Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
miamix707
Topic Author
Posts: 3848
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 2:22 pm

The 65 Mpg Ford The U.S. Can't Have

Wed Sep 17, 2008 7:46 am

Ford's Fiesta ECOnetic gets an astonishing 65 mpg, but the carmaker can't afford to sell it in the U.S.

(that's Ford's logic)

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine...1065.htm?chan=rss_topStories_ssi_5
 
ACDC8
Posts: 7895
Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2005 6:56 pm

RE: The 65 Mpg Ford The U.S. Can't Have

Wed Sep 17, 2008 7:59 am

I guess it being a diesel is the first hurdle to overcome.
A Grumpy German Is A Sauerkraut
 
virgin744
Posts: 825
Joined: Sat Nov 13, 1999 5:51 pm

RE: The 65 Mpg Ford The U.S. Can't Have

Wed Sep 17, 2008 6:37 pm

The article raises some very insightful and frank issues about America. Diesel is too costly for yanks here and has an unfortunately stigma of being a dirty fuel.

Sad that so many idiotic narrow minded manufacturers are happy to push gas guzzlers down the consumers' throats for another 5-10yrs before they realise that weaning the consumer off petrol cars and onto something else is the way to go!

This isn't helped by the lobbyists who are right behind them though. What we need to get wholesale America to understand is that whilst we find the clean renewable alternative fuel we must try to push other alternatives out there too, give the consumers choice, let them decide and allow them to have diesels that will not only give them more mpg for their buck but also give the US the freedom of not having to depend so much on foreign oil whilst they work on sustainable cheap energy.

I really hate world politics/economics sometimes - it interferes with common sense and is so out of touch with reality....  banghead 
 
Superfly
Posts: 37705
Joined: Thu May 11, 2000 8:01 am

RE: The 65 Mpg Ford The U.S. Can't Have

Wed Sep 17, 2008 6:51 pm

Looks and sounds like a great car. I think it's a shame that a lot of so called environmentalist scoff at the idea of buying a diesel despite the fact that it gets better mileage.
Shame on the writer for making it sound like Ford specializes in making "lumbering gas hogs" when the Germans and Japanese also make "lumbering gas hogs" too.
Ford should sell this car here in America.
Bring back the Concorde
 
3DoorsDown
Posts: 347
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2005 3:55 pm

RE: The 65 Mpg Ford The U.S. Can't Have

Wed Sep 17, 2008 7:01 pm



Quoting Virgin744 (Reply 2):
Sad that so many idiotic narrow minded manufacturers are happy to push gas guzzlers down the consumers' throats for another 5-10yrs before they realise that weaning the consumer off petrol cars and onto something else is the way to go!

If the consumer didn't want them, they wouldn't be pushing them.

One less Ford on the streets of America is a good thing.  Smile

3DD
 
Superfly
Posts: 37705
Joined: Thu May 11, 2000 8:01 am

RE: The 65 Mpg Ford The U.S. Can't Have

Wed Sep 17, 2008 7:26 pm



Quoting 3DoorsDown (Reply 4):
One less Ford on the streets of America is a good thing.

Shame on you!  mad 
Bring back the Concorde
 
miamix707
Topic Author
Posts: 3848
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 2:22 pm

RE: The 65 Mpg Ford The U.S. Can't Have

Wed Sep 17, 2008 7:28 pm



Quoting Virgin744 (Reply 2):
The article raises some very insightful and frank issues about America. Diesel is too costly for yanks here and has an unfortunately stigma of being a dirty fuel.

The consumer needs to be educated. And what a better time than now, even with the price of diesel the Fiesta will give you more mileage for your buck. This car isn't that strane 2 seater that's becoming popular now (whatever brand that is), but one that actually looks somewhat decent and seats FIVE

The same flawed logic that Nissan used back in the 90's when they wouldn't export their turbo 240sx/Silvias and Skylines to the US. All because of a supposed marketing illusion that the American consumer didn't like turbos.... bzzz wrong
 
Klaus
Posts: 21642
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:41 am

RE: The 65 Mpg Ford The U.S. Can't Have

Wed Sep 17, 2008 7:29 pm



Quoting Superfly (Reply 3):
Shame on the writer for making it sound like Ford specializes in making "lumbering gas hogs" when the Germans and Japanese also make "lumbering gas hogs" too.

Of course our manufacturers have plenty of gas hogs — just no lumbering ones...!  cool 
 
User avatar
Tugger
Posts: 11096
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

RE: The 65 Mpg Ford The U.S. Can't Have

Wed Sep 17, 2008 7:37 pm



Quoting 3DoorsDown (Reply 4):
If the consumer didn't want them, they wouldn't be pushing them.

Sort of true and sort of not. Advertising has been proven to work and the auto manufacturers don't make as much on the small cars as they do on the old, lumbering, inefficient gas hogs so they advertise these widely to develop and encourage and increase the market for them. And presto! They make more money.

And as long as gas prices were low they got away with it and people didn't seem to mind paying twice as much or more as their neighbor in fuel costs.

Of course now they don't have much of a choice as it is a choice of paying for gas or eating for some people.

Tugg
I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. - W. Shatner
There are many kinds of sentences that we think state facts about the world but that are really just expressions of our attitudes. - F. Ramsey
 
Superfly
Posts: 37705
Joined: Thu May 11, 2000 8:01 am

RE: The 65 Mpg Ford The U.S. Can't Have

Wed Sep 17, 2008 7:58 pm



Quoting Tugger (Reply 8):
Advertising has been proven to work and the auto manufacturers don't make as much on the small cars as they do on the old, lumbering, inefficient gas hogs so they advertise these widely to develop and encourage and increase the market for them. And presto! They make more money.

