I don't think it's in the EPA's bailiwick to worry about road tax collection.
The same guy that appointed the head of the EPA appoints those that collect the taxes. They meet in what is called a cabinet meeting. They decide priorities for US. Same goes in CA for CARB and those collecting taxes. Do you think the states are looking at tax by mile because I am driving a gas guzzling SUV? It is all about tax revenue with emissions a distant priority.
I would say it goes more like the boss says we should be looking harder at diesel emissions. After Exxon head tells Obama they have a glut of Gasoline and a shortage of ULSD. It is a balancing act on the refining. It is a balancing act on the road tax. The EPA has the power to manipulate both.
You don't believe in conspiracies. Why is Congress going after the EPA for writing GW legislation? Was that not done without Congressional approval behind closed doors? This administration makes Nixon and Bush regimes look like Boy Scouts.
In my hours spent wondering which carmaker will have the cojones to start the "diesel sedan ball rolling" as it were, I never suspected it might be Mazda. But it might be.
Mazda showed off the 2012 Mazda 3 at the 2011 New York auto show this week, the first of the Mazda lineup to offer the brand's new SkyActiv powertrain technology.
The company also announced its intention to bring a diesel Mazda 3 to the U.S. market in 2014.
In the new Mazda 3, SkyActiv means a direct-injected, 2.0-liter I4 making 155 hp providing the magic 40-mpg highway figure when bolted to a six-speed autobox. Also available is a six-speed manual with improved efficiency, good for 39 mpg highway.
SkyActiv will appear on the upcoming Mazda CX-5 compact crossover joining the lineup for 2012.
Mazda3 buyers can also opt for the current MZR 2.0-liter (sedan only) and 2.5-liter engines, each of which receives efficiency improvements for 2012.
The suite of SkyActiv technologies aims to improve the existing internal combustion engine to yield better performance and fuel economy. Mazda also claims body and chassis changes lower weight and improve rigidity.
“SkyActiv means all engines, transmissions, platforms, suspensions and braking are geared towards fuel efficiency,” said Jim O'Sullivan, Mazda North America CEO. “This will help B-cars achieve the fuel economy of C-cars, gas engines that get the fuel economy of diesels, and diesels get the fuel economy of hybrids.”
Overall, Mazda says SkyActiv improvements will improve the fuel economy of Mazdas sold globally by 30 percent.
The company also announced its intention to bring a diesel Mazda 3 to the U.S. market in 2014.
Hope it works out better than the similar announcement 3-4 years ago regarding the Acura TSX. CARB has a way of causing these things to not happen at the last minute.
A diesel with a 6-speed manual is right up my alley. Only thing that could make it better would be RWD, but BMW hasn't (& probably won't) see fit to send any of those our way. Too plebian, don't you know -- doesn't maintain the proper upscale image.
But it's also going to be worthless if Mazda jacks up the price by $4-5000 despite the fact that the model elsewhere is only a little more expensive (1-2K if that) than the gasoline model.
20-25K completely misses the mark and I hope that Mazda doesn't see this as a yuppie toy like VW does for their diesels and overcharge for it.
The prevailing thought is Mazda will introduce the diesel in a new version of it's 6 sedan. Expect Mazda to go further upmarket to 1) differentiate the 6 midsize from the Accord/Camry/Altima that the current generation has failed to gain market share from 2) make a business case for the low sales volumes of the 6 by increasing profit per vehicle by marketing the 6 as near-luxury midsize.
I'm excited to see more diesels, I'm sad to see Mazda struggling in North America. They are losing a LOT of money at Flat Rock. They were seriously considering leaving Flat Rock to Ford in February. After Tsunami in March the leading strategy going forward appears to be building 3 different models off of two separate platforms at Flat Rock to obtain better utilization of the plant.
The reason that the manufacturers are struggling with diesel is simply because they aren't offering it on their budget cars where they will get their most sales.
If you offer a Yaris with a 75mpg engine in it, every last delivery company, courier, pizza place, college student, and so on will buy one immediately. It's not rocket science to get diesel cars to be more attractive. Just market to the people who want the highest MPG possible in a budget car.
I have thought about that and have come to this conclusion. It looks to me like the smaller the engine the higher the emission standards. So it would cost more on a percentage basis to make a 1.0L diesel clean than a 2.0L diesel. The fact that a Yaris with a very small diesel would be a lot cleaner than a Camry with a V6 gas engine seems irrelevant to the EPA. Smart was unable or unwilling to meet the CARB diesel standards with their little diesel engine so now the Canadians that want to be like California cannot have a high mileage diesel either. CARB is like a cancer spreading across the globe. The wannabe states have made them the god of emissions. What CA says goes for every state in the Union. And the leaders of CARB have made it clear they do not like diesel cars. VW, MB and BMW was able to beat them at their game. It was not cheap and it raised the prices on their vehicles.
At what point is it 'clean enough' and we're just pouring money down a hole? My concern with CARB and the EPA is that they don't believe in diminishing returns. They think that any cost is justified.
If CARB were not involved we would be using a lot less fuel per capita. We would be driving clean diesels as the EU is and most everyone would be less stressed over fuel costing close to $5 per gallon.
And a lot less CO2 would be emitted into the air.
