- #1289 of 1503
-
Re: it's hot, I can't sleep [nippononly]
by gagrice
-
Jun 29, 2009 (4:44 am)
-
|
|
Replying to: nippononly (Jun 28, 2009 10:31 pm)
This is not surprising to me. Truth is I would not be much interested in Diesels from any of those companies anyway. With the possible exceptions of a Tacoma 4 cylinder diesel or a Honda Pilot with 4 cylinder diesel. It also further bolsters my claim that there is an underlying force in the government that does not want diesel to take off like it did in the EU. It would cause an imbalance in the oil industry just as it has in Europe. Until an alternative like GTL or biodiesel from algae becomes plentiful the balance is probably best left as it is in the USA. It will give the Germans an extra boost and further erode what is left of the D3. I see little chance of any decent hybrid PU trucks. Who in their right mind would pay $50k for a PU truck that cannot pull its way out of a wet paper bag? For half the price of a GM hybrid PU truck you can get a Tacoma V6 that gets the same MPG on the highway and has a higher tow rating.
Until the Feds get serious about using less fossil fuel and GHG, we will continue on this path of high consumption.
|
- #1290 of 1503
-
Let the "Feds" decide??
by bpeebles
-
Jun 29, 2009 (2:54 pm)
-
|
|
Replying to: gagrice (Jun 29, 2009 4:44 am)
"Until the Feds get serious about using less fossil fuel and GHG, we will continue on this path of high consumption. " Im sorry..... why do "Feds" have to make that decesion? I want more Diesel choices NOW! We can have the non-polluting nuclear-powered cars when the technlology catches up.
I love my 56+ MPG and dont see Subaru on the above list. Lets hope the flat-four Diesel is still on its way here. Imagine a diesel engine with perfect primary balance....ssssmmmmoooottttthhhh as silk.
Personally, I am tired of people thinking that the "Feds" should 'do' anything more than build roads and finanace the military. History tells us that no government on earth is as efficent as the free-market. The last thing we need is the "feds" sticking their noses in and telling us what kind of cars to drive. Let the prices of fuel and everything else do what they willl and the Diesel engines will be here shortly.
|
- #1291 of 1503
-
Re: Let the "Feds" decide?? [bpeebles]
by gagrice
-
Jun 29, 2009 (3:09 pm)
-
|
|
Replying to: bpeebles (Jun 29, 2009 2:54 pm)
I want more diesel choices now also. I wanted more diesel choices 20 years ago. The Federal government and states like CA have put roadblocks in the way of small efficient diesel vehicles. Especially diesel PU trucks. The 25% tariff on foreign built PU trucks from the 1960s. The moving target on emissions. Always just ahead of the EU where the major developments are made. My take is our government is controlled by big money that are not interested in our conserving of fossil fuel. So the regulators keep the choices out or very limited. That is the major problem in this country. The FEDS STICKING THEIR BIG FAT NOSES INTO EVERY ASPECT OF OUR LIVES.
PS
Don't hold your breath on the Subaru passing the stiffer emissions.
|
- #1292 of 1503
-
Re: Let the "Feds" decide?? [bpeebles]
by ruking1
-
Jun 29, 2009 (3:12 pm)
-
|
|
Replying to: bpeebles (Jun 29, 2009 2:54 pm)
Well I haven't seen the figures or incentives (tax credits, amnesty, deductions, infrastructure loans, etc), but I am almost positive Federal, State County, Local governments seemingly are all supportive of VW locating a (midsize) car plant in TN.
With almost everybody else either freezing or cancelling diesel plans, it would appear that VW is poised to take whatever market share it sets its mind to, but more importantly can sell. They have already trail blazed a diesel 30% production rate, starting off with a 25% target. This during arguably during the WORST economic down turn since the Great Depression. They have set a 40% diesel production rate for 2010.
The additional advantage would seem to be no diesel competition on the horizon; or  least in the short term, 5 years !!?? They have diesels in: cross over suv, compact, with a midsize built in the US in 2010.
Being the #3 auto oem in the world, with over half of its sales in diesel already, this would not appear to be a "new line of risk and investment" for them. This might not necessarily be true for other oems.
|
- #1293 of 1503
-
Re: Let the "Feds" decide?? [ruking1]
by plekto
-
Jun 29, 2009 (8:38 pm)
-
|
|
Replying to: ruking1 (Jun 29, 2009 3:12 pm)
You'll note, though, that Mini is full-steam ahead on a TDI version of the Mini. Mostly because they *know* that people will gobble up every last one and pay a nice premium doing so.
It may just be the salvation that we're looking for, since it's a hot little car with loads of marketing power and "cool" factor. Add 45mpg+ to the current equation and it's sure to make some waves.