Ford hasn't made a lumbering, inefficient gas hog since the 1978 LTD.
1979 was the last year for Lincoln (Ford Motor Company).
1978 Cadillac Eldorado was the last lumbering, inefficient gas hog at General Motors
1978 Chrysler New York Brougham was the last lumbering, inefficient gas hog at Chrysler.
1974 AMC Ambassador was the last lumbering, inefficient gas hog at AMC.
Not sure why people are still using this term.
David Kiley at Businessweek should be fired for poor choice of words.
Bring back the Concorde
 
User avatar
WildcatYXU
Posts: 3206
Joined: Sat May 06, 2006 2:05 pm

RE: The 65 Mpg Ford The U.S. Can't Have

Thu Sep 18, 2008 8:20 pm



Quoting Superfly (Reply 9):
Ford hasn't made a lumbering, inefficient gas hog since the 1978 LTD

Well, I own a much newer Ford ('95) which I'd definitely call a gas hog.
310, 319, 320, 321, 321N, 332, 333, 343, 345, 346, 732, 735, 73G, 738, 744, 752, 753, 762, 763, 77L, 77W, 788, AT4, AT7, BEH, C402, CR2, CRA, CR9, DH1, DH3, DH4, E45, E75, E90, E95, F28, F50, F100, MD82, Saab 340, YAK40
 
Superfly
Posts: 37705
Joined: Thu May 11, 2000 8:01 am

RE: The 65 Mpg Ford The U.S. Can't Have

Thu Sep 18, 2008 8:24 pm



Quoting WildcatYXU (Reply 10):
Well, I own a much newer Ford ('95) which I'd definitely call a gas hog.

Is it a car or a truck?
By 1995, the largest Ford was the current Crown Victoria which gets 24MPG.
That is NOT a gas hog.
The 1995 Mustang GT was the last year for the 5.0 V8.
That still got over 22MPG.

A gas hog would be like 12MPG such as a BMW 7-series or Mercedes S-class.
Those are some real gas hogs.
Bring back the Concorde
 
ThePRGuy
Posts: 1833
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2006 10:07 am

RE: The 65 Mpg Ford The U.S. Can't Have

Thu Sep 18, 2008 8:34 pm



Quoting Superfly (Reply 11):
That still got over 22MPG.

Still nothing to write home about and should not be considered "good".
Heathrow has been described as the only building site to have its own airport.
 
User avatar
WildcatYXU
Posts: 3206
Joined: Sat May 06, 2006 2:05 pm

RE: The 65 Mpg Ford The U.S. Can't Have

Thu Sep 18, 2008 8:43 pm



Quoting Superfly (Reply 11):
Is it a car or a truck?

Yes, a truck. Big grin It's a F150 XL with extended cab, 5.0 V8, 5 speed manual. 12 mpg combined...
310, 319, 320, 321, 321N, 332, 333, 343, 345, 346, 732, 735, 73G, 738, 744, 752, 753, 762, 763, 77L, 77W, 788, AT4, AT7, BEH, C402, CR2, CRA, CR9, DH1, DH3, DH4, E45, E75, E90, E95, F28, F50, F100, MD82, Saab 340, YAK40
 
lowrider
Posts: 2542
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2004 3:09 am

RE: The 65 Mpg Ford The U.S. Can't Have

Thu Sep 18, 2008 9:05 pm

Then there are those of us who would love to have more diesel options. What would it take to get Ford to build an updated Crown Vic/Grand Marquis with a straight 6 turbo-diesel and a five speed transmission? Surely we could extract 30+ mpg combined out of such a package. Give it all wheel drive for us snowbelt dwellers, and it would be perfect. A 2500lb tow rating would pull a nice utility trailer and accomplish 99.9% of all the tasks a typical homeowner needs. Ah, to dream...
Proud OOTSK member
 
Bongodog1964
Posts: 3542
Joined: Wed Oct 18, 2006 6:29 am

RE: The 65 Mpg Ford The U.S. Can't Have

Thu Sep 18, 2008 11:00 pm



Quoting Superfly (Reply 11):
Is it a car or a truck?
By 1995, the largest Ford was the current Crown Victoria which gets 24MPG.
That is NOT a gas hog.
The 1995 Mustang GT was the last year for the 5.0 V8.
That still got over 22MPG.

By my standards 24mpg for a saloon car firmly puts it into the category of as you put it a "gas hog"
 
Superfly
Posts: 37705
Joined: Thu May 11, 2000 8:01 am

RE: The 65 Mpg Ford The U.S. Can't Have

Fri Sep 19, 2008 12:15 am



Quoting WildcatYXU (Reply 13):
Yes, a truck. Big grin It's a F150 XL with extended cab, 5.0 V8, 5 speed manual. 12 mpg combined...

Well duh, it's a truck! Big grin
Trucks aren't made for efficiency. They are made to pull lots of heavy objects. Unless you are using your F-series for a business, you are just poring money down the drain.
beautiful truck by the way  Cool
I was specifically talking about Ford cars, not trucks.
The equivalent German and Japanese trucks made in 1995 would still give you the same low gas mileage. None were sold here in North America so they can keep the public here fooled in to thinking that they are some how 'greener' when actually they are not. They make their gas hogs too.

Quoting Bongodog1964 (Reply 15):
By my standards 24mpg for a saloon car firmly puts it into the category of as you put it a "gas hog"

...but by normal standards, 24 is not a gas-hog. That is the average MPG of all vehicles sold.

Quoting Lowrider (Reply 14):
Then there are those of us who would love to have more diesel options. What would it take to get Ford to build an updated Crown Vic/Grand Marquis with a straight 6 turbo-diesel and a five speed transmission?

Ah, to dream...

 checkmark 

Or just drop in their existing 6.0 V8 Powerstroke diesel.
I've been saying all along that Mercury should make a stationwagon (Colony Park) version of the existing Grand Marquis, drop in the existing 6.0liter Powerstroke V8, add 4-wheel drive (screw that all wheel drive stuff) , add wood grain side panels and a ski rack on top and there you would have the ultimate automobile.  Cool
Ideally with the 2005 grille & hood ornament, digital instrument gauge cluster (1992-2005 option), leather seats and power glass moonroof.
Ford could easily do this with existing parts bin material. They just need to hire Superfly in their design department.
Bring back the Concorde
 
User avatar
WildcatYXU
Posts: 3206
Joined: Sat May 06, 2006 2:05 pm

RE: The 65 Mpg Ford The U.S. Can't Have

Fri Sep 19, 2008 12:33 am



Quoting Superfly (Reply 16):
Unless you are using your F-series for a business, you are just poring money down the drain.