CARB has and is anti diesel car. Not sure if it is just one powerful individual still, or a combination of political agendas. Don't forget CA was mandated by CARB to have 10% EVs by 1998. It is now 2011 and I doubt we are at one tenth of one percent EV. That mandate alone cost the tax payers $BILLIONS in wasted revenue. Just as their hatred of diesel cars has cost the consumers $BILLIONS in wasted fuel. You need to face the facts. Getting the lead out of gas and the sulfur out of diesel was the major part of our cleaner air. The rest is just marginally worth the cost to US.
A 'no' to which I'll readily concede. But we need some cost restraint.
CARB and the EPA sees a future in hybrids and EVs and suddenly the emissions and mpg are cranked sky-high to where no one can meet them cost effectively.
EDIT: and I also agree with Gagrice, they are definitely anti-diesel.
They're harming consumers and the economy at large.
Don't forget as well, that in places like Los Angeles, the majority of the air pollution comes from heavy vehicles, ships (you can see them churning out huge plumes of crap all day long - most run on bunker oil or similar), and commercial uses (all those dry cleaners and burger places for example).
One cargo ship in the port can pollute as much in an hour as tens of thousands of modern vehicles. Add in trucks and commercial equipment, and it dwarfs the entire passenger car fleet many times over.
CARB is focusing on the wrong things to go after at this point, as our cars are already clean enough at this point.
CARB is focusing on the wrong things to go after at this point
It is so much easier to screw over the little people than the big dogs. They have muddled around with the cargo ship pollution and little has been done. You can watch the smog blow in from the harbors and settle up against the mountains. The emissions standards for cars is so convoluted it takes a PHD to decipher. None for big PU trucks and larger. Though they are cracking down on semi tractors. Which has cost CA trucking companies their businesses. The staging & warehousing is moving to AZ and NV where they come in with non regulated trucks to deliver and PU cargo. The ECO Nuts in CA will not be happy until we are bankrupt and no one has a job outside the government.
But take away the politics and insert some reality:
1. Just because more diesel cars would have been "allowed" does not mean that a. Carmakers would have brought them here in droves, or b. Car buyers would have flocked to them.
2. What level of diesel emissions are we allowing in your scenario? 2000? 2004? 2009? The older you get, the more "dirty" the emissions would have been.
3. How did a mandate cost taxpayers $Billions? Who spent a lot of "clean car" R&D money on vehicles we don't have? Do you have numbers for each company, or are you just supposing that it happened that way?
I face the facts, just from a different perspective as yours.
The automakers made it clear. If they cannot sell in CA they cannot justify bringing a vehicle to the USA. Honda tried and failed by a hair.
CARB had NOTHING to do with the ULSD mandate by the EPA. Which was decades after the EU mandated cleaner diesel. ULSD is the major reason all diesel vehicles on the road are cleaner today than in the past.
We wasted a minimum of $3 billion on the EV-1 from GM. Plus all the charging stations put in that are now gone. I know of at least 3 at the 3 Costco stores I shop at. That was paid for by the tax payers. Money down the toilet. We did not need any R&D spent on charging stations. That technology is older than we are. What we gained in battery development is already old hat and worthless.
You are just having a hard time accepting the reality of diminishing returns. When it bankrupts a country it has gone too far. We are on the brink and that is just one part of the cause.
We don't know yet if these cars are going to succeed in attracting buyers.
It's too early in the game to know.
And I don't think Nissan got a penny of "tax dollars" for the Leaf.
Last I heard, GM is repaying all the bankruptcy loans.
493 Volts in a month is not "lousy" at all, considering it stickers for over $40K. Not many gasoline or diesel cars in that price range sell a ton either.
And that's only $20 million in tax credits so far. Have to sell a buttload more to cost us a Billion Dollars.
Get back to me on the subject of clean car"wasted tax dollars" when the oil companies stop taking subsidies.
And I don't think Nissan got a penny of "tax dollars" for the Leaf.
What would you call $7,830,000?? That is a bit more than a penny.
Last I heard, GM is repaying all the bankruptcy loans.
If you believe the smoke & mirrors accounting, I got a bridge in Havasu to sell you. GM owes more Billions than we will ever get back. That was buying votes. Money spent, too bad so sad.
493 Volts in a month is not "lousy" at all, considering it stickers for over $40K.
Hmmm, where are those 13,000 early adopters now that the Volt is sitting on the lots. Same can be said for the Leaves languishing in the dealers showrooms.
So how many Volts do we think GM should expect to sell in it’s first model year? Here, we have over 13,000 people signed up on our waiting list. At the rate of growth the list and site is experiencing it would not surprise me in we had 100,000 by product launch. Furthermore, GMs own Vote for Volt site shows over 400,000 people want this car to be produced.
I tried to confirm whether GM actually intends to make 10,000 Volts in its first year, as we discussed in the previous post.
Bob Lutz once said 60,000 to 100,000 Volts the firs year. Is this still your target?
PS Oil Companies are paying $billions in taxes more than those so called subsidies. You can count the wars if you like as those have all been fought for oil back to WWOne. The issue is there are NO real legitimate alternatives to fossil fuel powered vehicles. And Diesel is the best choice in fuel for any sized vehicle.
Gary says, "What would you call $7,830,000?? That is a bit more than a penny."
Are you talking about the $7500 tax credit? Did that go to NISSAN, or to the BUYER? I think you know that answer.
