when my car eventually dies, it's a bit of a toss up whether I bother getting a new one at all.

On balance, I probably will, but, given the incredible reliability of my RAV4, my ideal would be another one - but diesel.

I've never owned a car less than 10 years old and with capital depreciation being what it is, probably never will.