While I'm not using the truck for business, it's helping me not to spend elsewhere, so it's OK. And it's my first V8. Now I need to get a V8 in a car.  Big grin

Quoting Superfly (Reply 16):
beautiful truck by the way

Thanks

Quoting Superfly (Reply 16):
I've been saying all along that Mercury should make a stationwagon (Colony Park) version of the existing Grand Marquis, drop in the existing 6.0liter Powerstroke V8, add 4-wheel drive (screw that all wheel drive stuff) , add wood grain side panels and a ski rack on top and there you would have the ultimate automobile. Cool
Ideally with the 2005 grille & hood ornament, digital instrument gauge cluster (1992-2005 option), leather seats and power glass moonroof.

Drop in a manual transmission and I'll order one  Big grin
310, 319, 320, 321, 321N, 332, 333, 343, 345, 346, 732, 735, 73G, 738, 744, 752, 753, 762, 763, 77L, 77W, 788, AT4, AT7, BEH, C402, CR2, CRA, CR9, DH1, DH3, DH4, E45, E75, E90, E95, F28, F50, F100, MD82, Saab 340, YAK40
 
Superfly
Posts: 37705
Joined: Thu May 11, 2000 8:01 am

RE: The 65 Mpg Ford The U.S. Can't Have

Fri Sep 19, 2008 12:41 am



Quoting WildcatYXU (Reply 17):
Now I need to get a V8 in a car.

 checkmark 
Now you are talking!
Sedan or coupe?
The Chrysler 300C is an amazing performer with tons of power and great gas mileage.
The Mercury Grand Marquis is more comfortable but has a whole 100 HP lass than the Chrysler 300C.
The Mustang GT convertible is awesome but I'd like to see what the Dodge Challenger convertible is like when that comes out.  Cool

Quoting WildcatYXU (Reply 17):
Drop in a manual transmission and I'll order one Big grin

Manual for a large wagon / sedan?
Not a good idea but I wouldn't be against it as an option.
Bring back the Concorde
 
lowrider
Posts: 2542
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2004 3:09 am

RE: The 65 Mpg Ford The U.S. Can't Have

Fri Sep 19, 2008 12:53 am



Quoting Superfly (Reply 16):
I've been saying all along that Mercury should make a stationwagon (Colony Park) version of the existing Grand Marquis, drop in the existing 6.0liter Powerstroke V8, add 4-wheel drive (screw that all wheel drive stuff) , add wood grain side panels and a ski rack on top and there you would have the ultimate automobile.

You want to plan a trip to MI and see if we can't reason with the folks there?

Quoting Superfly (Reply 16):
Or just drop in their existing 6.0 V8 Powerstroke diesel.

Its not a bad idea, really. Might be a good project for the winter of 09. 08 is already spoken for. I might have to price that out and see how it looks.
Proud OOTSK member
 
Superfly
Posts: 37705
Joined: Thu May 11, 2000 8:01 am

RE: The 65 Mpg Ford The U.S. Can't Have

Fri Sep 19, 2008 12:56 am



Quoting Lowrider (Reply 19):
You want to plan a trip to MI and see if we can't reason with the folks there?

My good friend Falstaff lives there and I think he's given up on that idea already. Perhaps we could put a bug in Alan Mullay's ear before they close down the Saint Thomas plant in Ontario.



Quoting Lowrider (Reply 19):
Its not a bad idea, really. Might be a good project for the winter of 09. 08 is already spoken for. I might have to price that out and see how it looks.

I'd love to drop the 5.4 liter V8 (Navigator engine) in the 2003 Town Car Cartier L series.
The only problem is that the intake manifold is taller than the 4.6 and the hood may not close all the way.
Bring back the Concorde
 
lowrider
Posts: 2542
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2004 3:09 am

RE: The 65 Mpg Ford The U.S. Can't Have

Fri Sep 19, 2008 1:10 am



Quoting Superfly (Reply 20):
The only problem is that the intake manifold is taller than the 4.6 and the hood may not close all the way.

Maybe a subtle ram air type scoop? It would alter the lines a little, but done tastefully, it could look good.

As to the diesel Crown Vic, before I had envisioned a Cummins engine or similar, but that powerstroke idea has me thinking. I will have to look and see if the frame would need strengthening to deal with the additional torque. Some measurements are in order as well. A dual exhaust will be a requirement, and I can probably keep the stock power stroke transmission and use a 3.73 rear end. The better half will not be pleased with this idea.
Proud OOTSK member
 
User avatar
WildcatYXU
Posts: 3206
Joined: Sat May 06, 2006 2:05 pm

RE: The 65 Mpg Ford The U.S. Can't Have

Fri Sep 19, 2008 1:30 am



Quoting Superfly (Reply 18):
Sedan or coupe?

I'd like a coupe, but since my car is the family car at the same time, it has to be a sedan.

Quoting Superfly (Reply 18):
Manual for a large wagon / sedan?
Not a good idea but I wouldn't be against it as an option.