Gary says, "Hmmm, where are those 13,000 early adopters now that the Volt is sitting on the lots. Same can be said for the Leaves languishing in the dealers showrooms. "
I already 'splained that to you, Lucy !! It's going to take time for buyers to battle through all the MISINFORMATION that the people who are against clean energy cars are putting out there. Prius didn't get to 2 million sold immediately - the buying public had to LEARN about the technology and get to KNOW people who owned the car. Word of mouf is important.
Gary MISTAKENLY says, "The issue is there are NO real legitimate alternatives to fossil fuel powered vehicles."
Funny guy. I sincerely hope you don't REALLY believe that, and are just putting this out there to stir the pot.
Nissan gets the $7500 my friend. Car sells for $40K and the tax payer shows it on his tax return as a $7500 tax credit. The buyer fronts that $7500 until he gets it back from the IRS unless it gets kicked out for some reason like the AMT catch. Have not heard if that bill went through to give the money direct to the automaker and sell the car for $7500 less. Still have to find suckers willing to pay $32,500 for a car only worth about $18k.
PS Name me a vehicle sold in the USA that does not require some fossil fuel to run. Unless on the rare occasion someone only charges his Leaf on solar panels during the day.
First of all, you are getting your MSRPs mixed up.
Volt is $40K Leaf is $32K
And I guess, in a way, the Nissan DEALER gets the $7500. The cost to the dealer is not nearly what the MSRP is. Nissan corporate does not see much of that money.
And what if they do? The get money from the guvmint for other things, so why not let the carmakers benefit from putting cleaner vehicles on the road?
Gary says, "Name me a vehicle sold in the USA that does not require some fossil fuel to run."
Now you say "require some to run" but your original statement was "fossil fuel POWERED." Which is it?
Now you say "require some to run" but your original statement was "fossil fuel POWERED." Which is it?
An EV is more than likely powered by a coal, gas or diesel generator if it is in the USA. It is not battery powered. That is merely a storage device. The electricity is generated elsewhere.
THE PEUGEOT 3008 HYBRID4 – THE WORLD'S FIRST DIESEL HYBRID VEHICLE Powered by a 2.0 litre 163 bhp HDi diesel engine and a 37bhp electric motor Potential 74.4mpg, with 99g/km of CO2 All electric mode (Zero Emission Vehicle) A maximum combined power output of 200 bhp The Peugeot 3008 Crossover, with HYbrid4 technology, is the first diesel 'Full Hybrid' production car in the world
By launching the world's first diesel full hybrid vehicle - the 3008 HYbrid 4 - Peugeot will be writing a new chapter in motoring history. The combination of a fuel efficient 2.0 litre 163 bhp HDi diesel engine and a 37 bhp electric motor is the optimal combination for a hybrid vehicle. Unlike previous hybrid vehicles which have chosen to use a less fuel efficient petrol engine, the Peugeot 3008 HYbrid4's diesel engine provides superior Combined Drive Cycle fuel consumption of 74.4mpg, and CO2 emissions of 99g/km.
The use of diesel hybrid technology also brings a range of other benefits: High performance combined with excellent driveability Freedom and simplicity of use with the possibility of choosing four different operating modes: ZEV (Zero Emission Vehicle), Four-wheel drive, Auto and Sport Silent operation, when driving in electric only mode Peace of mind offered by the safety inherent in a four-wheel drive vehicle Environmental friendliness with CO2 emissions from 99g/km
The Peugeot 3008 Hybrid4 is designed to appeal to demanding, technophile customers who are in search of a rewarding and original vehicle.
In terms of performance, the Peugeot 3008 HYbrid4 benefits from the combined power of the HDi diesel engine and electric motor during acceleration and when an immediate surge of power is required (the "boost" function). The maximum combined power output is 200 bhp, 163 bhp from the 2.0 litre HDi FAP diesel engine and 37 bhp from the electric motor. A maximum torque of 500 Nm is available, split with 300Nm at the front from the HDi diesel engine and 200 Nm at the rear generated by the electric motor.
To manage all the available performance a control selector mounted on the centre console enables the driver to choose between four different operating modes. "Auto" mode: the entire system is automatically controlled, including operation of the HDi diesel engine and the electric motor. This provides optimal driving for fuel consumption and dynamic performance "ZEV" mode (Zero Emission Vehicle) provides access to an extensive all-electric mode. Activation of the HDi diesel engine is programmed to coincide with only more sustained phases of acceleration. This requires the high-voltage batteries to be sufficiently charged and turns the vehicle into a "city run-around" par excellence due to the total absence of noise and emissions. Four-wheel drive mode (4WD) instructs both power trains to operate together as far as possible; the rear wheels are driven by the electric motor and the front wheels by the HDi diesel engine. It offers peace of mind, safety, improved driveability and accentuates the vehicle's dynamic character. At low speed it allows "all-terrain" capabilities equivalent to those of an SUV. The driver will, therefore, no longer be concerned by the prospect of a slippery track or a snowbound uphill drive to a ski resort Sport" mode favours quicker gear changes at higher engine speeds than normal mode. In this mode, the notion of "controlled power" comes into its own, coupling the diesel engine with the electric motor provides more dynamic performance, optimally distributed and transmitted to the road by the four wheel drive for a level of stability and driveability that will appeal to motoring enthusiasts.
Unless it's a series hybrid design, it's not close to being as efficient as possible.
edit - in normal English that means that the engine only operates as a generator and the drive is 100% electric. For this type of use, a diesel engine is optimal as constant rpms for long periods of time is all you really need.
