Why isn't this being done in the US????

Parent Cafe
1

<p>why doesn’t the US have cars that do this??? yes, I know diesel is even more expensive than regular gas, but surely improved fuel economy would make up for that. Is there a negative environment impact from this type of fuel. Did our govt or auto industry decide not to make our cars this way for a valid reason???</p>

<p>[url=<a href=“US Gas Prices”>http://gas-cost.net/]US</a> Gas Prices<a href=“info%20is%20down%20the%20page,%20great%20chart”>/url</a> US Gas Prices Across the board, European models get an average of 52 MPG versus 32 MPG for the US version of the same car. So the same car on European roads gets 60% better gas mileage than on American roads.</p>

<p>Interestingly this 60% difference is not limited to the Ford Focus which gets the best mileage of the set, the difference averages also 60% for all cars. The difference is widest for the BMW 3 series: gas mileage on the European 1.8D is 80% better than on the smallest gasoline engine offered in the US (BMW 328).</p>

<p>So you may wonder: “How do the engines differ?”</p>

<p>European cars are powered by turbocharged “common-rail” diesel engines. This type of engine has been widely used in Europe for the last 10 years. They don’t need spark plugs, run on diesel fuel including bio-diesel and have a high compression ratio of 17 to 25:1 versus 9:1 found on a typical gasoline engine, making them that much more efficient.</p>

<p>The base model Ford Focus gets 37 MPG in the US, which is pretty decent mileage. But it gets 59 MPG in Europe which is 60% better gas mileage!</p>

<p>Today we compare the mileage of 8 base model compact cars available both in the US and in Europe. Cars in the study consist of US models equipped with economy, no-thrill engines and their European cousins equipped with diesel engines. Each US/European car only differs by the engine. Other than the engines, cars are identical. GT/sports models and Hybrids are excluded from the study to keep it fair.</p>

2

<p>Because for the last 20 years gas has been amazingly cheaper in the US than in Europe. Supply and demand. If nobody here cared to buy a high milage car, why would they sell them here?<br>
Interesting question: noboday has to answer, but how high did gas milage rate in your last (pre-2005) car purchase? What was the car and the milage? If milage wasn’t primary, what was?</p>

<p>Before my new car, I drove a 95 ford minivan. Milage in the low 20’s on the highway, nearer 13 in town because I did a lot of short trips. Primary reason we bought it: lots of individual seats to keep lots of kids happy. Lots of room to haul mulch from Home Depot. You could fit a sheet of plywood inside with the back hatch nearly closed!</p>

<p>Oops, sorry sue, I just tried to hijack a good thread…</p>

3

<p>The cars that are sold in the U.S. are manufactured in response to consumer demands. Market research drives the products. I remember being so upset when I watched “Who Killed the Electric Car?” — the documentary tried to lay blame on GM for ceasing production, even though the facts showed that too few customers would purchase the vehicles. They were too expensive to manufacture and distribute without a sufficient market — and the market that was there did not want to pay what the vehicle would cost. These are realities that drive the automotive market (no pun intended).</p>

<p>Why don’t we have the high mileage cars here? Most likely, it has to do with government requirements (emissions, etc), production costs, market interest, or some similar reason.</p>

4

<p>^I always wondered why GM couldn’t just take out the model that they created and start testing it now, again. I mean, did they just throw out everything related to the electric car? Surely they must have kept something from that project, and demand is picking up today, no?</p>

<p>Perhaps now is a time for change in the automobile industry. American cars are going to adjust to fit the new market, so maybe we will see a rise in diesel cars. Who knows. It’s just a matter of consumer understanding and agreement.</p>

5

<p>May be safety features? Added weight lowers gas mileage. H once drove through a foreign country in a car that probably weighed no more than a tin can and could crumple in a collision with a donkey at 5 mph - but got great gas mileage!</p>

6

<p>

I agree. I was really annoyed with the whole theory that GM was a bad company for trying to get rid of the electric car when it was GM who first began producing the electric car. The problem was not with GM. GM’s obligation is to make money. The problem was with the consumer who didn’t want to buy an electric car and the State of California which wanted to go in the direction of fuel cells which generate less polution. Then again, why should I expect anything coming out of Hollywood to be anything but anti-big business.</p>

7

<p>diesel also had higher sulfur than gasoline (not good). Recently, the diesel sold is of Ultra Low sulfur. Refiners have spent lots of money to do that. Also, many refineries that make gasoline can’t just start making diesel.</p>

8

<p>razorsharp,</p>

<p>Except that Hollywood is pro-Hollywood, which is big-business in and of itself. Hollywood isn’t anti-big business as much as they’re pro-controversy. </p>

<p>Besides, how is “Who Killed the Electric Car?” Hollywood?</p>

<p>Oh, and GM isn’t a bad company because of the e-car. They’re a bad company because they made bad products for so long. :p</p>

9

<p>And you have to plug those darn diesel engines into the warmers when it’s cold … Canada is set up for that, but the US isn’t!</p>

10

<p>

GM can make attractive cars in a low price fuel environment, but they make horrible cars in a high price fuel environment. I just read that Toyota took over as the number one car maker over GM. Sad, indeed.</p>

11

<p>razorsharp,</p>

<p>To be honest, I don’t find it sad. I find it good. I think the US manufacturers needed some competition, as they were way too cushy for their own good. If you look into Toyota the past couple years, though, you find that they’re also suffering from issues as well: labor issues (thanks to the end of lifetime employment), and problems with supply chain inefficiencies. </p>

<p>However, I think GM and Ford are odd companies in the sense that they sell better cars in Europe! If you look at Ford’s offerings in the UK, they’re really nice. My UK friends never get why I see Ford as having lower quality than Toyota or Honda, as they all say that they see Ford as being “quite good.”</p>

<p>Global trade is an odd beast at times.</p>

12

<p>Actually, GM’s quality is higher than Toyota’s now. However, the perception that Toyota’s quality is higher remains. Quality is quantifiable, but perception is based on heart not head.</p>

13

<p>As of 2007, JD Power still put Toyota above GM, but we may be using different metrics for what defines “quality.”</p>

<p>[Ford</a> moves up in quality survey - USATODAY.com](<a href=“http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2007-06-06-ford-quality_N.htm]Ford”>http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2007-06-06-ford-quality_N.htm)</p>

<p>My issue with GM is that there are huge gaps in quality between what comes out of its different sub-brands. Some are better than others.</p>

14

<p>I can remember when GM launched its Saturn Brand. It was supposed to the Japanese brand killer with lower employee costs and focus on quality above all else. Unfortunately (and yes I think it is unfortunate) Saturn has not taken over the American market and beaten the Japanese. </p>

<p>What is also interesting about the auto industry is the history of Hyundai. Hyundai came into the market as a low cost piece of garbage. After a few decades of competition, it is now a competitive brand and quality company. This is the same pattern that the Japanese followed when they first entered the American market (small, cheap, poor quality vehicles initially and then take over the market years later). I have to wonder if Hyundai is the next Toyota and if Tata in India is the next Hyundai.</p>

15

<p>

</p>

<p>It is? How?</p>

16

<p>

Seriously, what is your basis for believing this? Virtually every statement you make is objectively, verifiably false.</p>

<p>Let’s start with

GM only made the electric car because California made them. And they lobbied furiously against the mandate, and killed the program as soon as they got the votes at CARB to release them from the requirement.<br>

Fuel cells are a scam - a currently non-viable technology trotted out as an excuse to kill the program, pushed by the big business lobbyists. “Less pollution” - who told you that one? Fuel cells are just a different kind of battery. The pollution occurs at the actual energy production source - the power plant. Fuels cells don’t change that.</p>

<p>

and

What “facts?” Are you guys aware of how hard GM made it to get one? If you walked within 50 yards of a gas car lot they practically kidnapped you until you took the keys, but if you signed up on the (long) list to get an electric car, they (a) wouldn’t sell you one for any price (only lease) (b) made you “qualify” for the privilege of leasing with a long questionairre and set of specific financial and personal requirements you had to meet, then (c) put you on a waiting list. Not exactly like walking in to the dealership and driving off with your dream car, like you could do with a gasser. *There was never a time during the entire history of offering the EV1 that there wasn’t a **waiting list *of people who wanted one and couldn’t have it. Despite a complete lack of advertising, people lined up for the opportunity to get their hands on an electric car, and begged for the opportunity to keep the few that were made when the program was finally successfully killed. So how do you figure that consumers “weren’t interested?” Because you’ve been told that? You’d do well to reconsider the reliability of the source of your “knowledge.”</p>

<p>In fact, I’m curious about where you got that whole set of half-truths, distortions and outright lies. Who fed you that stuff? The actual facts about what happened to the GM electric car are readily available.</p>

<p>There’s a huge waiting list for the not-yet-in-production Tesla sports car (at $109,000 per!) with many of the people on the list having deposited tens of thousands of dollars for list priority. I’d say there’s more than a little consumer interest in battery-powered electric cars.</p>

17

<p>the problem with electric cars is that they just shift the source of pollution elsewhere. This is great if your electricity comes from wind or sun, not so great if it comes from coal.</p>

18

<p>Garland; THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU. Too many people are so ignorant when it comes to how things work. They don’t realize how bad for the environment the CURRENT electric car is. Do some research on what it takes to make those batteries. These aren’t normal car batteries. And as you pointed out, the increase in fossil fuels to make more electricity defeats much of the advantages.</p>

<p>65% of our fossil fuel emissions come from power plants and industrial uses. Develop better sources of power generation such as Nuclear (YES IT"S VERY SAFE AND CLEAN), solar, wind, etc… That will reduce the emissions. Then you can take care of the automobiles, home heating, commercial transportion and other uses of fossil fuels. </p>

<p>Get rid of ETHANOL!!! It causes more problems with the amount of water needed; not enough land; stripping forests in South America so they can grow their sugar cane; just as bad emissions for the environment; and requires more of it because it isn’t as good efficiency as gasoline. Plus, a large part of the world is dying of hunger and causing war, while we are BURNING FOOD.</p>

<p>Finally; our country, in their infamous wisdom of creating the EPA, has done this to INCREASE consumption and spur the economy since the 1970’s. So called EPA standards were told to us to clean the output of the emissions. Unfortunately, when a USA car gets 30mpg and the European version gets 50mpg, and you have to use more fuel, drill more fuel, refine more fuel, and transport more fuel, totally negates all environmental benefits of the EPA standards.</p>

<p>Finally; our biggest oil imports come from Canada, not the middle east. We also import a lot from Mexico, Venezuela, and many other non middle-east countries. Our combined imports make up almost 70% of our usage. Contrary to what some people will say, the United States has more fossil fuel reserves than you can possibly imagine. It’s just that the bunny huggers and such make it difficult to use it. They won’t let us drill. They won’t let more refiners be built. Etc… If we produced 70% and only imported 30%, we would increase jobs, improve the economy, and be in a better state politically with the world. That, along with MANY reports now showing that maybe this whole CO2 and global warming thing based on fossil fuel use may actually be a much of B.S., reiterates the need for more self sufficient means of energy. The ONLY REASON I am for development of solar, wind, nuclear, hydro, etc… as alternative forms of energy, ISN’T for the ecology. (I don’t buy those arguments). But i support it for the economy. It is a source of employment that can’t be outsourced overseas. It would improve our economics. It creates jobs. Finally; I would see about taking crude oil off the market as a “Commodity”. That is the only reason prices are so high. It isn’t Exxon, BP, and the other oil companies making all this profit everyone is whining about. They are charging the same basically that they have for quite a while. Crude is a commodity and is traded. Just like Wheat, Pork Bellies, etc… Speculators; because they got burned a couple of years ago when oil prices dropped; have artificially raised the price of crude so they still make a profit even if the cost comes down. Make crude a consumerable like milk, eggs, produce, etc… Let it stay consumer priced based on supply and demand. NOT SPECULATION. That is also why food prices have risen. Wheat and cattle commodity prices have gone up because ethanol is using more land and corn. They speculate the price of wheat and corn going up. That affect prices of food. Also cattle is based on corn, water, land, etc… Stop allowing consumerables to be traded on the exchange. That is what has inflated the prices. People need to understand the truth.</p>

19

<p>[Seattle</a> Biodiesel](<a href=“http://www.seattlebiodiesel.com/]Seattle”>http://www.seattlebiodiesel.com/)</p>

<p>problem is, you then smell like french fries</p>

<p>[or popcorn](<a href=“http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2002387370_biodiesel18.html”>http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2002387370_biodiesel18.html&lt;/a&gt;)</p>

20

<p>Regular diesel with Bio-Diesel (FROM AN EXISTING SOURCE LIKE FRENCH FRIES) is an EXCELLENT source of fuel. Most of the vehicles in Europe that can get 50+ mpg are diesels. They are better than gas. We only sell gas because it is cheaper and it is a marketing ply. But, double the MPG with diesel, and gas is no longer cheaper. DON’T MAKE BIO-DIESEL out of ANYTHING for that sole purpose. I.e. Used French fry oil and such is great. GROWING something to add to diesel is bad.</p>