OK, let's call it "Wildcat Edition"
310, 319, 320, 321, 321N, 332, 333, 343, 345, 346, 732, 735, 73G, 738, 744, 752, 753, 762, 763, 77L, 77W, 788, AT4, AT7, BEH, C402, CR2, CRA, CR9, DH1, DH3, DH4, E45, E75, E90, E95, F28, F50, F100, MD82, Saab 340, YAK40
 
miamix707
Topic Author
Posts: 3848
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 2:22 pm

RE: The 65 Mpg Ford The U.S. Can't Have

Fri Sep 19, 2008 2:08 am



Quoting Lowrider (Reply 14):
Then there are those of us who would love to have more diesel options

My cousin has a transmission shop and drives around in this old mercedes turbodiesel that he pours AT transmission liquid in the gas tank and that thing runs lol

I once saw a 1984 or 85 Toyota Corolla DIESEL at an auto auction. Imagine the gas mileage on that... Wonder the total # that were ever exported to the USA?
 
lowrider
Posts: 2542
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2004 3:09 am

RE: The 65 Mpg Ford The U.S. Can't Have

Fri Sep 19, 2008 3:03 am



Quoting MIAMIx707 (Reply 23):
1984 or 85 Toyota Corolla DIESEL

I briefly owned a Toyota Diesel pickup. I think it was an 83. It was a bank repo that I picked up cheap. It got about 35 mpg on the freeway, but was woefully underpowered. A chance encounter with a deer ended that. Nissan had a diesel Pathfinder in the early to mid 80s as well. I don't know if any made it to the US.
Proud OOTSK member
 
WunalaYann
Posts: 2128
Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2005 12:55 am

RE: The 65 Mpg Ford The U.S. Can't Have

Fri Sep 19, 2008 3:07 am



Quoting Superfly (Reply 16):
but by normal standards, 24 is not a gas-hog. That is the average MPG of all vehicles sold.

Define normal standards and then we can talk.

As far as I am concerned, anything above Euro/Aussie norm 10l/100 km is thirsty. Whether it is petrol or diesel.

 Smile
 
User avatar
fbgdavidson
Posts: 3897
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 6:25 am

RE: The 65 Mpg Ford The U.S. Can't Have

Fri Sep 19, 2008 3:17 am



Quoting ThePRGuy (Reply 12):
Still nothing to write home about and should not be considered "good".

I noticed you mentioned this here and on another thread where MCOFlyer was wittering on about his Dodge's fuel economy.

One thing to note is that a US gallon is different to a UK gallon. I was surprised how bad my car's fuel economy was until I realised it was apples and oranges.
A US gallon = 3.78 litres
A UK gallon = 4.54 litres

That might help to explain the difference here, but yes, US cars in general have much bigger engines than necessary. Does a Jeep Liberty really need a 3.7litre engine?
"My first job was selling doors, door to door, that's a tough job innit" - Bill Bailey
 
lowrider
Posts: 2542
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2004 3:09 am

RE: The 65 Mpg Ford The U.S. Can't Have

Fri Sep 19, 2008 3:58 am



Quoting Fbgdavidson (Reply 26):
Does a Jeep Liberty really need a 3.7litre engine

Yes, if it is to get out of its own way. A smaller engine is not necessarily a more efficient one. Past a certain tipping point, the smaller engine has to work at such a high percentage of it maximum output that it actually will be less efficient than a larger one.
Proud OOTSK member
 
WunalaYann
Posts: 2128
Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2005 12:55 am

RE: The 65 Mpg Ford The U.S. Can't Have

Fri Sep 19, 2008 4:07 am



Quoting Lowrider (Reply 27):
Yes, if it is to get out of its own way. A smaller engine is not necessarily a more efficient one. Past a certain tipping point, the smaller engine has to work at such a high percentage of it maximum output that it actually will be less efficient than a larger one.

I agree, to a certain point. Modern engine technology ensures that a 3.0l V6, with DOHC and 24 valves, along with maybe some fancy variable valve timing would probably crank out in excess of 210 hp and around 300 Nm. That surely would be enough to move the Liberty around...  Smile
 
lowrider
Posts: 2542
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2004 3:09 am

RE: The 65 Mpg Ford The U.S. Can't Have

Fri Sep 19, 2008 4:34 am



Quoting WunalaYann (Reply 29):
That surely would be enough to move the Liberty around...

Indeed it would. Chrysler already happened to have the 3.7 lying around, and while it may not be the optimum engine, it was apparently deemed close enough. If Chrysler were to produce an engine designed and tailored for each car they would be even less profitable then they currently are.

And after some research it looks like the Powerstroke Crown Vic idea is dead. It is not impossible, just beyond my abilities and means.
Proud OOTSK member
 
WunalaYann
Posts: 2128
Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2005 12:55 am

RE: The 65 Mpg Ford The U.S. Can't Have

Fri Sep 19, 2008 4:44 am



Quoting Lowrider (Reply 30):
Indeed it would. Chrysler already happened to have the 3.7 lying around, and while it may not be the optimum engine, it was apparently deemed close enough. If Chrysler were to produce an engine designed and tailored for each car they would be even less profitable then they currently are.

 checkmark  Nothing like profit to silence critics.  Smile

I always laugh when I read stuff like "Man, why doesn't Toyota build this?" or "VW will die if they don't decide to build that...".

Sure.

They're too busy making money.
 
miamix707
Topic Author
Posts: 3848
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 2:22 pm

RE: The 65 Mpg Ford The U.S. Can't Have

Fri Sep 19, 2008 5:29 am



Quoting Lowrider (Reply 24):
Nissan had a diesel Pathfinder in the early to mid 80s as well. I don't know if any made it to the US.

I've seen early 80's NIssan Maximas (I think 82-83s or around there) that were Diesel. Some guy I know who worked in a place specializing in Z cars was selling them (this was like 13 years ago). Those came with a lot of options too, pretty advanced for their time, but maybe expensive to fix, I dunno. I haven't seen old Maximas in many years.

Quoting WunalaYann (Reply 31):

They're too busy making money.

Nissan was in danger of disappearing a few years ago and Mitsubishi hasn't been doing well for a while now. Mazda was in the same situation I think. Toyota nowadays is making money out of their reputation for reliability, not because their vehicles are necessarily exciting or make a statement...
 