Of the two engine choices, we came away liking the VW diesel a lot, although from a performance point of view, the V6 gasoline-powered car is quicker, going from 0 to 62 mph in 6.5 seconds, nearly three seconds quicker than the oil-burner.
With the soaring fuel prices, it's worth noting that the 2012 Volkswagen Passat diesel returns 43 mpg highway, giving the car a range of more than 700 miles. And VW execs said there is no Passat hybrid planned, so the VW TDI remains the best "green" option. Do I want it?
The U.S.-built 2012 Volkswagen Passat would to be appear a solid player in the midsize wars and, with the diesel option, it brings something unique to the battle.
The batteries are eating some room, but there will be about 13 cbF remaining in the luggage compartment, notwithstanding the ability to fold rear seats and load up to the ceiling.
Fuel consumption is 10% higher than 3008 and should yield 4.3 L/100 or around 54 MPG combined. If real life FC comes close to 45 MPG, this will be already nice for this 2-Ton vehicle.
Although available in high end trim only, the model will remain 20% cheaper than a comparably equipped and thirstier VW Q5.
This looks very promising. I regret the use of single clutch automated gearbox which is not performing well within PSA group. It is said that the box will be reviewed and that the electric motors will help make the gearchanges smoother, but I doubt it will match the speed and reactivity of Double Clutch gearbox.
I don't think we will see Peugeot in the USA again. Are they going to be big in China? I would hope we get the Passat Wagon TDI here. That may not be for a couple years.
I think you can look at the contrast any number of ways.
This is just one. As you probably would agree, there is almost no way they will let a close to 2 ton vehicle (4,000 #'s) that gets 54 mpg combined (US gals/128 oz, I persume) into the US market. VW had a 2,950 # TDI that got 42/49 mpg and they all but made new car sales against the law in some states. Now real life range on that has been 44 to 62 mpg.
Peugeot was on bad track in China as long as they considered the Chinese market with condescendence (i.e. selling outdated/ discontinued models at cheaper prices and thinking that would be allright this way)
Now, they odder the latest models, and they keep up with the growth. Even part of the 508 were designed in China AFAIK.
I also regret PSA does not come to the U.S. But they don't really have serious gas engines. The only V6 they had has been discontinued. A bit too wimpy and a bit too thirsty, but not that a bad lass.
I was in fact thinking about 2 metric Tons, which would be around 4400 pounds, maybe.
Yes, I was mentioning US measures.
I don't really understand what you mean. Do you mean a car would be banned in the US market on the grounds of fuel consumption?
I think the latest environment regulations in the US are stringent in a way that Peugeot models would need an extra de-NOx device to be 50-state compliant. This would be possible but costly to a point that the demanded price would become unacceptable. If we directly translate 45K Euros into (soon worthless) USD, this makes maybe 65K USD. Nobody in the US is ready to pay the price for the insignifiant luxury of saving gas (or diesel in this case)
Moreover, French manufacturers are scared of US class actions. A defective cupholder could cost them billions in compensations when demanded by a skillful lawyer.
Lastly, our French manufacturers are overly conservative. They won't risk the $$$ necessary to open plants in a USD zone, which, IMHO is the only way for a non-premium brand to have a chance to compete in the US market.
Renauld could do a move towards US though. Their gas models are mostly nissan engined. Their electrics are commonly sourced to a point that the Japan disaster had nearly the same impact on their production than on Nissan. They just don't have the guts and lack any new model above the compact class.
That is an intesting perspective about a French auto OEM. ?? I dare say even GM, Ford, and Chysler get it about China !!! Certainly VW does where they are currently one of the biggest auto makers? China WIKI
If we directly translate 45K Euros into (soon worthless) USD, this makes maybe 65K USD. Nobody in the US is ready to pay the price for the insignifiant luxury of saving gas (or diesel in this case)
Right on...
Moreover, French manufacturers are scared of US class actions. A defective cupholder could cost them billions in compensations when demanded by a skillful lawyer.
You understand our problems very well....
Lastly, our French manufacturers are overly conservative. They won't risk the $$$ necessary to open plants in a USD zone, which, IMHO is the only way for a non-premium brand to have a chance to compete in the US market.
Again you are correct. That is why VW decided to build a new plant here. To build the mush cars Americans want.
Even VW was complacent and lived on selling santanas or outdated passats at premium prices. The Chinese buyer became more demanding and VW once dominant position eroded to today's levels. The japanese brands were much more reactive and introduced newer models as soon as they were released in Japan. No wonder they became a strong force whereas 10 years ago, they were still marginal.
Hopefully VW reacted and is now offering its current line of models in China, even through the SKODA brand. Kia/Hyundai are being very aggressive too, whereas local manufacturers made leaps and bounds in quality, design and engineering. We may have a half dozen chinese Kia or Hyundai coming to the US in the next decade.
Yes, GM and Ford get a hang of it but don't show enough aggressiveness.
Diesel is out of the equation though, as it is reserved for trucks. And it is so full of sulphur that it would kill and clean diesel in a blip
General Motors has decided to sell a diesel version of the Chevrolet Cruze compact in the United States, the Associated Press reported today, citing two people familiar with the plans.
Sources told the AP the car would get about 50 miles per gallon on the highway and help GM address stricter government fuel economy standards.
The diesel-powered Cruze is at least two years from U.S. introduction, one source said. The sources did not want to be identified because the automaker has not made an announcement.
