Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
1) a Volvo is hardly a microcar
2) 200+ bhp isn't bad from a 1.6 engine
3) Think you'll find the Volvo i used as an example has excellent crash test ratings,
Maybe seeing as the gov't is so keen on blocking these imports using the EPA as its 'excuse' it would be an idea for them to start implementing that EPA test on all cars on the roads in a yearly test like other countries do. Making a car that passes the test is easy, having that car still pass it 10 years later not so much hence all the smoke billowing cars we see on our roads.
1) I was speaking generally, not referring to the Volvo specifically.
2) Volvo's 1.6 diesel does not make anywhere near 200+ bhp
3) It also doesn't meet U.S. emission standards.
4) Even if it did, it has molasses-slow acceleration compared to even your basic 4-cylinder-equipped U.S. sedan.
5) When the petrol version of the 1.6 engine is actually configured to make 200+hp and meet U.S. emission standards (as in the Mini Cooper/JCW), it does not get anywhere near 52 miles per gallon even when placed in a car weighing well under 3,000 lbs.
6) The government isn't "keen" on blocking imports; nearly half of the U.S. personal car fleet are imports.
7) While the EPA does not mandate ongoing testing, engines must be certified as able to maintain certain emissions requirements throughout its useful life.
I think as has been said it might just be that Americans aren't interested in fuel efficiency as much as having that big ole truck with the big ole engine because smaller cars don't have the get up and go, which is of course a popular misconception. Bigger engine = faster car isn't always so. I have drive plenty of cars under 2.0 liters that have gone like rockets.
Shame really it means America even with its cheaper gas will always lag behind on the world market for fuel efficient cars.
There is no modern diesel factory in US or Mexico. Building one would cost 500+millions USD just first year or two.
You would compete against cars in 15-25k range where profit margins are low.
Once gas will cost 9$ per gallon as in Europe we can have this discussion again. Suddenly all EPA's and CAFE's unresolvable problems will disappear.
I think as has been said it might just be that Americans aren't interested in fuel efficiency as much as having that big ole truck with the big ole engine because smaller cars don't have the get up and go, which is of course a popular misconception. Bigger engine = faster car isn't always so. I have drive plenty of cars under 2.0 liters that have gone like rockets.
Shame really it means America even with its cheaper gas will always lag behind on the world market for fuel efficient cars.
Obviously the universe of drivers consists of more than just Americans who only want big ol' trucks (apparently for quick performance in your version of the automotive universe ) and Europeans who want miserly fuel-sippers. There are plenty of Americans who appreciate fuel economy and plenty of Europeans who resent being corralled by punitive taxation into shoes on wheels. There are tradeoffs between performance, safety, utility, fuel economy, and emissions. U.S. policy preferences have struck a different balance than European policy preferences. It's not a nefarious plot by the oil companies to keep us in gas guzzlers and it's not because Americans only want big trucks with big engines. It's just different approaches to the policy questions at hand. No more, no less.
I've 'heard', and don't know if there is any truth to this - but prohibition put a huge hamper on diesel in the U.S. as it ended up getting lumped into the Alcohol? Henry Ford was big into diesel engines, but essentially was forced to switch because of the above reason. To some extent, it was decapitated early on in the U.S. and never fully recovered. Some basic quick googling turned up nada, can anyone enlighten me?
I've 'heard', and don't know if there is any truth to this - but prohibition put a huge hamper on diesel in the U.S. as it ended up getting lumped into the Alcohol? Henry Ford was big into diesel engines, but essentially was forced to switch because of the above reason. To some extent, it was decapitated early on in the U.S. and never fully recovered. Some basic quick googling turned up nada, can anyone enlighten me?
There's no rhyme or reason behind diesel being lumped in with alcohol. Diesel was still used a-plenty throughout prohibition, mostly as a heating fuel but also to power machinery. Maybe you're thinking of ethanol.