BMW, Mercedes, and Audi/VW are already small and have enough money to spend on Diesels(plus market premium cars already). So Diesels for them are an easy choice - and they are selling every one they can ship over here it seems(and doubly so if oil hits 200-300 a barrel in the next year or two as some suggest it might...
|
- #1294 of 1503
-
Re: Let the "Feds" decide?? [plekto]
by ruking1
-
Jun 29, 2009 (9:05 pm)
-
|
|
Replying to: plekto (Jun 29, 2009 8:38 pm)
Actually you should have posted links to Mini Cooper diesels !! I didn't post it because of oems who've announced imminent diesel plans and... postponed or cancelled. So here is some "old" newslink title
So currently besides VW, BMW, MB, have passenger diesels on the 2009 MY market. 2010 Audi A3 (I think) has just hit the markets (June 09)
|
- #1295 of 1503
-
Re: Let the "Feds" decide?? [ruking1]
by plekto
-
Jun 30, 2009 (4:22 am)
-
|
|
Replying to: ruking1 (Jun 29, 2009 9:05 pm)
Sorry - heh.
Mini/BMW is slated for 2011, and given the likely $4+ a gallon gas in a year(already $3+ a gallon here and that's due purely to the depreciation of the dollar - not any massive change in oil), I can easily see Toyota and the others that decided to wait being beat to the market by the European companies.
Note - Some of this is that the other German makers are wondering why if VW (basically seen my them as equivalent to Chrysler/the worst of the "German 3") can sell TDIs here, why aren't they also getting in on the game? Whether or not that's true is a whole other discussion, but it's nice to see a bit of ego and not wanting to be outdone influencing BMW and Mercedes for once.
Domestics and Japan? Too slow and conservative. Shame, really, since the first under $15K hot hatch that gets 50mpg+ and isn't a Geo Metro type stripped tin can will completely take over. Same with the first small TDI truck.
edit - watch the Fiat 500, btw - small, aggressive, and little to lose. They might jump on this, especially since Chrysler also isn't adverse to small diesels.
|
- #1296 of 1503
-
Re: Let the "Feds" decide?? [plekto]
by ruking1
-
Jun 30, 2009 (5:40 am)
-
|
|
Replying to: plekto (Jun 30, 2009 4:22 am)
BMW and MB are actually competitors with their diesel offerings (2009). While I think I understand why, still from a volume and percentage point of view, VW is the "practical" only game in town.
From the Edmunds.com perspective, there are 24 (actual) vehicles on the (2009) market.link title
Most (59%) are really NOT in the passenger vehicle fleet, even as they are "IN" the passenger vehicle fleet.
|
- #1297 of 1503
-
Re: Let the "Feds" decide?? [ruking1]
by wjtinatl
-
Jun 30, 2009 (6:56 am)
-
|
|
Replying to: ruking1 (Jun 30, 2009 5:40 am)
I don't want the Fed's decising anything else for me as they've demonstrated repeatedly an astounding ability to spend more doing less than any individual or private entity. I do believe however that without a consistent policy on energy and fuel, there's little incentive for manufacturer's to spend the money needed to federalize the astoundingly good diesel products they already offer in Europe. European manufacturers get the press, but Japanese and Domestic companies all have great 4 & 6 cylinder diesel's that could make an immediate impact in the US in Accord, Focus and Taurus sized cars as well as the light trucks and SUV's the US market still demands, although in lesser numbers. I'd trade our Navigator tomorrow for an Expedition that seats 6, carries the dogs and luggage and can tow a 7500 lb boat while still getting 20 mpg. Since an F-350 with the PowerStroke diesel can get 17-19 unloaded, it's not unlikely that a lighter vehicle with a V-6 turbo diesel could do the same or better. The key for manufacturer's would be to bring these products in at no more than $1500-$2000 more than their gas powered equivalent so a financial case could be made for their existence. If the diesel (or Hybrid) is going to cost $6-8k more, as they do today, the typical consumer will opt for the cheaper alternative. Not sure if that can be done or not, but in Europe the diesel does not command anywhere near the price premium it does in the US.
|
- #1298 of 1503
-
Re: Let the "Feds" decide?? [ruking1]
by fintail
-
Jun 30, 2009 (10:20 am)
-
|
|
Replying to: ruking1 (Jun 30, 2009 5:40 am)
I have to wonder what is going on with the MB diesel lineup right now. DOT/EPA holdups? The new E-class isn't listed in any diesel variant from the 2010 promo material I have seen. I went to the local 2010 E-class party last week, and asked a salesman about the E350 "blue efficiency"...he looked at me like I was speaking in tongues, and referred me to some used bluetecs. These cars have been out for several months in Europe already. We still don't have a diesel C-class on this continent, and the hybrid diesel S400 became a hybrid gas S400, with no diesel S-class variant on the horizon for this continent. The diesels for MB are just a couple useless SUVs for 2010, as far as I know - not a good decision IMO.
|
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Automotive News & Views 