GM sells a diesel-powered Cruze in Australia and in Europe, and is re-engineering the engine to meet U.S. emissions standards.
GM spokesman Tom Wilkinson would not comment, the AP said.
It is unclear whether Buick will offer a diesel version of the Verano, a 2012 compact sedan that shares the same platform as the Cruze. GM will begin building the Verano this fall in Orion Township, Mich.
I think what you are saying also applies to the US markets. Gagrice (if I may say so) has cleary made this assertion. I also tend to agree with him. The real insult to injury (I perceive- it may or may not be true) is we are charged extra monies (opaque to consumers) for the costs of "dumbing down".
I would agree. It would be a step in the right direction. A practical consideration is why get 36 (H) when you can get 50 mpg? (+ is my swag) While not a "light car", it is a par to sub 3,000 # vehicle. It would also set the mpg bar far higher than the 2012 35 mpg standards which @ 36 mpg it exceeds by app 2.9%. 50 mpg would exceed it by 43%. To mix metaphors it would be a home run for Chevrolet.
Comments
The same guy that appointed the head of the EPA appoints those that collect the taxes. They meet in what is called a cabinet meeting. They decide priorities for US. Same goes in CA for CARB and those collecting taxes. Do you think the states are looking at tax by mile because I am driving a gas guzzling SUV? It is all about tax revenue with emissions a distant priority.
Sounds like conspiracy talk again.
Is this your imagined conversation:
TAX COLLECTOR: "EPA, we can't have any of those diesels here. It reduces our road tax collections."
EPA HEAD: "I'm on it, chief."
What a ridiculous fantasy fable.
You don't believe in conspiracies. Why is Congress going after the EPA for writing GW legislation? Was that not done without Congressional approval behind closed doors? This administration makes Nixon and Bush regimes look like Boy Scouts.
No buying it.
http://blogs.insideline.com/straightline/2011/04/2011-new-york-auto-show-2012-ma- zda-3-will-get-40-mpg.html
http://www.autoweek.com/article/20110422/NEWYORK/110429942
Mazda showed off the 2012 Mazda 3 at the 2011 New York auto show this week, the first of the Mazda lineup to offer the brand's new SkyActiv powertrain technology.
The company also announced its intention to bring a diesel Mazda 3 to the U.S. market in 2014.
In the new Mazda 3, SkyActiv means a direct-injected, 2.0-liter I4 making 155 hp providing the magic 40-mpg highway figure when bolted to a six-speed autobox. Also available is a six-speed manual with improved efficiency, good for 39 mpg highway.
SkyActiv will appear on the upcoming Mazda CX-5 compact crossover joining the lineup for 2012.
Mazda3 buyers can also opt for the current MZR 2.0-liter (sedan only) and 2.5-liter engines, each of which receives efficiency improvements for 2012.
The suite of SkyActiv technologies aims to improve the existing internal combustion engine to yield better performance and fuel economy. Mazda also claims body and chassis changes lower weight and improve rigidity.
“SkyActiv means all engines, transmissions, platforms, suspensions and braking are geared towards fuel efficiency,” said Jim O'Sullivan, Mazda North America CEO. “This will help B-cars achieve the fuel economy of C-cars, gas engines that get the fuel economy of diesels, and diesels get the fuel economy of hybrids.”
Overall, Mazda says SkyActiv improvements will improve the fuel economy of Mazdas sold globally by 30 percent.
Hope it works out better than the similar announcement 3-4 years ago regarding the Acura TSX. CARB has a way of causing these things to not happen at the last minute.
A diesel with a 6-speed manual is right up my alley. Only thing that could make it better would be RWD, but BMW hasn't (& probably won't) see fit to send any of those our way. Too plebian, don't you know -- doesn't maintain the proper upscale image.
20-25K completely misses the mark and I hope that Mazda doesn't see this as a yuppie toy like VW does for their diesels and overcharge for it.
The prevailing thought is Mazda will introduce the diesel in a new version of it's 6 sedan. Expect Mazda to go further upmarket to 1) differentiate the 6 midsize from the Accord/Camry/Altima that the current generation has failed to gain market share from 2) make a business case for the low sales volumes of the 6 by increasing profit per vehicle by marketing the 6 as near-luxury midsize.
I'm excited to see more diesels, I'm sad to see Mazda struggling in North America. They are losing a LOT of money at Flat Rock. They were seriously considering leaving Flat Rock to Ford in February. After Tsunami in March the leading strategy going forward appears to be building 3 different models off of two separate platforms at Flat Rock to obtain better utilization of the plant.
If you offer a Yaris with a 75mpg engine in it, every last delivery company, courier, pizza place, college student, and so on will buy one immediately. It's not rocket science to get diesel cars to be more attractive. Just market to the people who want the highest MPG possible in a budget car.
No truer words were ever spoken.
But the bottom line question to ask is: would the air be cleaner if the EPA and CARB were NOT INVOLVED *AT ALL* with any policy decisions?
I think the answer to that is clearly a BIG FAT NO.
If CARB were not involved we would be using a lot less fuel per capita. We would be driving clean diesels as the EU is and most everyone would be less stressed over fuel costing close to $5 per gallon.
And a lot less CO2 would be emitted into the air.