WunalaYann
Posts: 2128
Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2005 12:55 am

RE: The 65 Mpg Ford The U.S. Can't Have

Fri Sep 19, 2008 5:35 am



Quoting MIAMIx707 (Reply 32):
Nissan was in danger of disappearing a few years ago and Mitsubishi hasn't been doing well for a while now. Mazda was in the same situation I think.

Sorry, would you mind pointing out to yours slow truly where exactly I mentioned Nissan, Mitsubishi or Mazda?

Thank you.

 Smile
 
ltbewr
Posts: 15476
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2004 1:24 pm

RE: The 65 Mpg Ford The U.S. Can't Have

Fri Sep 19, 2008 10:03 am

Americans generally accept cars like the Focus as about the smallest cars they really buy in significant numbers in most part due to believing bigger is better in crash survival.
But for some urban areas, we don't have streets as narrow as those in Europe or Asia so a far less need for very small cars.
Our cost of fuel is still about half of many parts of the world, so the value of the savings from diesel cars is minimal and may actually be negative when the additional costs of the engines are included.
The big 'Detroit 3' car companies also don't really want to sell vehicles for $15,000 and only make $1000 gross profit in a highly price sensitive market segment vs. a large pick-up or SUV at $40,000 and make $5,000 gross profit and far less price sensitive until recently.
 
MD11Engineer
Posts: 13899
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2003 5:25 am

RE: The 65 Mpg Ford The U.S. Can't Have

Fri Sep 19, 2008 10:26 am



Quoting Superfly (Reply 11):
A gas hog would be like 12MPG such as a BMW 7-series or Mercedes S-class.
Those are some real gas hogs.

But you rarely see them on the roads over here, mainly due to their prices. They are mainly bought by some of our wealthy "elites" just to show off (just like my boss's BMW x5). Most people drive much smaller cars.

Quoting Superfly (Reply 16):
Well duh, it's a truck! Big grin
Trucks aren't made for efficiency. They are made to pull lots of heavy objects. Unless you are using your F-series for a business, you are just poring money down the drain.
beautiful truck by the way Cool
I was specifically talking about Ford cars, not trucks.
The equivalent German and Japanese trucks made in 1995 would still give you the same low gas mileage. None were sold here in North America so they can keep the public here fooled in to thinking that they are some how 'greener' when actually they are not. They make their gas hogs too.

I politely object:
Businesses have to look very closely at the fuel economics of a vehicle. So do e.g. military organisations (not so much due to the cost, but due to logistics concerns, the less a vehicle consumes, the less strain it puts on the logistic train to get new fuel up front).

I have heard repetitive complaints from e.g. builders, farmers or forestry workers, that all 4x4s currently on the market have been so much urbanised (e.g. road clearance reduced and off road capabilities sacrificed in favour of comfort) to appeal to urban dwellers (e.g. the infamous Soccer Moms or "Yummy Mummies") , for whom such a vehicles is just a status symbol, to become totally useless for people who actually need a rugged odfroad vehicle for their business.

Many of them would like to have the return of the older Toyota Bush Taxies, Nissan Patrols or Landrover defenders (which will be pulled off the european market in 2010, because it doesn't fullfill the new passive accident protection requirements due to it's ruggedness and road clearance, exactly the properties, which make is so good off roads).
At the same time these vehicles, while not being exceptionally fast on the road (my Defender 110 maxes out at 120-130 km/h), are quite economical in fuel consumption (actually many are better than most urbanised SUVs).

Jan
Je Suis Charlie et je suis Ahmet aussi
 
PHLBOS
Posts: 6520
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2004 6:38 am

RE: The 65 Mpg Ford The U.S. Can't Have

Fri Sep 19, 2008 5:47 pm



Quoting Superfly (Reply 3):
Ford should sell this car here in America.

 checkmark  Agreed. If enough of them sell, it would more than offset any CAFE penalties incurred by sales of its V8-powered cars, trucks & SUVs.

It seems to me that Ford's resistance to offering this diesel may also be in part due the poorly-received sales of its last diesel-powered cars of the mid-80s (remember the the Escort diesel and the BMW 6-cylinder diesel offered on the mid-size Lincolns?).

IMHO, the main reason for the sales failures of those was due to the timing of the release of high-MPG diesels with respect to the FALLING cost of gasoline at the time PLUS the public fallout from the reliability issues GM had with its own diesel-powered cars (though most of GM's diesel engine issues in question were related to it being a gasoline engine that was converted as opposed to a separate engine).

Quoting Superfly (Reply 18):
Manual for a large wagon / sedan?
Not a good idea but I wouldn't be against it as an option.

Once upon a time, a manual for a large coupe/sedan DID exist (until the early-to-mid-70s); though it usually was on the very basic model (examples: Ford Custom and Chevy Biscayne). Although I did see an ad on eBay a few years ago for a 1971 Ford LTD convertible that did indeed have a factory manual (4-on-the-floor) transmission; an interior photo showed the clutch pedal. Must've been a very rare limited-production package.

Quoting WildcatYXU (Reply 22):
OK, let's call it "Wildcat Edition"

I think Buick still has the trademark rights for the Wildcat name. Big grin

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 35):
Quoting Superfly (Reply 11):
A gas hog would be like 12MPG such as a BMW 7-series or Mercedes S-class.
Those are some real gas hogs.

But you rarely see them on the roads over here, mainly due to their prices. They are mainly bought by some of our wealthy "elites" just to show off (just like my boss's BMW x5). Most people drive much smaller cars.

That may be true in Germany, but not true in the States. Drive around some of the more well-to-do suburbs of America and you'll see a lot more BMWs, Mercedes and Lexuses than Cadillacs, Buicks, Chryslers & Lincolns.

Quoting Superfly (Reply 16):
Quoting Bongodog1964 (Reply 15):
By my standards 24mpg for a saloon car firmly puts it into the category of as you put it a "gas hog"

...but by normal standards, 24 is not a gas-hog. That is the average MPG of all vehicles sold.



Quoting WunalaYann (Reply 25):
Define normal standards and then we can talk.

