Why you can't buy a high mpg car....

[Christ]

Originally Posted by RiceCake

Why you can't buy a high MPG car...


...There's no market for these cars here. No matter what you say, nobody wants to buy a tiny, low power diesel car when the North American standard is still "mah pickup taruck~". Finding a tiny loophole that allows you to blame the government is highly ignorant.


If there was more demand there would be more cars, and likely more cars built to US standards, or standards would be amended to compensate for small cars. As it stands right now, the efficiency laws are incredibly tight to reduce emissions on high-traffic fleet diesels and to force new technology before diesels take off and emissions become an issue.

Obviously there is a demand, it's just not a "market" demand. In other words, people want them, but the majority of people do not. And there are several reasons that the US Government will not actively seek to import them, monetary restriction not the least of it.

[Grant-53]

The regulations and tariffs are what the federal government uses to determine what vehicles may be imported or produced here. Consumer demand and profit margin are what companies use to determine product mix. Costs of R&D and tooling have to be recovered in an acceptable length of time for shareholders. One of the downfalls of our domestic producers has been an over reliance on advertising to influence consumer demand rather than anticipating customer preference. To paraphrase the light beer commercial, "Drives great - less filling". I remember having similar discussions in the late 1970s. Now my father's full sized Chevy gets 32 mpg instead of 16 mpg back then. Will my grandchildren drive to Florida in a car that gets 100 mpg or will they take a highspeed train traveling 300 mph?

[Frank Lee]

One problem with the U.S. market is, it's extremely fickle. Gas goes up high "enough" and suddenly there's interest in smaller vehicles with manual transmissions (that were all but ignored previously). Then gas drops a dime and the herd stampedes back into full-size pickups and SUVs. That's my take on it anyway.

[MPGranger]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

What year is that mazda?
14:1 will reduce NOx quite a bit.

It is speculated to go into the 2013 CX5. Right now, in 2012 Mazda is making 2013 CX5 with the 2.0L SkyactivG engine. The SkyactivD is selling like hotcakes in Japan. The Diesel, however, meets all US specs.

The old engine was 16:1 with single turbo

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by Grant-53

Aside from macho truck enthusiasts the market for diesel light trucks is in farming and construction. These folks are professional buyers who have to carefully count annual operating costs.

Some of them are. Others, like a ranch-owning neighbor of mine, like the noise and stink, and apparently are willing to pay extra for them. Unfortunately, the noise & stink lovers are what drives the diesel pickup market, so the professional buyers don't really have the option of clean & quiet diesels.

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by Christ

Obviously there is a demand, it's just not a "market" demand. In other words, people want them, but the majority of people do not.

Not entirely true. The US auto industry has a long, long history of just building what they think Americans ought to buy, and ignoring the fact that a lot of us do buy something different - like the VW Beetle - when it's made available. Which is why they've gone from near 100% market share in the 1950s to maybe 50% today.

The unfortunate part is that their attitude seems to be contagious, so that whenever some foreign automaker comes in with a small, efficient car that steals market share, they soon start upsizing it to "American" standards.

[minispeed]

You have to consider the cost associated with certifying the engine and the expected return that the automakers get. The government will not simply accept the testing for other countries at face value. Canada and the US are just starting to talk about standardized testing and certification to save companies money after being the largest trading partners for years.

In the case of BMW they brought over an inline 6, that did nearly nothing for the 3 that they put it in but they wanted to certify one engine and sell it in as many cars as possible. That engine was overkill for the 3 but it could move the X5 as it did and they would always have the option to move the 1, X3, 5, 6, 7 and even Z4 if they wanted. If they certified the approx. 72mpg imp 2.0L for the 1, 3 and X1 (maybe X3 too) then they would have spent either double to start the line up with 2 diesels or spent the same and start the line up with 1 diesel. If VW offers another TDI who are they giong to take market share from? No car convinces people who don't want a car to suddenly buy one. It's all about stealing market share. If they give you a better TDI product then they just shift their share of the market. In the case of VW they have a 1.4 or 1.6L option then the public will walk into dealers expecting it to be probably $2000 cheaper than the 2.0 just because that's the way it's always been with gas engines. In ON the TDI passat is only a $2600 premium. Where do you slot in a 1.6L to make money? Ford is the first showing the balls to charge a premium for downsized turbo technically advance engines and they have spent tons in marketing "ecoboost" to convince the public they are getting more for their money. Mazda has a lot to gain from bringing the diesel, they have a very small market share, there is a very large potentail for a good return on investment so I would say it's almost a sure thing that the 3, 6 and cx5 will go diesel.