CARB has and is anti diesel car. Not sure if it is just one powerful individual still, or a combination of political agendas. Don't forget CA was mandated by CARB to have 10% EVs by 1998. It is now 2011 and I doubt we are at one tenth of one percent EV. That mandate alone cost the tax payers $BILLIONS in wasted revenue. Just as their hatred of diesel cars has cost the consumers $BILLIONS in wasted fuel. You need to face the facts. Getting the lead out of gas and the sulfur out of diesel was the major part of our cleaner air. The rest is just marginally worth the cost to US.
CARB and the EPA sees a future in hybrids and EVs and suddenly the emissions and mpg are cranked sky-high to where no one can meet them cost effectively.
EDIT: and I also agree with Gagrice, they are definitely anti-diesel.
They're harming consumers and the economy at large.
One cargo ship in the port can pollute as much in an hour as tens of thousands of modern vehicles. Add in trucks and commercial equipment, and it dwarfs the entire passenger car fleet many times over.
CARB is focusing on the wrong things to go after at this point, as our cars are already clean enough at this point.
It is so much easier to screw over the little people than the big dogs. They have muddled around with the cargo ship pollution and little has been done. You can watch the smog blow in from the harbors and settle up against the mountains. The emissions standards for cars is so convoluted it takes a PHD to decipher. None for big PU trucks and larger. Though they are cracking down on semi tractors. Which has cost CA trucking companies their businesses. The staging & warehousing is moving to AZ and NV where they come in with non regulated trucks to deliver and PU cargo. The ECO Nuts in CA will not be happy until we are bankrupt and no one has a job outside the government.
But take away the politics and insert some reality:
1. Just because more diesel cars would have been "allowed" does not mean that
a. Carmakers would have brought them here in droves, or
b. Car buyers would have flocked to them.
2. What level of diesel emissions are we allowing in your scenario? 2000? 2004? 2009? The older you get, the more "dirty" the emissions would have been.
3. How did a mandate cost taxpayers $Billions? Who spent a lot of "clean car" R&D money on vehicles we don't have? Do you have numbers for each company, or are you just supposing that it happened that way?
I face the facts, just from a different perspective as yours.
CARB had NOTHING to do with the ULSD mandate by the EPA. Which was decades after the EU mandated cleaner diesel. ULSD is the major reason all diesel vehicles on the road are cleaner today than in the past.
We wasted a minimum of $3 billion on the EV-1 from GM. Plus all the charging stations put in that are now gone. I know of at least 3 at the 3 Costco stores I shop at. That was paid for by the tax payers. Money down the toilet. We did not need any R&D spent on charging stations. That technology is older than we are. What we gained in battery development is already old hat and worthless.
You are just having a hard time accepting the reality of diminishing returns. When it bankrupts a country it has gone too far. We are on the brink and that is just one part of the cause.
I'd say "get over" the EV-1.
It was a GREAT idea, just at a bad time. Battery technology was not right. The will of the buyer was not right. Gas was too cheap.
12 years later we have more wasted tax payer $billions. The Volt and Leaf.
Leaf sold through April = 1044
Volt sold through April = 1703 with a lousy 493 in April.
More $billions wasted.
$100 billion here, $100 billion there, pretty soon you have some serious money wasted.
gm SALES
We don't know yet if these cars are going to succeed in attracting buyers.
It's too early in the game to know.
And I don't think Nissan got a penny of "tax dollars" for the Leaf.
Last I heard, GM is repaying all the bankruptcy loans.
493 Volts in a month is not "lousy" at all, considering it stickers for over $40K. Not many gasoline or diesel cars in that price range sell a ton either.
And that's only $20 million in tax credits so far. Have to sell a buttload more to cost us a Billion Dollars.
Get back to me on the subject of clean car"wasted tax dollars" when the oil companies stop taking subsidies.
And when there are thousands and thousands of statements made like that, it all adds up to $14 trillion in the hole.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
That is always the case when they are spending other people's money.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
What would you call $7,830,000?? That is a bit more than a penny.
Last I heard, GM is repaying all the bankruptcy loans.
If you believe the smoke & mirrors accounting, I got a bridge in Havasu to sell you. GM owes more Billions than we will ever get back. That was buying votes. Money spent, too bad so sad.
493 Volts in a month is not "lousy" at all, considering it stickers for over $40K.
Hmmm, where are those 13,000 early adopters now that the Volt is sitting on the lots. Same can be said for the Leaves languishing in the dealers showrooms.
So how many Volts do we think GM should expect to sell in it’s first model year? Here, we have over 13,000 people signed up on our waiting list. At the rate of growth the list and site is experiencing it would not surprise me in we had 100,000 by product launch. Furthermore, GMs own Vote for Volt site shows over 400,000 people want this car to be produced.
I tried to confirm whether GM actually intends to make 10,000 Volts in its first year, as we discussed in the previous post.
Bob Lutz once said 60,000 to 100,000 Volts the firs year. Is this still your target?
http://gm-volt.com/2008/03/03/how-many-chevy-volts-should-gm-make-in-its-first-y- ear/
PS
Oil Companies are paying $billions in taxes more than those so called subsidies. You can count the wars if you like as those have all been fought for oil back to WWOne. The issue is there are NO real legitimate alternatives to fossil fuel powered vehicles. And Diesel is the best choice in fuel for any sized vehicle.
Are you talking about the $7500 tax credit? Did that go to NISSAN, or to the BUYER? I think you know that answer.