Actually, many V6 FWD mid-size sedans sold in the States average 24-25 mpg. The current CAFE for all cars sold in the States is presently 27.5 mpg.

In truth, a 24 mpg highway estimate is actually not too shabby for a V8 engine on a RWD car. Back in the late-70s, the large land-yacths equipped with the smallest base engines struggled to obtain 20 mpg on the highway. Also, keep in mind that many of those brand-new SIX-cylinder Crossovers (CUV) are also posting 24 mpg on the highway.

Can/will a gas-powered V8 get 40 mpg? Probably not. IIRC the best V8 fuel economy was from GM's ill-fated diesels which posted 31 mpg highway.

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 35):
I have heard repetitive complaints from e.g. builders, farmers or forestry workers, that all 4x4s currently on the market have been so much urbanised (e.g. road clearance reduced and off road capabilities sacrificed in favour of comfort) to appeal to urban dwellers (e.g. the infamous Soccer Moms or "Yummy Mummies") , for whom such a vehicles is just a status symbol, to become totally useless for people who actually need a rugged odfroad vehicle for their business.

Don't you mean Yuppie MummiesBig grin

Your paragraph above describes why many (at least in the States) are now offering Crossover (CUV) vehicles.
"TransEastern! You'll feel like you've never left the ground because we treat you like dirt!" SNL Parady ad circa 1981
 
MD11Engineer
Posts: 13899
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2003 5:25 am

RE: The 65 Mpg Ford The U.S. Can't Have

Fri Sep 19, 2008 6:56 pm



Quoting PHLBOS (Reply 36):
Don't you mean Yuppie Mummies? Big grin

No, "Yummy Mummies" is a term used in Ireland (at least around Dublin) for those young to middle-aged housewives, with wealthy husbands, who use heavy SUVs to bring their children to school, then spend the morning with their friends in the gym, shopping mal or beauty palour, before picking up their kids again in the afternoon, bring them to football (soccer) or ballet lessons etc..

Basically rich women, with too much time on their hands.

Jan
Je Suis Charlie et je suis Ahmet aussi
 
TylerDurden
Posts: 369
Joined: Tue May 06, 2008 7:55 pm

RE: The 65 Mpg Ford The U.S. Can't Have

Fri Sep 19, 2008 10:53 pm



Quoting Superfly (Reply 18):
The Chrysler 300C is an amazing performer with tons of power and great gas mileage

It is hardly amazing....handles like a dog! Again, it's just a ghetto cruiser....
And it's looking dated---particularly in taxi cab yellow. When does it get a refresh?
 
Superfly
Posts: 37705
Joined: Thu May 11, 2000 8:01 am

RE: The 65 Mpg Ford The U.S. Can't Have

Fri Sep 19, 2008 11:25 pm



Quoting Lowrider (Reply 21):
Maybe a subtle ram air type scoop? It would alter the lines a little, but done tastefully, it could look good.

On a luxury sedan?
No way!  no 
That would look tacky.

Quoting WunalaYann (Reply 25):
Define normal standards and then we can talk.

Here in North America, that is average.

Quoting Lowrider (Reply 21):
I will have to look and see if the frame would need strengthening to deal with the additional torque.

Perhaps PHLBOS or Falstaff can verify this; The Panther platform went through some changes for the 1998 model year and became lighter. Thus lowering it's towing capacity. You could easily do this engine modification with a 1997 and older Crown Victoria / Grand Marquis / Town Car. The largest engine that was on that frame was the 5.8liter 351cu'" offered 1979-1980 (LTD, Grand Marquis, Town Car, Mark VI) and up to 1986 for Police package variants. Those engines had a lot of torque.

Quoting WildcatYXU (Reply 22):
OK, let's call it "Wildcat Edition"

Buick has rights to that nameplate. (General Motors)
Maruarder would be the performance model for a full-sized Mercury.

Quoting Flight152 (Reply 28):
You seriously need to check your facts before spewing such garbage.

Touchy Flight152?

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 35):
Many of them would like to have the return of the older Toyota Bush Taxies, Nissan Patrols or Landrover defenders (which will be pulled off the european market in 2010, because it doesn't fullfill the new passive accident protection requirements due to it's ruggedness and road clearance, exactly the properties, which make is so good off roads).
At the same time these vehicles, while not being exceptionally fast on the road (my Defender 110 maxes out at 120-130 km/h), are quite economical in fuel consumption (actually many are better than most urbanised SUVs).

When you say "will be pulled off the European market in 2010", will you still be able to keep an older model if you wanted or will your government outlaw them for your own use?

Quoting PHLBOS (Reply 36):
It seems to me that Ford's resistance to offering this diesel may also be in part due the poorly-received sales of its last diesel-powered cars of the mid-80s (remember the the Escort diesel and the BMW 6-cylinder diesel offered on the mid-size Lincolns?).

You are correct on all of the above. The diesel was offered on the 1984 - 1985 Lincoln Continental and Mark VII.

Quoting PHLBOS (Reply 36):
Also, keep in mind that many of those brand-new SIX-cylinder Crossovers (CUV) are also posting 24 mpg on the highway.

 checkmark 
Interesting how many of these owners would scoff at the idea of buying a Grand Marquis, Town Car or Buick Lucerne because they think those cars are gas hogs. Never mind the fact that their silly M-class or X5 gets the same or worse mileage.

Quoting TylerDurden (Reply 38):
It is hardly amazing....handles like a dog!

I guess you've never driven one.
Bring back the Concorde
 
WunalaYann
Posts: 2128
Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2005 12:55 am

RE: The 65 Mpg Ford The U.S. Can't Have

Fri Sep 19, 2008 11:29 pm



Quoting PHLBOS (Reply 36):
Actually, many V6 FWD mid-size sedans sold in the States average 24-25 mpg. The current CAFE for all cars sold in the States is presently 27.5 mpg.