I've 'heard', and don't know if there is any truth to this - but prohibition put a huge hamper on diesel in the U.S. as it ended up getting lumped into the Alcohol? Henry Ford was big into diesel engines, but essentially was forced to switch because of the above reason. To some extent, it was decapitated early on in the U.S. and never fully recovered. Some basic quick googling turned up nada, can anyone enlighten me?
At the beginning of automobile manufacture in the US, gasoline was an essentially useless byproduct of lubricating oil, heating oil, fuel oil, and kerosene production. One of gasoline's only uses then was for "white gas" sold to fuel gasoline stoves (think Coleman campstove fuel today). Gasoline was regularly burned off or dumped in rivers--yes, that's right. So, it made sense for the auto manufacturers to build cars with engines to use that otherwise barely marketable oil refining byproduct. Since autos fueled by gasoline have dominated in the US since then, refinery capacity and design has been optimized to maximize gasoline production. Unfortunately, as demand for diesel fuel has grown--diesel fuel is what actually fuels just about every aspect of the economy--we now lack sufficient capacity to refine enough diesel fuel in this country. The proof of that came about 6 years ago, when diesel and gasoline fuel prices at the pump "inverted"--that it, diesel fuel cost per gallon rising above that of gasoline. Ironically, even with the price inversion, diesel vehicles get fuel economy so superior to a comparable gasoline engine-equipped vehicle, that the fuel cost per mile for the diesel is still lower. The only way gas engine vehicles have closed the gap is by utilizing gas-hybrid technology. Of course, if a diesel-hybrid was sold in the US, it would kick the gas-hybrid's tail on fuel economy.
(snip) Ironically, even with the price inversion, diesel vehicles get fuel economy so superior to a comparable gasoline engine-equipped vehicle, that the fuel cost per mile for the diesel is still lower. The only way gas engine vehicles have closed the gap is by utilizing gas-hybrid technology. Of course, if a diesel-hybrid was sold in the US, it would kick the gas-hybrid's tail on fuel economy.
Not so sure about that analysis, jazz ...
My experience with diesel fueled cars has them typically achieving only 15-20% increased fuel economy over their gasoline powered stablemates ... especially when you are comparing turbo diesel powered cars with performance that is a bit closer to gasoline cars in acceleration.
I drove way too many pokey naturally aspirated diesel cars for the benefit of durability and low cost per mile when diesel fuel was much less cost per gallon than gasoline. But it was a substantial improvement to have the turbo'ed engines come along, especially with commuting from the Front Range up to the Colorado Rockies. No longer did I have to deal with lower gears and poking along at 50-ish speeds approaching the Tunnel with a lightly loaded car, the 300Dturbo was easily capable of a loaded car running at 80 mph up the hill past Georgetown to the summit.
As always, however, speed costs money. Fuel economy dropped from a 30-ish on a naturally aspirated 300D to 26-ish on a 300Dt if driven at the speeds that you would do if driving a gasoline powered car.
I'm seeing regular gasoline in the area now priced in the low $3.20 per gallon range, and low sulfur diesel at $3.95+ to the low $4.00 range. That's a lot more disparity than 20% in the cost per gallon, so for the moment with the cars that I'm driving getting around 30 mpg on regular gas ... I can't make it up on the diesel cars. Hence I've now sold all of my 123 chassis MB 300Dt's ... the last one traded in on a Class B RV for my sales travels throughout the region. I may be losing on fuel economy with this rig compared to the cars, but I'll more than make up for it on motel and restaurant savings out on the road; I figure saving about $120-150 per day over current costs in my travels.
When you get the answer, let me know. I remember seeing news stories maybe 3 years ago about Japanese diesels soon to come to the US getting 50-60 mpg. I was thinking that a 60 mpg Subaru wagon with AWD would be nice.
I asked my buddy who is an engineer and a biodiesel afficianado about it. He said that it was Bush's fault, and when I pointed out that Bush had been gone for over 2 years (at the time) I got a string of gobbledegook.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
