Kevin's Watch

If ever there was a car made for the times, this would seem to be it: a sporty subcompact that seats five, offers a navigation system, and gets a whopping 65 miles to the gallon. Oh yes, and the car is made by Ford Motor (F), known widely for lumbering gas hogs.

Ford's 2009 Fiesta ECOnetic goes on sale in November. But here's the catch: Despite the car's potential to transform Ford's image and help it compete with Toyota Motor (TM) and Honda Motor (HMC) in its home market, the company will sell the little fuel sipper only in Europe. "We know it's an awesome vehicle," says Ford America President Mark Fields. "But there are business reasons why we can't sell it in the U.S." The main one: The Fiesta ECOnetic runs on diesel.

Automakers such as Volkswagen (VLKAY) and Mercedes-Benz (DAI) have predicted for years that a technology called "clean diesel" would overcome many Americans' antipathy to a fuel still often thought of as the smelly stuff that powers tractor trailers. Diesel vehicles now hitting the market with pollution-fighting technology are as clean or cleaner than gasoline and at least 30% more fuel-efficient.

Yet while half of all cars sold in Europe last year ran on diesel, the U.S. market remains relatively unfriendly to the fuel. Taxes aimed at commercial trucks mean diesel costs anywhere from 40 cents to $1 more per gallon than gasoline. Add to this the success of the Toyota Prius, and you can see why only 3% of cars in the U.S. use diesel. "Americans see hybrids as the darling," says Global Insight auto analyst Philip Gott, "and diesel as old-tech."

None of this is stopping European and Japanese automakers, which are betting they can jump-start the U.S. market with new diesel models. Mercedes-Benz by next year will have three cars it markets as "BlueTec." Even Nissan (NSANY) and Honda, which long opposed building diesel cars in Europe, plan to introduce them in the U.S. in 2010. But Ford, whose Fiesta ECOnetic compares favorably with European diesels, can't make a business case for bringing the car to the U.S.
TOO PRICEY TO IMPORT

First of all, the engines are built in Britain, so labor costs are high. Plus the pound remains stronger than the greenback. At prevailing exchange rates, the Fiesta ECOnetic would sell for about $25,700 in the U.S. By contrast, the Prius typically goes for about $24,000. A $1,300 tax deduction available to buyers of new diesel cars could bring the price of the Fiesta to around $24,400. But Ford doesn't believe it could charge enough to make money on an imported ECOnetic.

Ford plans to make a gas-powered version of the Fiesta in Mexico for the U.S. So why not manufacture diesel engines there, too? Building a plant would cost at least $350 million at a time when Ford has been burning through more than $1 billion a month in cash reserves. Besides, the automaker would have to produce at least 350,000 engines a year to make such a venture profitable. "We just don't think North and South America would buy that many diesel cars," says Fields.

The question, of course, is whether the U.S. ever will embrace diesel fuel and allow automakers to achieve sufficient scale to make money on such vehicles. California certified VW and Mercedes diesel cars earlier this year, after a four-year ban. James N. Hall, of auto researcher 293 Analysts, says that bellwether state and the Northeast remain "hostile to diesel." But the risk to Ford is that the fuel takes off, and the carmaker finds itself playing catch-up—despite having a serious diesel contender in its arsenal.

The above article makes me sad.
Building it in America isn't even an option because of costs ie: Unions.

There are sooooooo many cool cars available in Europe that we can't get here.

Fiestas are awesome little cars. I hate Ford, but I'd look real hard at one of these.

High Lord Tolkien wrote:The above article makes me sad.
Building it in America isn't even an option because of costs ie: Unions.

You might want to start a thread in the Think Tank about how you think people should be paid what Mexicans in Mexico get paid, and how they can then afford to own this nice car.

I don't see many people in the US lining up to buy this car either.

wayfriend wrote:

High Lord Tolkien wrote:The above article makes me sad.
Building it in America isn't even an option because of costs ie: Unions.

You might want to start a thread in the Think Tank about how you think people should be paid what Mexicans in Mexico get paid, and how they can then afford to own this nice car.

Wow!
That was awesome!
You are such a mind reader.
Amazing.


I will, right below your thread where you declare that you're glad American autoworkers are unemployed and whether you belong to a union yourself.

This is not the place for a discussion about unions guys.

Without getting into the union/nonunion debate, this has long been part of the reason we don't get a lot of really cool cars. Amongst the other reasons:

- We have tighter emissions restrictions (especially on diesels).

- We have tighter crash standards. The cost and aesthetic penalty can be prohibitive for low-volume cars.

- Then there's labor.

For example, about 5 years ago, Ford came out with a great new Focus. Guess what, you can buy it everywhere but here. We've seen that car though, as a Mazda 3 and as the Volvo V50, S40, and C30. Ford didn't import it because they simply couldn't make a profit on it.

Cail,

- We have tighter emissions restrictions (especially on diesels).

You're going to have to link me on this one. Because according to this: "[...The US] unequivocally the most polluting country in the world, which led me to ask, why? If we refer solely to automobiles, the answer is simple: pollution and economy standards and the US desire for bigger is better. Out of all developed countries (the EU, China, Japan etc), the US has the lowest fuel economy standards. Even California, the most actively “green” state, has lower standards than China. Pollution standards are easy for large petrol engines, due to fairly tough NO2 requirements (which petrol engines produce little of) but no limit on the amount of CO2 that is produced, the main cause of global warming, and ironically the thing that California is suing the major auto manufacturers over. The tax system is also lax; in Britain and much of the EU, initial tax rates are calculated on CO2 emissions, and company car tax (the tax an individual pays for having a company car) is based on the same scale. This means that diesel cars, which produce less CO2 and get better MPG than equivalent petrols take up over 50% of car sales across the EU, and in certain vehicles, often larger cars, an even higher percentage is diesel. In the Range Rover, for example, the new TDV8 is expected to take 85% of sales, and the 4.4 litre petrol will be dropped due to complete lack of demand."

That was all I could find on a cursory search.

Weird...here, diesel is fractionally cheaper than petrol.

--A

Same here

LM, you're comparing two different things. Our fuel economy standards are more lax, which of course means that more fuel is burned. The US doesn't do diddly for "greenhouse" gas emissions...IOW, there is no standard for CO2 emissions (yet). As far as actual pollution (particulates, NOx, etc.), no one touches our standards.

This is a pretty decent explanation.

No, CO2 isn't pollution. No one touches our pollution standards.

"The reason given for not classifying CO2 as a pollutant is based upon the fact that it is a natural component of the atmosphere and needed by plants in order to carry out photosynthesis. No one would argue the fact that carbon dioxide is a necessary component of the atmosphere any more than one would argue the fact that Vitamin D is necessary in the human diet. However, excess Vitamin D in the diet can be extremely toxic (6). Living systems, be they an ecosystem or an organism, require that a delicate balance be maintained between certain elements and/or compounds in order for the system to function normally. When one substance is present in excess and as a result threatens the wellbeing of an ecosystem, it becomes toxic, and could be considered to be a pollutant, despite the fact that it is required in small quantities." Link

So carbon dioxide isn't inherently a classified pollutant; but when it disrupts the "well-being of an ecosystem," it can take on "toxic" qualities. Interesting distinction.

Just like water or oxygen.

Except water and oxygen aren't contributing to climate change the way carbon dioxide does, according to any scientific studies I'm aware of.

Water vapor is the # 1 greenhouse gas.

I know what you're getting at. And there's a simple reason nobody is trying to regulate water vapor: because we aren't producing it. In the technical nomenclature, it's a "feedback" of climate change, not a "forcing" like carbon dioxide.

So why was my post deleted, yet the points I brought up are being debated? LM?

Lord Mhoram wrote:I know what you're getting at. And there's a simple reason nobody is trying to regulate water vapor: because we aren't producing it. In the technical nomenclature, it's a "feedback" of climate change, not a "forcing" like carbon dioxide.

Actually, we do create water vapor every time we breathe (ever used your breath to fog your glasses to clean them?). The point being, that lumping the production of CO2 into "pollution" isn't accurate at all.

There are methods other than industry or motor vehicles which dwarf their output of CO2.