But that is part of my point. I believe that the automotive world does not begin with V6 sedans. There are many smaller, more efficient, safer (due to much superior dynamics) and very quick 4-cylinder alternatives. And no, I am not talking about Fiat 500 but simply Ford Focus, Honda Accord (the Euro version), Peugeot 308, Mazda 6, etc.

By the way, miles per gallon do not speak too clearly to the rest of the world as we use litres per 100 km.  Wink
 
Superfly
Posts: 37705
Joined: Thu May 11, 2000 8:01 am

RE: The 65 Mpg Ford The U.S. Can't Have

Fri Sep 19, 2008 11:31 pm



Quoting WunalaYann (Reply 40):
I believe that the automotive world does not begin with V6 sedans.

He was simply using those as an example.
Many people think that large American sedans get poor mileage when in fact, they get the average economy as more popular cars and minivans.

Quoting WunalaYann (Reply 40):
There are many smaller, more efficient,

We all know that.
Bring back the Concorde
 
lowrider
Posts: 2542
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2004 3:09 am

RE: The 65 Mpg Ford The U.S. Can't Have

Fri Sep 19, 2008 11:43 pm



Quoting Superfly (Reply 39):
The Panther platform went through some changes for the 1998 model year

I only looked at some of the post 2000 versions, but have found that the powerstroke package is significantly heavier, and would require modifications to the firewall, transmission tunnel, and wheel wells. It would also need a custom oil pan. Not to mention the suspension work and almost complete rewiring of the car. Welding a few mounts and swapping an engine is one thing, but this is a project beyond what I can do or afford. Maybe I will just find an old Mercedes 300 to overhaul.

Quoting Superfly (Reply 39):
That would look tacky.

Probably, but it is the simplest solution I can think of. I always did like the sleeper cars. They look absolutely stock and give no indication of what lies beneath.
Proud OOTSK member
 
MD11Engineer
Posts: 13899
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2003 5:25 am

RE: The 65 Mpg Ford The U.S. Can't Have

Fri Sep 19, 2008 11:45 pm



Quoting Superfly (Reply 39):
Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 35):
Many of them would like to have the return of the older Toyota Bush Taxies, Nissan Patrols or Landrover defenders (which will be pulled off the european market in 2010, because it doesn't fullfill the new passive accident protection requirements due to it's ruggedness and road clearance, exactly the properties, which make is so good off roads).
At the same time these vehicles, while not being exceptionally fast on the road (my Defender 110 maxes out at 120-130 km/h), are quite economical in fuel consumption (actually many are better than most urbanised SUVs).

When you say "will be pulled off the European market in 2010", will you still be able to keep an older model if you wanted or will your government outlaw them for your own use?

The existing ones will be grandfathered, but you won't get any new ones registered or imported, even though the Defender with the simple, purely mechanical, easy to maintain 300TDI engine (which has in Europe been replaced by first the TD5 engine (5 cylinder pump/nozzle, electronically regulated) and recently with the TD4 engine (4 cylinder common rail diesel, FADEC, an engine designed by Ford for the Transit vans)), will still be manufactured as "Rest of the World" (ROW) version for Asia and Africa.

Jan
Je Suis Charlie et je suis Ahmet aussi
 
Superfly
Posts: 37705
Joined: Thu May 11, 2000 8:01 am

RE: The 65 Mpg Ford The U.S. Can't Have

Fri Sep 19, 2008 11:54 pm



Quoting Lowrider (Reply 42):
I only looked at some of the post 2000 versions, but have found that the powerstroke package is significantly heavier, and would require modifications to the firewall, transmission tunnel, and wheel wells. It would also need a custom oil pan. Not to mention the suspension work and almost complete rewiring of the car. Welding a few mounts and swapping an engine is one thing, but this is a project beyond what I can do or afford. Maybe I will just find an old Mercedes 300 to overhaul.

That sounds like a huge under-taking.
Ford could easily make this modification and sell them to the public. If Ford sold this 65MPG Fiesta here, it would bring their CAFE numbers up much higher as PHLBOS suggested.

Have you considered finding one of those 1980-1988 AMC Eagle station wagons and dropping in a diesel in one of those?
Perhaps a Mercedes, Audi or BMW diesel. Those Eagles were 4-wheel drive.  Cool

Quoting Lowrider (Reply 42):
I always did like the sleeper cars. They look absolutely stock and give no indication of what lies beneath.

Those are my favorite too.
The intake manifold on the 4.6 and 5.4 are interchangeable. Would putting a 4.6 intake on a 5.4 reduce the power all that much?
That is the only reason why the 5.4 wont fit under the hood of a Lincoln Town Car.

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 43):
The existing ones will be grandfathered, but you won't get any new ones registered or imported

That really sucks. I am sure the big bosses at Volkswagen, Mercedes, BMW and Audi are sure happy with this law. Didn't the EU pass laws that would require EU nations to buy new aircraft (Airbus) also?
Bring back the Concorde
 
PHLBOS
Posts: 6520
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2004 6:38 am

RE: The 65 Mpg Ford The U.S. Can't Have

Sat Sep 20, 2008 12:18 am



Quoting Superfly (Reply 39):
Quoting Lowrider (Reply 21):
I will have to look and see if the frame would need strengthening to deal with the additional torque.

Perhaps PHLBOS or Falstaff can verify this; The Panther platform went through some changes for the 1998 model year and became lighter.

IIRC, the big change for 1998 (other than an exterior restyle and 16" standard wheels on every model) was a revised 4-link rear suspension with a Watt's linkage (which improved road handling manners but at the expense of reduced available towing capacity). I don't believe that anything's been done to the frame to make it lighter; I think (I could be mistaken) the frame's the one thing that HASN'T changed since 1979.

Quoting Superfly (Reply 39):
Thus lowering it's towing capacity.

Worth noting: the Class III Tow Package was dropped from the options list by 1996 (Crown Vic) 1997 (Grand Marquis & Town Car) in anticipation of the V8-powered Explorer, Mountaineer and full-size Expedition and Navigator becoming available. I know this because I tried to order my '97 with this package, I was told that it wasn't available.