Gary says, "Hmmm, where are those 13,000 early adopters now that the Volt is sitting on the lots. Same can be said for the Leaves languishing in the dealers showrooms. "
I already 'splained that to you, Lucy !! It's going to take time for buyers to battle through all the MISINFORMATION that the people who are against clean energy cars are putting out there. Prius didn't get to 2 million sold immediately - the buying public had to LEARN about the technology and get to KNOW people who owned the car. Word of mouf is important.
Gary MISTAKENLY says, "The issue is there are NO real legitimate alternatives to fossil fuel powered vehicles."
Funny guy. I sincerely hope you don't REALLY believe that, and are just putting this out there to stir the pot.
PS
Name me a vehicle sold in the USA that does not require some fossil fuel to run. Unless on the rare occasion someone only charges his Leaf on solar panels during the day.
Volt is $40K
Leaf is $32K
And I guess, in a way, the Nissan DEALER gets the $7500. The cost to the dealer is not nearly what the MSRP is. Nissan corporate does not see much of that money.
And what if they do? The get money from the guvmint for other things, so why not let the carmakers benefit from putting cleaner vehicles on the road?
Gary says, "Name me a vehicle sold in the USA that does not require some fossil fuel to run."
Now you say "require some to run" but your original statement was "fossil fuel POWERED." Which is it?
An EV is more than likely powered by a coal, gas or diesel generator if it is in the USA. It is not battery powered. That is merely a storage device. The electricity is generated elsewhere.
Stoked....:)
http://www.autoblog.com/2010/08/24/peugeot-launches-3008-hybrid4-worlds-first-pr- oduction-diesel-t/
THE PEUGEOT 3008 HYBRID4 – THE WORLD'S FIRST DIESEL HYBRID VEHICLE
Powered by a 2.0 litre 163 bhp HDi diesel engine and a 37bhp electric motor
Potential 74.4mpg, with 99g/km of CO2
All electric mode (Zero Emission Vehicle)
A maximum combined power output of 200 bhp
The Peugeot 3008 Crossover, with HYbrid4 technology, is the first diesel 'Full Hybrid' production car in the world
By launching the world's first diesel full hybrid vehicle - the 3008 HYbrid 4 - Peugeot will be writing a new chapter in motoring history. The combination of a fuel efficient 2.0 litre 163 bhp HDi diesel engine and a 37 bhp electric motor is the optimal combination for a hybrid vehicle. Unlike previous hybrid vehicles which have chosen to use a less fuel efficient petrol engine, the Peugeot 3008 HYbrid4's diesel engine provides superior Combined Drive Cycle fuel consumption of 74.4mpg, and CO2 emissions of 99g/km.
The use of diesel hybrid technology also brings a range of other benefits:
High performance combined with excellent driveability
Freedom and simplicity of use with the possibility of choosing four different operating modes: ZEV (Zero Emission Vehicle), Four-wheel drive, Auto and Sport
Silent operation, when driving in electric only mode
Peace of mind offered by the safety inherent in a four-wheel drive vehicle
Environmental friendliness with CO2 emissions from 99g/km
The Peugeot 3008 Hybrid4 is designed to appeal to demanding, technophile customers who are in search of a rewarding and original vehicle.
In terms of performance, the Peugeot 3008 HYbrid4 benefits from the combined power of the HDi diesel engine and electric motor during acceleration and when an immediate surge of power is required (the "boost" function). The maximum combined power output is 200 bhp, 163 bhp from the 2.0 litre HDi FAP diesel engine and 37 bhp from the electric motor. A maximum torque of 500 Nm is available, split with 300Nm at the front from the HDi diesel engine and 200 Nm at the rear generated by the electric motor.
To manage all the available performance a control selector mounted on the centre console enables the driver to choose between four different operating modes.
"Auto" mode: the entire system is automatically controlled, including operation of the HDi diesel engine and the electric motor. This provides optimal driving for fuel consumption and dynamic performance
"ZEV" mode (Zero Emission Vehicle) provides access to an extensive all-electric mode. Activation of the HDi diesel engine is programmed to coincide with only more sustained phases of acceleration. This requires the high-voltage batteries to be sufficiently charged and turns the vehicle into a "city run-around" par excellence due to the total absence of noise and emissions.
Four-wheel drive mode (4WD) instructs both power trains to operate together as far as possible; the rear wheels are driven by the electric motor and the front wheels by the HDi diesel engine. It offers peace of mind, safety, improved driveability and accentuates the vehicle's dynamic character. At low speed it allows "all-terrain" capabilities equivalent to those of an SUV. The driver will, therefore, no longer be concerned by the prospect of a slippery track or a snowbound uphill drive to a ski resort
Sport" mode favours quicker gear changes at higher engine speeds than normal mode. In this mode, the notion of "controlled power" comes into its own, coupling the diesel engine with the electric motor provides more dynamic performance, optimally distributed and transmitted to the road by the four wheel drive for a level of stability and driveability that will appeal to motoring enthusiasts.
edit - in normal English that means that the engine only operates as a generator and the drive is 100% electric. For this type of use, a diesel engine is optimal as constant rpms for long periods of time is all you really need.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
http://www.autoweek.com/article/20110523/CARREVIEWS/110529946
Of the two engine choices, we came away liking the VW diesel a lot, although from a performance point of view, the V6 gasoline-powered car is quicker, going from 0 to 62 mph in 6.5 seconds, nearly three seconds quicker than the oil-burner.
With the soaring fuel prices, it's worth noting that the 2012 Volkswagen Passat diesel returns 43 mpg highway, giving the car a range of more than 700 miles. And VW execs said there is no Passat hybrid planned, so the VW TDI remains the best "green" option.
Do I want it?
The U.S.-built 2012 Volkswagen Passat would to be appear a solid player in the midsize wars and, with the diesel option, it brings something unique to the battle.
This will be comparable in size to a VW Passat Station Wagon.
http://www.argusauto.com/actualite-automobile/nouveautes/officiel/peugeot-508-rx- h-4x4-et-hybride-diesel-917368.html#hmpg_jshm_blc1
The batteries are eating some room, but there will be about 13 cbF remaining in the luggage compartment, notwithstanding the ability to fold rear seats and load up to the ceiling.
Fuel consumption is 10% higher than 3008 and should yield 4.3 L/100 or around 54 MPG combined. If real life FC comes close to 45 MPG, this will be already nice for this 2-Ton vehicle.
Although available in high end trim only, the model will remain 20% cheaper than a comparably equipped and thirstier VW Q5.
This looks very promising. I regret the use of single clutch automated gearbox which is not performing well within PSA group. It is said that the box will be reviewed and that the electric motors will help make the gearchanges smoother, but I doubt it will match the speed and reactivity of Double Clutch gearbox.
This is just one. As you probably would agree, there is almost no way they will let a close to 2 ton vehicle (4,000 #'s) that gets 54 mpg combined (US gals/128 oz, I persume) into the US market. VW had a 2,950 # TDI that got 42/49 mpg and they all but made new car sales against the law in some states. Now real life range on that has been 44 to 62 mpg.
I'll bet you a dozen doughnuts right now that if they try to bring it here, they will do so successfully.
Now, they odder the latest models, and they keep up with the growth. Even part of the 508 were designed in China AFAIK.
I also regret PSA does not come to the U.S. But they don't really have serious gas engines. The only V6 they had has been discontinued. A bit too wimpy and a bit too thirsty, but not that a bad lass.
Yes, I was mentioning US measures.
I don't really understand what you mean. Do you mean a car would be banned in the US market on the grounds of fuel consumption?
I think the latest environment regulations in the US are stringent in a way that Peugeot models would need an extra de-NOx device to be 50-state compliant. This would be possible but costly to a point that the demanded price would become unacceptable.
If we directly translate 45K Euros into (soon worthless) USD, this makes maybe 65K USD. Nobody in the US is ready to pay the price for the insignifiant luxury of saving gas (or diesel in this case)
Moreover, French manufacturers are scared of US class actions. A defective cupholder could cost them billions in compensations when demanded by a skillful lawyer.
Lastly, our French manufacturers are overly conservative. They won't risk the $$$ necessary to open plants in a USD zone, which, IMHO is the only way for a non-premium brand to have a chance to compete in the US market.
Renauld could do a move towards US though. Their gas models are mostly nissan engined. Their electrics are commonly sourced to a point that the Japan disaster had nearly the same impact on their production than on Nissan. They just don't have the guts and lack any new model above the compact class.
Right on...
Moreover, French manufacturers are scared of US class actions. A defective cupholder could cost them billions in compensations when demanded by a skillful lawyer.
You understand our problems very well....
Lastly, our French manufacturers are overly conservative. They won't risk the $$$ necessary to open plants in a USD zone, which, IMHO is the only way for a non-premium brand to have a chance to compete in the US market.
Again you are correct. That is why VW decided to build a new plant here. To build the mush cars Americans want.
The japanese brands were much more reactive and introduced newer models as soon as they were released in Japan. No wonder they became a strong force whereas 10 years ago, they were still marginal.
Hopefully VW reacted and is now offering its current line of models in China, even through the SKODA brand. Kia/Hyundai are being very aggressive too, whereas local manufacturers made leaps and bounds in quality, design and engineering. We may have a half dozen chinese Kia or Hyundai coming to the US in the next decade.
Yes, GM and Ford get a hang of it but don't show enough aggressiveness.
Diesel is out of the equation though, as it is reserved for trucks. And it is so full of sulphur that it would kill and clean diesel in a blip
http://www.autoweek.com/article/20110712/CARNEWS/110719972?utm_source=DailyDrive- 20110712&utm_medium=enewsletter&utm_term=article1more&utm_content=20110712-Chevr- olet_to_market_diesel-powered_Cruze_in_U.S.,_report_says&utm_campaign=awdailydri- ve
By DAVID PHILLIPS, AUTOMOTIVE NEWS on 7/12/2011
General Motors has decided to sell a diesel version of the Chevrolet Cruze compact in the United States, the Associated Press reported today, citing two people familiar with the plans.
Sources told the AP the car would get about 50 miles per gallon on the highway and help GM address stricter government fuel economy standards.
The diesel-powered Cruze is at least two years from U.S. introduction, one source said. The sources did not want to be identified because the automaker has not made an announcement.
GM sells a diesel-powered Cruze in Australia and in Europe, and is re-engineering the engine to meet U.S. emissions standards.
GM spokesman Tom Wilkinson would not comment, the AP said.
It is unclear whether Buick will offer a diesel version of the Verano, a 2012 compact sedan that shares the same platform as the Cruze. GM will begin building the Verano this fall in Orion Township, Mich.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460