Another thing to consider is the refining industry. In North America it is set up around gas. If you cause a swing in the market enough to start to affect supply and demand the Government will have to react and create taxes to ensure that the current production can support demand. If you create enough demand to cause the oil companies to have to build new refineries to meet the need then that cost will have to be passed on to the consumer at the pumps. It's not a conspiracy. If the government said we are going to force all car companies to only sell fuel efficient diesel engines the oil companies would respond by saying alright, this is the cost to get imported fully refined diesel vs importing bulk oil and over the next few years we will build more plants and roll that cost recovery into the cost at the pump. We will also have to pay huge fees to ensure that all our surplus gas refineries are properly shut down and not simply abandoned and to ensure that we do that we will have to charge more at the pump.

Out of curiosity I would love to compare the cost per mile to the consumer of driving that 1.6l tdi on London pump prices vs the cost per mile to drive a Prius (or 1.6 ecoboost fusion when it's out) on NYC pump prices.

The bottom line is it all comes down to energy per barrel of oil, the cost to refine/store/ship that, and then the cars ability to convert that energy to forward momentum. Although you will see more of that as the end user with a diesel the oil companies will need to invest a lot to allow everyone in North America to drive a diesel. They get fewer diesel from each barrel they buy than if they had chosen to turn it into gas. It's very complex; I probably got most of it close at best. But the bottom line is it is not as simple as pump, pay, drive, pump calculate MPG. If you ask for any major change to the system you will have to pay for it.

On the other hand, aerodynamics, light weight, multi speed transmissions and direct injection, hybrids (I know people are going to argue that one) are all upfront costs you pay for in the new vehicle. You will never have to come back and suddenly fork over more money at the pump because you bought a car with one of those changes. And all the manufactures are starting to give it to us. Take a look at the new Nissan Versa rear bumper. It was once (and still may be) the cheapest car sold in America. It shows that it spent some time in the wind tunnel with the hard edges at the side. The volt, 3rd gen prius, and new impreza (35mpg with full time AWD) all show this same trend.

[niky]

The cost of certifying the engine is there... but if you spread the cost across different models, it works. Look at the 1.4 liter turbo in the Chevys. Look at the 3.0 turbodiesel in BMWs. BMW could bring in the 2.0 diesel if they really wanted to. Spread it across several product lines, from the 1-series all the way up to the 5-series (the 520d is a fantastic car)... but they won't because market demand simply isn't there.

You only have to look as far as the Honda Fit to see that. Here is a car that is fantastic fun to drive, just as quick as its competitors, and very fuel efficient.

Doesn't sell as well as it should... why? Because: 1.5. The general US market likes seeing a bigger number there. That's the long and short of "Why you can't have fuel efficient cars in the US".

Which is a shame, because I've driven the old 1.3 Fit up to 60 (US) MPG in the city. Fantastic performance for an automatic gasoline car with enough space in the trunk for one or two dead bodies, but clearly not a car you could sell in America. Too "slow".

I do agree that it might be possible to break the trend with smart marketing, as Ford is trying with "Ecoboost". And the cost of diesel will always be a problem in the US, as well as the hidden costs of maintenance over time, which are substantial for modern diesels.

[kurzer]

stay away from these german cars! i know it, i´m german!

no bluemotion does better, than a hybrid. not even at the "autobahn". in the best case the milage is equal (manual vs. automatic), but the cost per mile is higher. an the german trash brakes down and falls apart, bevor sunset...

[Big Dave]

If you want Euro-style high MPG cars, the US has to do two things:

1) Go back to the engine emiossion standards in place in 2000.
2) Change crash test standards to give smaller cars made by common techniques and of reasonably-priced material (read: other than carbon fiber) cars a chance to pass.

The first part is logical. Air quality is the best its been in the US since Jamestown was established. It has not noticeably improved since 2000.

Did the WHO (aren't they part of the UN?) tell us a what concentration diesel soot is carcinogenic, or is this another "zero tolerance" factoid?