Quoting Superfly (Reply 39):
The largest engine that was on that frame was the 5.8liter 351cu'" offered 1979-1980 (LTD, Grand Marquis, Town Car, Mark VI) and up to 1986 for Police package variants. Those engines had a lot of torque.

Actually, the 5.8L/351W (sadly, not the fuel-injected version) was offered on the Crown Vic Police Package through 1991 and the retail LTD/Crown Vic/Marquis/Grand Marquis in the States through 1981 (Canadian models may have offered it for a few more years). The 1992 overhaul (Crown Vic & Grand Marquis) was a clean break from the ol' Windsor-block 302 (5.0L) and 351 (5.8L).

Quoting WunalaYann (Reply 40):
I believe that the automotive world does not begin with V6 sedans.

I never said it did; but prior to gas prices skyrocketing, the V6 sedan were among the top-selling cars. Not all Toyota Camrys and Honda Accords in the States are powered by 4-bangers; many of them DO have V6s under the hood.

Quoting WunalaYann (Reply 40):
By the way, miles per gallon do not speak too clearly to the rest of the world as we use litres per 100 km.

 yawn 
(in Archie Bunker voice) Whatever.
"TransEastern! You'll feel like you've never left the ground because we treat you like dirt!" SNL Parady ad circa 1981
 
lowrider
Posts: 2542
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2004 3:09 am

RE: The 65 Mpg Ford The U.S. Can't Have

Sat Sep 20, 2008 12:51 am

Quoting Superfly (Reply 44):
The intake manifold on the 4.6 and 5.4 are interchangeable. Would putting a 4.6 intake on a 5.4 reduce the power all that much?
Not sure. I imagine it would be a fuction of the difference in airflow. You would have to ask someone smarter than me, but someone out there must know how many cubic feet per minute each manifold will allow. If the bolts don't line up a little machine work might be in order, too.

Quoting Superfly (Reply 44):
Have you considered finding one of those 1980-1988 AMC Eagle station wagons and dropping in a diesel in one of those?
Perhaps a Mercedes, Audi or BMW diesel. Those Eagles were 4-wheel drive.

That is also an interesting idea. I might be able to find one down in Texas or NM and bring it back.
While it wouldn't be 4 wheel drive, I also had the idea of taking a VW Dasher and looking for a wrecked Jetta TDI to donate an engine. Not as ascetically pleasing, but it is an idea might make it past my better half, provided I finish the kitchen first.

[Edited 2008-09-19 17:53:52]
Proud OOTSK member
 
User avatar
RayChuang
Posts: 8139
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2000 7:43 am

RE: The 65 Mpg Ford The U.S. Can't Have

Sat Sep 20, 2008 3:50 am

We'll never get the Ford Fiesta ECOnetic in its current form for a couple of reasons:

1) The engine doesn't come close to meeting the EPA Tier 2 Bin 5 emissions standard for NOx and diesel particulates.

2) Ford had to resort to tricks like really high gearing, low-rolling resistance tires and keeping the weight down by skipping out a few accessories. As such, the Fiesta ECOnetic ends up being sluggish to accelerate and lacks an air conditioner, which is really necessary for hot American summers!

When the new Fiesta does arrive in the USA late calendar year 2009, if we do get the Duratorq engine option it will likely use the 1.6-liter engine with modern emissions controls coupled with the new Powershift dual-clutch transmission. It won't have the extreme fuel economy of the ECOnetic but EPA highway rating in the 47-48 miles per US gallon range may be possible.  Smile
 
WunalaYann
Posts: 2128
Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2005 12:55 am

RE: The 65 Mpg Ford The U.S. Can't Have

Sat Sep 20, 2008 6:57 am



Quoting Superfly (Reply 41):
We all know that.

So? Action?  Smile

Quoting PHLBOS (Reply 45):
yawn
(in Archie Bunker voice) Whatever.

Well, maybe "yawn/whatever" but that is the reality outside of your borders...  Smile
 
TylerDurden
Posts: 369
Joined: Tue May 06, 2008 7:55 pm

RE: The 65 Mpg Ford The U.S. Can't Have

Sat Sep 20, 2008 1:56 pm



Quoting Superfly (Reply 39):
I guess you've never driven one.

Unfortunately, I've driven quite a few...the only one worth mention was the SRT-8.
But is still suffers from poor handling (it wallows in corners) and I have yet to be in one that can make a smooth shift under power. And the high beltline sucks for visibility..it's basically a rolling blindspot.

It's not a performance sedan for any serious auto enthusiast.
 
sccutler
Posts: 5843
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2000 12:16 pm

RE: The 65 Mpg Ford The U.S. Can't Have

Sat Sep 20, 2008 2:22 pm



Quoting Superfly (Reply 3):
Looks and sounds like a great car. I think it's a shame that a lot of so called environmentalist scoff at the idea of buying a diesel despite the fact that it gets better mileage.
Shame on the writer for making it sound like Ford specializes in making "lumbering gas hogs" when the Germans and Japanese also make "lumbering gas hogs" too.
Ford should sell this car here in America.

Word.

By the way, naysayers, my Cadillac Deville (285HP Northstar V8, goes like a scalded cat, quiet as the proverbial churchmouse, room enough to play basketball inside, smooth as silk and handles well for its size) gets an easy 27mpg on the highway (assuming I can get gasoline which has not been contaminated with ethanol, which costs me about 3-5 mpg), this, at a steady 78mph. Big cars, well-designed, can do well on mileage. It is, by the way, 8 years old, nearly 100k miles, runs as new.

For that matter, Lincoln Town Cars- routinely driven to 600,000 miles and more, reliably and productively.

---

Could Ford not dip into the Volvo parts bin for an appropriate diesel powertrain?
...three miles from BRONS, clear for the ILS one five approach...

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: CrackInspector, noviorbis77, olle, Reinhardt, sabenapilot, SQ948 and 28 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos