http://carscoop.blogspot.com/2012/04/ford-announces-fuel-economy-ratings-for.html :popcorn:
And still no diesel option. :zzz:
Quote from: cawimmer430 on April 27, 2012, 08:38:52 AM
And still no diesel option. :zzz:
We likely won't see that in the US. It takes so much money to get the engine federalized for each vehicle it'd be put in.
Quote from: cawimmer430 on April 27, 2012, 08:38:52 AM
And still no diesel option. :zzz:
You can keep your anemic stinkboxes.
Quote from: 280Z Turbo on April 27, 2012, 01:25:02 PM
You can keep your anemic stinkboxes.
Yes, keep those, and bring us diesel power.
Quote from: Eye of the Tiger on April 27, 2012, 01:41:05 PM
Yes, keep those, and bring us diesel power.
I used to be a believer in diesel, but I'm just not sure anymore. Despite the US getting low sulfur diesel, getting stuck behind a big diesel pickup still smells like sour farts. And it costs more than gasoline too. Not to mention the RPMs run out on a diesel pretty quickly, which discourages fast driving.
I'm not sure if diesels are really worth the cost compared to Ecoboost engines.
Quote from: 280Z Turbo on April 27, 2012, 01:47:46 PM
I used to be a believer in diesel, but I'm just not sure anymore. Despite the US getting low sulfur diesel, getting stuck behind a big diesel pickup still smells like sour farts. And it costs more than gasoline too. Not to mention the RPMs run out on a diesel pretty quickly, which discourages fast driving.
I'm not sure if diesels are really worth the cost compared to Ecoboost engines.
That's cuz diesel pickups have HUGE engines with 1000 torks. :facepalm:
With such great gas mileage and no need for a hybrid version (according to FMC), why a diesel? Not being a wise guy, just curious of what the advantage it would make with high MPG on the gasoline Escape for this coming model year and the expense of diesel fuel.
All you guys in favor of diesels likely haven't driven one recently. I had an Opel Astra with a manual in Germany for about a week. Never will I own a diesel passenger car.
Quote from: MrH on April 27, 2012, 06:19:58 PM
All you guys in favor of diesels likely haven't driven one recently. I had an Opel Astra with a manual in Germany for about a week. Never will I own a diesel passenger car.
I test-drove a diesel Jetta not too long ago and didn't have a problem with it. Are you sure whatever issue you had wasn't specific to the Astra?
Quote from: MrH on April 27, 2012, 06:19:58 PM
All you guys in favor of diesels likely haven't driven one recently. I had an Opel Astra with a manual in Germany for about a week. Never will I own a diesel passenger car.
I drove diesels for a year straight. I got carbon monoxide poisoning. My hands and clothes smelled like diesel fuel all the time.
I am pro diesel.
Quote from: Eye of the Tiger on April 27, 2012, 02:24:43 PM
That's cuz diesel pickups have HUGE engines with 1000 torks. :facepalm:
The Vortec 6000 in the green 2500HD doesn't stink.
Quote from: ifcar on April 27, 2012, 06:21:22 PM
I test-drove a diesel Jetta not too long ago and didn't have a problem with it. Are you sure whatever issue you had wasn't specific to the Astra?
I think it would depend on where/how you drive. I think it would be okay for short bursts of acceleration around town, but it might feel gutless in America's wide open spaces.
Quote from: 280Z Turbo on April 27, 2012, 06:29:35 PM
The Vortec 6000 in the green 2500HD doesn't stink.
Cuz it's green. Duh.
Quote from: MrH on April 27, 2012, 06:19:58 PM
All you guys in favor of diesels likely haven't driven one recently. I had an Opel Astra with a manual in Germany for about a week. Never will I own a diesel passenger car.
I dunno, I've heard GM diesels generally suck.
Quote from: 2o6 on April 27, 2012, 07:07:51 PM
I dunno, I've heard GM diesels generally suck.
It's most likely an Isuzu diesel engine that's powering diesel Opels.
Quote from: MrH on April 27, 2012, 06:19:58 PM
All you guys in favor of diesels likely haven't driven one recently. I had an Opel Astra with a manual in Germany for about a week. Never will I own a diesel passenger car.
So you drive one diesel-powered rental car and that's it? It's a lowly Opel Astra with a cheap diesel engine that's engineered for gas mileage and not performance or smoothness. The diesel offerings from higher-end manufacturers are smoother and more powerful and more fun.
That interior is a mess and the exterior looks far more wagon like than before. I don't like it at all, but the engines sound pretty nice.
Looks good although not sure I prefer it to the old one (Kuga). I would think they'd be a good used buy in the near future.
(http://www.ford.co.uk/cs/BlobServer?blobtable=MungoBlobs&blobcol=urldata&blobwhere=1214408316529&blobkey=id)
Quote from: cawimmer430 on April 27, 2012, 08:57:28 PM
So you drive one diesel-powered rental car and that's it? It's a lowly Opel Astra with a cheap diesel engine that's engineered for gas mileage and not performance or smoothness. The diesel offerings from higher-end manufacturers are smoother and more powerful and more fun.
Just like a regular gasoline fueled engine that's cheaper to operate and has lower initial costs.
Quote from: ifcar on April 27, 2012, 06:21:22 PM
I test-drove a diesel Jetta not too long ago and didn't have a problem with it. Are you sure whatever issue you had wasn't specific to the Astra?
It's not there was something wrong with the functionality of the engine. There's just a ton of turbo lag, it completely dies off after 3k RPM. I can't imagine an engine less enjoyable to drive. When I rev it up, I want to go faster.
Quote from: 2o6 on April 27, 2012, 07:07:51 PM
I dunno, I've heard GM diesels generally suck.
:facepalm:
Quote from: cawimmer430 on April 27, 2012, 08:57:28 PM
So you drive one diesel-powered rental car and that's it? It's a lowly Opel Astra with a cheap diesel engine that's engineered for gas mileage and not performance or smoothness. The diesel offerings from higher-end manufacturers are smoother and more powerful and more fun.
It has nothing to do with that specific engine. It's the response and nature of a diesel for performance driving makes little sense and is just so anti-climatic. When you stomp on the gas, wait around for the turbo to spool, get a rush of torque that then starts to die off before you're half way to redline, it's just a big disappointment.
The inherit lack of throttle response, location of the power band, and general roughness of a diesel is such a huge turn off for performance driving.
Quote from: MrH on May 05, 2012, 11:37:13 AM
:facepalm:
It has nothing to do with that specific engine. It's the response and nature of a diesel for performance driving makes little sense and is just so anti-climatic. When you stomp on the gas, wait around for the turbo to spool, get a rush of torque that then starts to die off before you're half way to redline, it's just a big disappointment.
The inherit lack of throttle response, location of the power band, and general roughness of a diesel is such a huge turn off for performance driving.
Quote from: MrH on April 27, 2012, 06:19:58 PM
All you guys in favor of diesels likely haven't driven one recently. I had an Opel Astra with a manual in Germany for about a week. Never will I own a diesel passenger car.
Mega word. Still stinky. Still loud. And in the off chance it's not slow, the lag (a portion of which is not related to turbocharging) will always be present.
If diesel was priced the same as (or less than) gasoline, I think diesels would be more attractive.
I've never gotten a good answer as to why it costs more.
Quote from: 280Z Turbo on May 05, 2012, 01:46:14 PM
I've never gotten a good answer as to why it costs more.
They don't refine enough of it here.
Taxes too. There isn't a state in the union where gasoline taxes are more than diesel taxes.
By contrast in Europe gasoline is taxed (much) more than diesel.
Gasoline is also taxed more than diesel here in Canada. The federal excise tax on gasoline is 10¢/L whereas it's only 4¢/L for diesel.
Most stations are selling both 87 octane gasoline and 40 cetane diesel for 117.9¢/L here. (~US$4.48/USgal)
Quote from: 2o6 on April 27, 2012, 07:07:51 PM
I dunno, I've heard GM diesels generally suck.
Quote from: GoCougs on May 05, 2012, 01:22:12 PM
Still stinky. Still loud. And in the off chance it's not slow, the lag (a portion of which is not related to turbocharging) will always be present.
Did the two of you just fall through a time vortex from 1978? I bet you guys still think the BeeGees are cool, too! :facepalm:
Quote from: TurboDan on May 05, 2012, 02:19:21 PM
They don't refine enough of it here.
What about the thousands of fuel guzzling semi trucks?
Quote from: 280Z Turbo on April 27, 2012, 01:47:46 PM
I used to be a believer in diesel, but I'm just not sure anymore. Despite the US getting low sulfur diesel, getting stuck behind a big diesel pickup still smells like sour farts. And it costs more than gasoline too. Not to mention the RPMs run out on a diesel pretty quickly, which discourages fast driving.
I'm not sure if diesels are really worth the cost compared to Ecoboost engines.
Plus, they'll cost more to buy and to maintain/repair.
Sometimes people just like to be different in any way they can.
I wouldn't say they're all bad. I think a diesel option or two in the US couldn't hurt. They tend to be more efficient in daily driving, from what I gather.
Quote from: GoCougs on May 05, 2012, 07:03:13 PM
Plus, they'll cost more to buy and to maintain/repair.
Sometimes people just like to be different in any way they can.
Diesel engines typically last 2-3 times longer than their gasoline counterparts. Many trucks rack up 1 million plus miles, and evn VW TDi's are known to run more than 300,000 miles before overhaul.
Quote from: GoCougs on May 05, 2012, 07:03:13 PM
Plus, they'll cost more to buy and to maintain/repair.
Sometimes people just like to be different in any way they can.
Rebelling for the sake of rebelling without any justification. I feel like that describes the vast majority of preferences on both this forum and my generation.
Quote from: Rockraven on May 06, 2012, 11:50:54 AM
Diesel engines typically last 2-3 times longer than their gasoline counterparts. Many trucks rack up 1 million plus miles, and evn VW TDi's are known to run more than 300,000 miles before overhaul.
So? Good luck gettting a chassis to last that long anywhere that it snows. It's pretty rare to see blown engines these days.
Quote from: Rockraven on May 06, 2012, 11:50:54 AM
Diesel engines typically last 2-3 times longer than their gasoline counterparts. Many trucks rack up 1 million plus miles, and evn VW TDi's are known to run more than 300,000 miles before overhaul.
But that's because they're designed to. Gas engines can also be designed to reliably last a million miles too, thing is, unlike a commercial vehicle, virtually no new car buyer keeps a car for that long - at the average of 18k/year, that's 56 years (and time also takes a toll - and engine would probably die of age in that time).
I would disagree on TDis - know quite a few who have had 'em, and though still running they start blowing smoke at well less than 200k.
Quote from: GoCougs on May 06, 2012, 09:00:44 PM
I would disagree on TDis - know quite a few who have had 'em, and though still running they start blowing smoke at well less than 200k.
To little air, or to much fuel. Should be something that can be fixed quite easily.
Quote from: Rockraven on May 06, 2012, 11:50:54 AM
Diesel engines typically last 2-3 times longer than their gasoline counterparts. Many trucks rack up 1 million plus miles, and evn VW TDi's are known to run more than 300,000 miles before overhaul.
Most people don't keep a car long enough for that to become a factor.
Quote from: Galaxy on May 07, 2012, 04:08:31 AM
To little air, or to much fuel. Should be something that can be fixed quite easily.
Actually, I meant blue smoke (bad rings/head).
Quote from: 280Z Turbo on April 27, 2012, 01:47:46 PM
I used to be a believer in diesel, but I'm just not sure anymore. Despite the US getting low sulfur diesel, getting stuck behind a big diesel pickup still smells like sour farts. And it costs more than gasoline too. Not to mention the RPMs run out on a diesel pretty quickly, which discourages fast driving.
I'm not sure if diesels are really worth the cost compared to Ecoboost engines.
Gas/diesel swap places as far as what's more/less expensive. Whenever my family goes to Ghana we drive diesel... OLD diesel (W123-124 Benzes)... and it generally doesn't stink. And diesel engines discouraging fast driving is a good thing in a daily driver. I wouldn't mind a little Corolla diesel for the daily grind, as long as I could have something enjoyable for the weekend.
Quote from: 93JC on May 05, 2012, 04:35:14 PM
Taxes too. There isn't a state in the union where gasoline taxes are more than diesel taxes.
By contrast in Europe gasoline is taxed (much) more than diesel.
Gasoline is also taxed more than diesel here in Canada. The federal excise tax on gasoline is 10?/L whereas it's only 4?/L for diesel.
Most stations are selling both 87 octane gasoline and 40 cetane diesel for 117.9?/L here. (~US$4.48/USgal)
Here in the UK Diesel is taxed more than petrol/gasoline... :facepalm:
Quote from: 93JC on May 05, 2012, 04:35:14 PM
By contrast in Europe gasoline is taxed (much) more than diesel.
The taxation on both fuels is very high, but the ownership of a diesel car is taxed much higher.
It already starts with the engine capacity taxation.
100cc's of a gasoline engine are taxed at 2,00 EUR.
100cc's of a diesel engine are taxed at 9,50 EUR.
So the tax on a 1.7-l diesel will cost 161,50 EUR. This is based on the 100cc / 9,50 EUR diesel tax time the engine capacity (1.7-l) which is a factor of 17. 17 x 9,50 = 161,50 EUR.
A diesel is financially smart for a certain class of car (all kinds of SUVs, large luxury cars, vans etc.) in Europe. Nevertheless, many people still opt for a diesel in small city cars like a VW Polo or Golf, where they only make sense if they're driven over a certain mileage per year.
I think the US Government should take the opposite tack and incentivise diesel by taxing it at a lower rate then gasoline. All these big pickups and SUVs with huge gas-guzzling engines make absolutely no sense. Think of how much fuel could be saved if all these hillbilly trucks and breeder buses had the torquey, fuel efficient turbodiesel engines their crying out for.
It's such an obvious solution and yet no one is saying anything about it! :lockedup:
Quote from: Madman on May 30, 2012, 10:37:24 AM
I think the US Government should take the opposite tack and incentivise diesel by taxing it at a lower rate then gasoline. All these big pickups and SUVs with huge gas-guzzling engines make absolutely no sense. Think of how much fuel could be saved if all these hillbilly trucks and breeder buses had the torquey, fuel efficient turbodiesel engines their crying out for.
It's such an obvious solution and yet no one is saying anything about it! :lockedup:
How is a Ford F-750 supposed to merge unto a freeway or do the 1/4 mile in 9 seconds if you take away it's 6.8-l V10? :lol:
Not funny.
Quote from: SVT666 on May 30, 2012, 10:52:11 AM
Not funny.
Ok, ok. Relax. I couldn't resist. :cheers:
The Ford F-650/750 etc. jokes will die down!!! I promise!
Resist. Because it's not funny. It will never be funny, no matter how much you think it will be.
Quote from: Madman on May 30, 2012, 10:37:24 AM
I think the US Government should take the opposite tack and incentivise diesel by taxing it at a lower rate then gasoline. All these big pickups and SUVs with huge gas-guzzling engines make absolutely no sense. Think of how much fuel could be saved if all these hillbilly trucks and breeder buses had the torquey, fuel efficient turbodiesel engines their crying out for.
It's such an obvious solution and yet no one is saying anything about it! :lockedup:
Why do you want others to "save" the fuel?
Either way, as has been shown, people who buy those types of vehicles don't care about MPG, and a 400 hp TD isn't going to get significantly better MPG than a 400 hp gas engine when driven unladen (as most of those vehicles are); certainly never better MPG to financially justify the ~$7,500 premium the former demands. Also such engines aren't available in 1/2-tons and derivative products (full-size SUVs).
I could get behind my Yaris if it were the 1.4L diesel. Virturally the same real world performance (if not better) but significantly better fuel economy.
Quote from: GoCougs on May 30, 2012, 01:02:01 PM
Why do you want others to "save" the fuel?
Really? I mean, REALLY?!? :rolleyes:
Quote from: 2o6 on May 30, 2012, 01:03:45 PM
I could get behind my Yaris if it were the 1.4L diesel. Virturally the same real world performance (if not better) but significantly better fuel economy.
Then why don't they (or virtually ANYONE) sell that kind of car here?
Quote from: GoCougs on May 30, 2012, 01:06:33 PM
Then why don't they (or virtually ANYONE) sell that kind of car here?
It's expensive and hard to certify in the US. Coupled with the slightly outdated reputation they have, there's no market.
Of the same token, US citizens used to think anything that isn't a midsized car was trash until maybe 15 years ago (compacts) and 5 years ago (subcompacts). Who knows; maybe Diesels will become more popular especially with companies like GM adopting diesels in it's mainstream cars (US market Diesel Cruze).
The interesting stories are always those of ordinary American car enthusiasts who vacation in Europe, rent some "underpowered diesel shitbox" and then are amazed at the performance the car offers by carrying their family and luggage at amazing speed on the Autobahn/highways and returning mind-blowing fuel economy that even a Prius cannot achieve in similar situations. It's always nice to see them express their disdain at the lack of these choices in the US car market.
And that's the beauty of the European car market. Yeah, we get the shit taxed out of us here in terms of cars but we can choose between anything from a 316d Efficient Dynamics to an M3 Sedan - whatever our heart (and wallet) desires.
Quote from: cawimmer430 on May 30, 2012, 01:48:21 PM
The interesting stories are always those of ordinary American car enthusiasts who vacation in Europe, rent some "underpowered diesel shitbox" and then are amazed at the performance the car offers by carrying their family and luggage at amazing speed on the Autobahn/highways and returning mind-blowing fuel economy that even a Prius cannot achieve in similar situations. It's always nice to see them express their disdain at the lack of these choices in the US car market.
And that's the beauty of the European car market. Yeah, we get the shit taxed out of us here in terms of cars but we can choose between anything from a 316d Efficient Dynamics to an M3 Sedan - whatever our heart (and wallet) desires.
The options are available, but do you really have much of a choice unless you are really well off? It sounds like if you want a Vauxhall VXR8 you will be paying tax out your ass.
Quote from: 2o6 on May 30, 2012, 01:10:48 PM
It's expensive and hard to certify in the US. Coupled with the slightly outdated reputation they have, there's no market.
Quote from: cawimmer430 on May 30, 2012, 01:48:21 PM
The interesting stories are always those of ordinary American car enthusiasts who vacation in Europe, rent some "underpowered diesel shitbox" and then are amazed at the performance the car offers by carrying their family and luggage at amazing speed on the Autobahn/highways and returning mind-blowing fuel economy that even a Prius cannot achieve in similar situations. It's always nice to see them express their disdain at the lack of these choices in the US car market.
And that's the beauty of the European car market. Yeah, we get the shit taxed out of us here in terms of cars but we can choose between anything from a 316d Efficient Dynamics to an M3 Sedan - whatever our heart (and wallet) desires.
It's no coincidence that that the freest auto market in the world by and large rejects diesels in their passenger vehicles: we don't want them - the cost too much and they trail gasoline engines in NVH, smell, and performance (esp. throttle lag).
Quote from: GoCougs on May 30, 2012, 03:16:24 PM
It's no coincidence that that the freest auto market in the world by and large rejects diesels in their passenger vehicles: we don't want them - the cost too much and they trail gasoline engines in NVH, smell, and performance (esp. throttle lag).
You're missing the premise of why there is no market, though. Whether or not this has changed in the minds of American consumers has yet not been seen.
Quote from: GoCougs on May 30, 2012, 03:16:24 PM
It's no coincidence that that the freest auto market in the world by and large rejects diesels in their passenger vehicles: we don't want them - the cost too much and they trail gasoline engines in NVH, smell, and performance (esp. throttle lag).
Fail. Many state governments were just fine with a V10 Ford Excursion during the same years when a little diesel Jetta wouldn't meet their regulations and was banned from being sold by dealerships. This has nothing to do with a "free" auto market. Actually, it has to do with the fact that in many states, the opposite case is the reality.
Quote from: 2o6 on May 30, 2012, 03:18:46 PM
You're missing the premise of why there is no market, though. Whether or not this has changed in the minds of American consumers has yet not been seen.
The premise is right there: "we don't want them - the(y) cost too much and they trail gasoline engines in NVH, smell, and performance (esp. throttle lag)."
Quote from: GoCougs on May 30, 2012, 03:41:08 PM
The premise is right there: "we don't want them - the(y) cost too much and they trail gasoline engines in NVH, smell, and performance (esp. throttle lag)."
I did not notice any throttle lag in my Seat Altea rental car last summer, which was a diesel. Its performance was significantly better than my recent petrol Hyundai Elantra, actually, and I drove around a whole damn country for a week on two (little) tanks of fuel.
Quote from: TurboDan on May 30, 2012, 03:25:04 PM
Fail. Many state governments were just fine with a V10 Ford Excursion during the same years when a little diesel Jetta wouldn't meet their regulations and was banned from being sold by dealerships. This has nothing to do with a "free" auto market. Actually, it has to do with the fact that in many states, the opposite case is the reality.
True, there has been some market distortion but today, and for some time, diesel engines are freely available in passenger vehicles. Americans simply don't want to buy these cars.
Quote from: TurboDan on May 30, 2012, 03:50:41 PM
I did not notice any throttle lag in my Seat Altea rental car last summer, which was a diesel. Its performance was significantly better than my recent petrol Hyundai Elantra, actually, and I drove around a whole damn country for a week on two (little) tanks of fuel.
"Throttle" lag to me is the most noticeable difference, and it is there by definition in diesels - both from the absence of vacuum in the intake and turbo charging.
Quote from: GoCougs on May 30, 2012, 03:54:58 PM
True, there has been some market distortion but today, and for some time, diesel engines are freely available in passenger vehicles. Americans simply don't want to buy these cars.
There are only a few diesel passenger cars, and most of them are very expensive models. One would wonder what would happen if manufacturers tried out some diesel options in high-volume, mainstream passenger vehicles like the Escape, Liberty or even a car like the Camry, Focus, Fusion, etc.
Quote from: SVT666 on May 30, 2012, 02:39:21 PM
The options are available, but do you really have much of a choice unless you are really well off? It sounds like if you want a Vauxhall VXR8 you will be paying tax out your ass.
Anyone who can afford an exotic and expensive sports car in Europe won't be bothered by those taxes.
Quote from: GoCougs on May 30, 2012, 03:16:24 PM
It's no coincidence that that the freest auto market in the world by and large rejects diesels in their passenger vehicles: we don't want them - the cost too much and they trail gasoline engines in NVH, smell, and performance (esp. throttle lag).
The diesels you are describing are from the '70s and '80s. Those days are long gone.
Quote from: cawimmer430 on May 30, 2012, 05:01:52 PM
Anyone who can afford an exotic and expensive sports car in Europe won't be bothered by those taxes.
A Vauxhall VXR8 is not an exotic.
But here in North America we can have V8s in $30,000 muscle cars. You can't because the government taxes the shit out of them. That's not choice.
Quote from: cawimmer430 on May 30, 2012, 05:04:50 PM
The diesels you are describing are from the '70s and '80s. Those days are long gone.
No; none of the modern diesels (VWAG mostly) can match the most basic of I4s or V6s.
Quote from: GoCougs on May 30, 2012, 06:18:09 PM
No; none of the modern diesels (VWAG mostly) can match the most basic of I4s or V6s.
How do you know this when
A- You never have claimed to drive a modern diesel
B- throttle response varies from model to model
Quote from: TurboDan on May 30, 2012, 04:03:06 PM
There are only a few diesel passenger cars, and most of them are very expensive models. One would wonder what would happen if manufacturers tried out some diesel options in high-volume, mainstream passenger vehicles like the Escape, Liberty or even a car like the Camry, Focus, Fusion, etc.
There are enough cheap cars out there that aren't expensive (primarily VW TDIs).
The automakers know what would happen if they "tried out some diesel options in high-volume" - it would be a financial disaster, ergo, they don't do it.
Quote from: GoCougs on May 30, 2012, 03:41:08 PM
The premise is right there: "we don't want them - the(y) cost too much and they trail gasoline engines in NVH, smell, and performance (esp. throttle lag)."
Based upon outdated notions of what diesel motors are. Not that long ago, most Americans thought small cars were cramped, tippy, and nothing but disposable transport.
40 years ago, many Americans thought that Japanese cars were tinny crapboxes.
20 years ago, many Americans thought Hyundai made crapola cars.
Quote from: TurboDan on May 30, 2012, 04:03:06 PM
There are only a few diesel passenger cars, and most of them are very expensive models. One would wonder what would happen if manufacturers tried out some diesel options in high-volume, mainstream passenger vehicles like the Escape, Liberty or even a car like the Camry, Focus, Fusion, etc.
(http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2006/03/773065j2005_124.jpg)
:tounge:
Quote from: GoCougs on May 30, 2012, 03:54:58 PM
True, there has been some market distortion but today, and for some time, diesel engines are freely available in passenger vehicles. Americans simply don't want to buy these cars.
Diesel sales suggest otherwise.
Quote from: 93JC on May 30, 2012, 06:33:20 PM
(http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2006/03/773065j2005_124.jpg)
:tounge:
IIRC, it was a success.
From what I recall, VW dealer can't keep diesels on the lot. I recall my VW dealer (Fowler VW in Norman and Boardwalk in Plano) saying that the cars are typically sold before they leave the truck.
Quote from: nickdrinkwater on May 30, 2012, 04:39:55 AM
Here in the UK Diesel is taxed more than petrol/gasoline... :facepalm:
:orly:
http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/tiin/tiin866.pdf says ?0.6097/L for both petrol and diesel. :tounge:
It's true that diesel fuel is more expensive than petrol in the UK, but not because of taxes. And I was speaking of Europe in general, not just the UK. In Germany for instance the excise taxes on petrol and diesel are ?0.65/L and ?0.47/L respectively.
See http://www.energy.eu/#Prices for European fuel prices. Notice that the UK is one of a handful of European countries where diesel costs more than petrol: the difference is mostly taxes.
Quote from: cawimmer430 on May 30, 2012, 10:19:58 AM
The taxation on both fuels is very high, but the ownership of a diesel car is taxed much higher.
It already starts with the engine capacity taxation.
100cc's of a gasoline engine are taxed at 2,00 EUR.
100cc's of a diesel engine are taxed at 9,50 EUR.
So the tax on a 1.7-l diesel will cost 161,50 EUR. This is based on the 100cc / 9,50 EUR diesel tax time the engine capacity (1.7-l) which is a factor of 17. 17 x 9,50 = 161,50 EUR.
I was speaking only of the duties and taxes on the fuel itself, not registration/"road" taxes. Figuring out fuel taxes alone is complicated enough. :lol:
Quote from: 2o6 on May 30, 2012, 06:22:10 PM
Based upon outdated notions of what diesel motors are. Not that long ago, most Americans thought small cars were cramped, tippy, and nothing but disposable transport.
40 years ago, many Americans thought that Japanese cars were tinny crapboxes.
20 years ago, many Americans thought Hyundai made crapola cars.
20 years ago, EVERY American thought Hyundai made "crapola" cars, because they almost indisuptably did.
Quote from: ifcar on May 30, 2012, 07:15:57 PM
20 years ago, EVERY American thought Hyundai made "crapola" cars, because they almost indisuptably did.
That's my point. Now they don't.
Quote from: 2o6 on May 30, 2012, 06:22:10 PM
Based upon outdated notions of what diesel motors are. Not that long ago, most Americans thought small cars were cramped, tippy, and nothing but disposable transport.
They were.
Quote40 years ago, many Americans thought that Japanese cars were tinny crapboxes.
They were.
Quote20 years ago, many Americans thought Hyundai made crapola cars.
They did.
Quote from: SVT666 on May 30, 2012, 07:19:46 PM
They were.
They were.
They did.
And likewise, Diesels were slow, and smelly, and terrible and for the most part, they were. Now they aren't.
I mean, I would not want a Diesel Tempo circa 1985, which only made around 50HP.
DIesels haven't changed a lot. I have been behind smelly and smokey VW TDi's in traffic.
Quote from: SVT666 on May 30, 2012, 07:24:28 PM
DIesels haven't changed a lot. I have been behind smelly and smokey VW TDi's in traffic.
I have been behind a modern diesel. I honestly can't really tell the difference. None of us (save for a few) have driven any modern diesel newer than I would say 1990.
Quote from: SVT666 on May 30, 2012, 07:24:28 PM
DIesels haven't changed a lot. I have been behind smelly and smokey VW TDi's in traffic.
A lot of the VWs up here are diesel. No smell or smoke. Just a slight schoolbus rattle + BOV sound from the older ones.
I dont like diesels in performance cars. But theres nothing wrong with them in daily grind cars. Even the moderately old ones are OK. My family drives strictly diesel in Ghana. The ~90ish E class diesel runs fine. Dead reliable too.
Quote from: sportyaccordy on May 30, 2012, 08:16:13 PM
A lot of the VWs up here are diesel. No smell or smoke. Just a slight schoolbus rattle + BOV sound from the older ones.
I dont like diesels in performance cars. But theres nothing wrong with them in daily grind cars. Even the moderately old ones are OK. My family drives strictly diesel in Ghana. The ~90ish E class diesel runs fine. Dead reliable too.
I'd love to see a diesel with a BOV :devil:
Quote from: GoCougs on May 30, 2012, 06:19:49 PM
There are enough cheap cars out there that aren't expensive (primarily VW TDIs).
The automakers know what would happen if they "tried out some diesel options in high-volume" - it would be a financial disaster, ergo, they don't do it.
I didn't say to try them in high-volume numbers. I said to try a diesel option in a high-volume car. Throw a diesel in the Escape in a limited capacity and see if it sticks.
Quote from: 2o6 on May 30, 2012, 07:20:55 PM
I would not want a Diesel Tempo circa 1985, which only made around 50HP.
52 horsepower, thank you very much! :lol:
Quote from: sportyaccordy on May 29, 2012, 07:24:45 AM
And diesel engines discouraging fast driving is a good thing in a daily driver.
Wait a second...what???
Quote from: SVT666 on May 30, 2012, 07:24:28 PM
DIesels haven't changed a lot. I have been behind smelly and smokey VW TDi's in traffic.
What's you diesel fuel like in terms of quality?
It's been very cool in Munich these last few days so when I am in traffic I don't use my A/C. I have my windows down and my sunroof open and I don't smell the exhausts of the various diesel cars around me, be it VWs, MBs, BMWs etc. The only diesel cars which really stink are some buses, trucks and older delivery vans. The new diesel cars on the other hand don't smell and don't emit a cloud of black smoke. ;)
Our diesel fuel quality is also strictly monitored by various agencies to ensure "cleanliness".
Quote from: SVT666 on May 30, 2012, 02:39:21 PM
The options are available, but do you really have much of a choice unless you are really well off? It sounds like if you want a Vauxhall VXR8 you will be paying tax out your ass.
First off, we don't get the Vauxhall VXR8. That's a UK-only car.
Second, anyone who buys such an expensive car couldn't be bothered about automotive taxation. These people have money and those taxes are just a small price to pay. Tell me, if you were a millionaire, made hundreds of thousands / millions of Euros a year, would you really care about paying a few thousand Euros taxes a year on your performance car? I don't think so.
Third, welcome to the rear world. We can't all drive our dream cars. Life is unfair. Even in the US not everyone can afford to purchase their dream car. It's that simple.
Forth, we don't lust after big gas-guzzling SUVs and pickups. You can't park anywhere with them, they're to wide for our narrow country roads, their fuel economy sucks and we can get space efficient and economical station wagons with options such as AWD, various engines to suit our needs, M/T, A/T, CVT etc.
Quote from: cawimmer430 on May 31, 2012, 08:37:20 AM
Second, anyone who buys such an expensive car couldn't be bothered about automotive taxation. These people have money and those taxes are just a small price to pay. Tell me, if you were a millionaire, made hundreds of thousands / millions of Euros a year, would you really care about paying a few thousand Euros taxes a year on your performance car? I don't think so.
His point is that thats not an expensive car. When it was here in the states as the G8 it cost like 30k with a 362 hp V8. Taxation makes it an expensive car. Because of taxes you have to be a millionare to enjoy a good car. That shouldn't be the case.
Quote from: Xer0 on May 31, 2012, 10:31:09 AM
His point is that thats not an expensive car. When it was here in the states as the G8 it cost like 30k with a 362 hp V8. Taxation makes it an expensive car. Because of taxes you have to be a millionare to enjoy a good car. That shouldn't be the case.
Don't wages make it more proportional to the income of that market, though?
Quote from: Xer0 on May 31, 2012, 10:31:09 AM
His point is that thats not an expensive car. When it was here in the states as the G8 it cost like 30k with a 362 hp V8. Taxation makes it an expensive car.
Everything is more expensive over here. There is no "cheap" V8 car on sale here. Even an imported Ford Mustang V8 will be priced above 50,000 Euros. Those who want it and can afford it can buy it. Nobody is stopping them from getting what they want. Besides, the car taxes aren't that expensive in the big picture.
Quote from: Xer0 on May 31, 2012, 10:31:09 AMBecause of taxes you have to be a millionare to enjoy a good car. That shouldn't be the case.
That's life. We don't all get to drive our dream cars. Once again, the people who can afford these cars could care less about the taxes. And most folks here just need a car to get from A to B with the lowest possible costs (just like the majority of Americans). They could care less about a V6 or V8 but rather look at efficient 4-cylinder diesel and gasoline engines.
I might not have a V8 under my hood but I'm driving a "good car". I'm relatively happy with it and I don't lust for a V8 performance car at all. :huh:
Italy hikes gas taxes to raise money for earthquake relief
(http://www.blogcdn.com/green.autoblog.com/media/2012/05/mario-monti-1338511661.jpg)
Tragedy is a relative concept. Some would call it a tragedy that, while Italy makes some of the most desirable (and gas-guzzling) cars on the market, it also has some of the highest fuel prices in Europe. But that unfortunate reality is far overshadowed by the two earthquakes that have struck the country's Emilia-Romagna region, killing 24 people in total. Now the fledgling government tasked with steering the troubled country into financial health is forced to raise fuel taxes even higher to relieve the aftermath of the disasters.
The move, recently approved by the government cabinet of Prime Minister Mario Monti (pictured above), will raise the price of gasoline by another two euro-cents per liter, further entrenching its dubious position holding the third highest prices in the world. Gas prices currently exceed the European average and the equivalent of $9.35 per gallon, representing over nine percent of daily income that Italians have to pay at the pump. Coupled with public funds previously earmarked towards combating Italy's rising deficit ? currently the second largest in Europe ? and freed up by Monti's government in a recent spending constriction, the cash brought from the fuel-tax increase will go towards relief efforts.
What remains unclear, however, is how Italians will continue paying such high tax rates when the disasters have, according to lobby group Coldiretti, cost farmers over 500 million euros (U.S. $621 million at current exchange rates), and manufacturers several hundred million more, according to Confindustria, the employers' union formerly headed by Ferrari president, former Fiat chairman and potential future premiership candidate Luca di Montezemolo.
Ferrari's was one of several automotive factories that temporarily ceased operations in the wake of the disaster, allowing its workers to tend to their own families. The Maranello-based company has since reopened its factory and is organizing a charity auction to help with the disaster-relief efforts.
Link: http://green.autoblog.com/2012/06/01/italy-hikes-gas-taxes-to-raise-money-for-earthquake-relief/
Quote from: cawimmer430 on June 01, 2012, 07:59:54 AM
Everything is more expensive over here. There is no "cheap" V8 car on sale here. Even an imported Ford Mustang V8 will be priced above 50,000 Euros. Those who want it and can afford it can buy it. Nobody is stopping them from getting what they want. Besides, the car taxes aren't that expensive in the big picture.
That's life. We don't all get to drive our dream cars. Once again, the people who can afford these cars could care less about the taxes. And most folks here just need a car to get from A to B with the lowest possible costs (just like the majority of Americans). They could care less about a V6 or V8 but rather look at efficient 4-cylinder diesel and gasoline engines.
I might not have a V8 under my hood but I'm driving a "good car". I'm relatively happy with it and I don't lust for a V8 performance car at all. :huh:
Whenever you have driven a V8 American car you always rave about how much power it has. I think that if you could, you would have one. Government taxation is what prevents you from getting one.
Quote from: 2o6 on May 31, 2012, 11:44:54 AM
Don't wages make it more proportional to the income of that market, though?
I don?t have any numbers in front of me, but I?m pretty sure the average American has more buying power then the average European.
Quote from: SVT666 on June 01, 2012, 10:15:40 AM
Whenever you have driven a V8 American car you always rave about how much power it has.
Yeah, because they're fun. The V8 growl and response is awesome.
Still doesn't make me want to own one as a daily driver.
Quote from: SVT666 on June 01, 2012, 10:15:40 AMI think that if you could, you would have one.
Nope.
All those 1970s American landyachts I lust for will be displayed in my XXXL living room sometime in the future. :praise:
Quote from: SVT666 on June 01, 2012, 10:15:40 AMGovernment taxation is what prevents you from getting one.
No.
My priorities are preventing me from getting a gas-guzzling vehicle. I like fuel efficient cars because I hate stopping for gas. When I drive long distances there is nothing better than watching the fuel gauge move very, very, very, very slowly to the "E" symbol.
Once again, the people here who own gas-guzzlers aren't to concerned about taxes and fuel costs.
A little more info on the new Escape. I saw one at the local Ford dealer. It looks smaller than the previous one but is, actually, larger. Still don't like the grille much.
http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20120614/OPINION03/206140370/1148/AUTO01/2013-Ford-Escape-delivers-more-less (http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20120614/OPINION03/206140370/1148/AUTO01/2013-Ford-Escape-delivers-more-less)
QuoteThere's plenty of anticipation for Ford's all-new 2013 Escape.
As I drove a pre-production model on Interstate 94 toward some interesting backroads west of Ann Arbor, passing drivers shouted questions through their open windows.
"Is that the new one?" asked a man in a current model Escape with Canadian license plates.
"Awesome. I want one," said another guy in a Chevrolet pickup. I suspect he was a Ford fan driving the boss's truck.
While the new Escape isn't perfect, fans like this won't be disappointed when it arrives in showrooms this month. Already on sale in Europe as the Kuga, the new Escape is strikingly styled outside and comfortably appointed inside.
When Ford introduced the Escape in 2000, some said it wasn't enough truck to be called a sport utility vehicle. Yet it became the nation's top-selling SUV.
The new Escape completely sheds the boxy truck look of the past and embraces its true crossover identity. The grille reveals the Focus family connection. The Escape and more than a dozen other Ford vehicles have been built on the same compact platform.
With its car-like styling, the new Escape appears smaller than the old model, but it actually has more interior space. The wheelbase is almost three inches longer, adding leg room for back seat passengers. The shape is more aerodynamic and smooth panels underneath also increase fuel efficiency. Shutters automatically open and close behind grille openings.
Although the Escape no longer handles like a truck, it still isn't as nimble as its lower-to-the-ground compact brother, the Focus.
The Escape is wider, lighter and has a lower roofline, but it has just as much ground clearance as the previous model, keeping its center of gravity high. There was noticeable body lean during quick lane changes but the Escape felt comfortable and secure when cruising on the highway or following winding roads.
Meet 'Samantha'
Inside, the Escape is upholstered in the latest soft-touch materials and offers all of Ford's new technology. The eight-inch touch screen in the center console ? in upscale models ? can play video from a portable source, but only when the transmission is in park.
I had some difficulty operating the new simplified MyFord Touch hands-free system for communication, entertainment and navigation. But after a 20-minute session with Alan Hall, Ford's technology communications chief, who was sitting in the front seat with me, I was barking effective commands at "Samantha." Yes, that's the name Ford's engineers have given the system's recorded female voice ? just Sam, when you get to know her.
Sam recognizes 10,000 commands, up from 100 in Ford's first-generation Sync. It's a good idea to take the dealer's offer of a personal instruction session. Ford also has a website with "Sync My Ride" Q&A, video tutorials and a live chat room.
Front-wheel drive, a six-speed automatic transmission, and a 2.5-liter four-cylinder engine that gets an estimated 22 mpg city and 31 highway are standard. There are two more engine options, including a 1.6-liter EcoBoost turbocharged engine that gets the model's best fuel economy at 23 city and 33 highway. The top horsepower option is a 2.0-liter EcoBoost turbocharged four-cylinder that gets 22 city and 30 highway mpg. Optional all wheel drive available only with the EcoBoost engines slightly reduces fuel economy.
Ford's four-cylinder EcoBoost system has a single turbocharger that isn't as refined as V-6 EcoBoost engines with twin turbochargers. The Escape has noticeable acceleration hesitation before the single turbo builds boost. But the 2.0-liter engine provided plenty of passing power.
The Escape no longer offers a V-6 engine or a manual transmission. Not with the 240 horsepower, 2.0-liter four-cylinder providing just as much power and better mileage. Properly equipped, the Escape can tow up to 3,500 pounds.
The Escape hybrid also is gone because all of the new engines beat its highway fuel economy. They don't come close to the hybrid's city EPA number of 30 mpg, though. Ford will introduce another small crossover hybrid called C-Max this summer.
A new feature introduced with the Escape is the hands-free operation of the rear liftgate. When the key fob is in your pocket and your arms are wrapped around two bags of groceries, the rear hatch electronically opens when you swing your foot under the rear bumper. Two sensors under the bumper look for not only your foot but an attached leg too, so Ford claims rolling balls, running dogs and bumper-scrubbing hands won't accidentally trigger the opener.
Working out the kinks
The fit and finish inside and out are a testament to advances in production quality. The electronic features are enticing, but it's how the doors hang with body lines perfectly matched that show how far U.S. manufacturers have come.
Close the Escape's front door and it makes a satisfying thump that only a few years ago was exclusive to luxury cars. But closing one of the Escape's rear passenger doors, I heard a different, more hollow sound. I told Escape's chief engineer Eric Loeffler about the doors and a persistent sound of wind tumbling past the side windows when traveling at 70 mph. He was ahead of me on the wind noise, saying new door seals already are being used and assemblers are paying close attention to mirror mounts at the assembly plant in Louisville. I suspect the back door is getting some attention, too.
Suggested price of the base S model is $23,295, including an $825 delivery fee. An SE model will start at $25,895, the SEL for $28,695, and top-level Titanium $31,195. The hands-free liftgate is standard on Titanium and is part of an almost $1,900 option package on the SEL.
dguthrie@detnews.com
(313) 222-2548
2013 Ford Escape
Price: $23,295 to $31,195, plus $825 delivery ($36,525 as tested)
Type: Five-passenger, four-door compact SUV
Engines:
2.5-liter, direct injected, four-cylinder
1.6-liter, EcoBoost turbocharged, four-cylinder
2.0-liter, EcoBoost turbocharged, four-cylinder
Power:
168 horsepower; 170 pound-feet of torque with 2.5-liter engine
178 horsepower; 184 pound-feet of torque with 1.6-liter EcoBoost engine
240 horsepower; 270 pound-feet of torque with 2.0-liter EcoBoost engine
Transmission: Six-speed automatic
EPA gas mileage:
22 mpg city / 31 mpg highway with 2.5-liter engine and front-wheel drive
23 mpg city / 33 mpg highway with 1.6-liter EcoBoost engine and
front-wheel drive
22 mpg city / 30 mpg highway with 1.6-liter EcoBoost engine and
all-wheel drive
22 mpg city / 30 mpg highway with 2.0-liter EcoBoost engine and front-wheel drive
21 mpg city / 28 mpg highway with 2.0-liter EcoBoost engine and all-wheel drive
Report Card
Overall: HHH
Exterior : Car-like styling that is wider, longer, lower and lighter
Interior: More space, more upscale materials and the latest technology
Performance: Improved power, economy and handling
Pros: Lots of improvements to an already popular vehicle
Cons: Some will miss the smoother power of the V-6
Grading Scale
HHHH Excellent HHH Good
HH Fair H Poor
From The Detroit News: http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20120614/OPINION03/206140370#ixzz1xmLCtosS
Quote from: sportyaccordy on May 30, 2012, 08:16:13 PM
A lot of the VWs up here are diesel. No smell or smoke. Just a slight schoolbus rattle + BOV sound from the older ones.
I dont like diesels in performance cars. But theres nothing wrong with them in daily grind cars. Even the moderately old ones are OK. My family drives strictly diesel in Ghana. The ~90ish E class diesel runs fine. Dead reliable too.
I'm surprised as I didn't think diesels would be popular in West Africa, due to the lower cost of fuel. Most of the cars in Nigeria were the same models you guys have in the States and petrol/gas was about ?0.50 a litre. Are diesels popular in Ghana?
Quote from: cawimmer430 on June 01, 2012, 07:58:36 PM
No.
My priorities are preventing me from getting a gas-guzzling vehicle. I like fuel efficient cars because I hate stopping for gas. When I drive long distances there is nothing better than watching the fuel gauge move very, very, very, very slowly to the "E" symbol.
Sorry, that's complete bollocks. You only have these priorities because of the tax on fuel.
I agree with him to an extent. I don't like stopping for fuel, and I thoroughly enjoy watching the needle move slowly.
It's a factor but nowhere near as much of one as fuel cost. I'm not going to pretend that I don't drive a larger engined car because I don't like stopping for fuel. It's what I can afford
Quote from: CJ on June 14, 2012, 11:07:04 AM
I agree with him to an extent. I don't like stopping for fuel, and I thoroughly enjoy watching the needle move slowly.
So you don't need fuel-efficiency, you just need a big gas tank.
Most gas-thirsty vehicles have relatively large fuel tanks, and most economical vehicles have relatively small fuel tanks. There is a great deal of variation, but as a rule of thumb, absolute range tends to be roughly equivalent across most makes and models.
My Aveo gets 35+ mpg on the highway but only has a 12 gallon tank. Conversely my parent's Durango gets ~19 mpg highway, but has a 25 gallon tank. We both have an absolute range of around 450 miles, and in fact the range on the Durango is actually larger.
Quote from: ifcar on June 14, 2012, 11:49:00 AM
So you don't need fuel-efficiency, you just need a big gas tank.
And I have that!
Wow! The cost of a loaded '13 Escape seems really steep. The VW Tiguan, with its high price seems well worth it. I just need to get used to a nearly $37,000 Escape. Let's just hope there will not be a cheesy Lincoln version! Lol.
Ford is moving upscale. They're becoming a premium mainstream automaker, and all you have to do is drive one and you will agree. The quality of their new interiors is head and shoulders better than the other mainstreamers. We'll see if it works. We were going to wait for the 2013 Fusion to come out, but it's a pricey thing and I don't want to spend that much.
Quote from: SVT666 on June 20, 2012, 09:32:32 AM
Ford is moving upscale. They're becoming a premium mainstream automaker, and all you have to do is drive one and you will agree. The quality of their new interiors is head and shoulders better than the other mainstreamers. We'll see if it works. We were going to wait for the 2013 Fusion to come out, but it's a pricey thing and I don't want to spend that much.
I think I've heard this story before. Seems every 5 years or so GM/F/Chrysler has "fixed" their shitty subpar product line, and the next ______ model will put them back on par with the import competition. Never takes long for the hype to fizzle out and for the D3 to reclaim their rightful position just slightly below mediocrity.
Quote from: Lebowski on June 20, 2012, 10:42:22 AM
I think I've heard this story before. Seems every 5 years or so GM/F/Chrysler has "fixed" their shitty subpar product line, and the next ______ model will put them back on par with the import competition. Never takes long for the hype to fizzle out and for the D3 to reclaim their rightful position just slightly below mediocrity.
Ford's interiors aren't on par with the imports, they are superior to the imports. Unfortunately Ford's new pricing reflects that too.
Quote from: Lebowski on June 20, 2012, 10:42:22 AM
I think I've heard this story before. Seems every 5 years or so GM/F/Chrysler has "fixed" their shitty subpar product line, and the next ______ model will put them back on par with the import competition. Never takes long for the hype to fizzle out and for the D3 to reclaim their rightful position just slightly below mediocrity.
The difference is that Ford's there.
Quote from: CJ on June 14, 2012, 11:07:04 AM
I agree with him to an extent. I don't like stopping for fuel, and I thoroughly enjoy watching the needle move slowly.
I don't like stopping for fuel because that shit isn't free, not because I hate fueling up.
Quote from: Raza on June 20, 2012, 12:19:36 PM
I don't like stopping for fuel because that shit isn't free, not because I hate fueling up.
There's also that. I don't like touching the pump. I always wash my hands afterwards.
Quote from: CJ on June 20, 2012, 08:53:23 PM
There's also that. I don't like touching the pump. I always wash my hands afterwards.
(http://www.fdsons.com/images/L&G/leather_work_gloves_4176l.jpg)
Quote from: SVT666 on June 20, 2012, 10:51:12 AM
Ford's interiors aren't on par with the imports, they are superior to the imports. Unfortunately Ford's new pricing reflects that too.
Not doubting you but want to see for myself after looking very seriously at purchasing one of the following: Audi A4 or Q5, BMW X3, Mercedes-Benz GLK and of course the Volvo XC60. I do not see Ford or even Lincoln there... But assuming you are speaking of Honda, Hyundai, Kia, Nissan and Toyota, you may very well be right. My hesitation is that of a buddy's 2010 Ford SHO and 2012 F-Series (one of the highend trim levels). The feel of many of the surfaces and switchgear are decent enough, but the SHO moreso than the truck has not worn well and there are many rattles. I do see a vastly improved cabin with the pickup and I am encouraged by that.
Quote from: CJ on June 20, 2012, 08:53:23 PM
There's also that. I don't like touching the pump. I always wash my hands afterwards.
Move to New Jersey. Full serve only, as required by state law. :devil:
Quote from: SVT666 on June 20, 2012, 09:32:32 AM
Ford is moving upscale. They're becoming a premium mainstream automaker, and all you have to do is drive one and you will agree. The quality of their new interiors is head and shoulders better than the other mainstreamers. We'll see if it works. We were going to wait for the 2013 Fusion to come out, but it's a pricey thing and I don't want to spend that much.
All automakers are moving upscale; it's the way of things (i.e., competition).
LOL on the interiors.
Quote from: GoCougs on June 23, 2012, 10:56:03 AM
All automakers are moving upscale; it's the way of things (i.e., competition).
LOL on the interiors.
I somewhat agree. The look nicer in pictures than in person, and I feel as if they're fussy for fusineess's sake.
It seems that they're selling like hotcakes...http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20120706/AUTO0102/207060344/1148/AUTO01/Redesigned-Ford-Escape-runaway-success (http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20120706/AUTO0102/207060344/1148/AUTO01/Redesigned-Ford-Escape-runaway-success)
QuoteFord Motor Co.'s newly redesigned 2013 Escape topped nearly all expectations in June, the crossover SUV's first full month of sales.
The Dearborn automaker sold about 11,000 new Escapes in June, comprising about 40 percent of the company's 28,500 total Escape sales as dealers clear out 2012 models.
And the 2013 models are spending little time on dealer lots before they're purchased: New Escapes are sold in an average of 41/2 days, leaving a short inventory for the refreshed model.
...........
More than 90 percent of new Escape sales are equipped with Ford's turbocharged EcoBoost engine, which quickly gained popularity in the automaker's F-150 models.
Ford has a 30-day supply of 2013 Escapes; the healthy industry standard is between 45 and 60 days.
Quote from: 2o6 on June 25, 2012, 07:53:21 PM
I somewhat agree. The look nicer in pictures than in person, and I feel as if they're fussy for fusineess's sake.
They are a little fussy, but the materials quality is a step above everything else in the mainstream, and their seats are among the best in the industry. Unfortunately the only thing Ford builds right now that I am even remotely interested in is the Mustang. I'm a Ford cheerleader, and I hope they do well, but I also wish they built vehicles I would buy.
Quote from: SVT666 on July 06, 2012, 10:52:44 AM
They are a little fussy, but the materials quality is a step above everything else in the mainstream, and their seats are among the best in the industry. Unfortunately the only thing Ford builds right now that I am even remotely interested in is the Mustang. I'm a Ford cheerleader, and I hope they do well, but I also wish they built vehicles I would buy.
I thought you liked the new Fusion. I do. As well, the little hot hatches forthcoming, seem pretty sweet.
I'm cool with the ecoboost because of the twin turbos.
These lame single turbos should just be "ecoboo".
Quote from: FoMoJo on July 06, 2012, 11:04:10 AM
I thought you liked the new Fusion. I do. As well, the little hot hatches forthcoming, seem pretty sweet.
Sure, I like the new Fusion, but I was speaking about the current lineup. Also, my Focus is better than the new Focus. The new one is very quiet and more refined, but my Focus is much more fun and communicates everything (steering, brakes, throttle, etc) better. Never driven the Fiesta, but I didn't like the Mazda2 (feels as much like a tin can as the old Geo Metro), so I probably wouldn't like the Fiesta either. The Taurus is a fucking monster of a car and feels even bigger from behind the wheel, it transmits tire slap into the cabin like motherfucker, and is FWD. The Dodge Charger is the same size and is much better in every way. I would buy a Ram over the current F-Series, a Durango or Wrangler Unlimited over the new pussified Explorer, and an Infiniti over any Lincoln. Ford is building some really good cars right now and they are arguably industry leaders in most of their classes (not including the Taurus), but they just aren't for me.
Fiesta and 2 drive totally different.
Quote from: SVT666 on July 08, 2012, 10:27:48 PM
Sure, I like the new Fusion, but I was speaking about the current lineup. Also, my Focus is better than the new Focus. The new one is very quiet and more refined, but my Focus is much more fun and communicates everything (steering, brakes, throttle, etc) better.
Wait for the new Focus ST to come out. It's the spiritual successor to your SVT.
Quote from: SVT666 on July 08, 2012, 10:27:48 PM
Sure, I like the new Fusion, but I was speaking about the current lineup. Also, my Focus is better than the new Focus. The new one is very quiet and more refined, but my Focus is much more fun and communicates everything (steering, brakes, throttle, etc) better. Never driven the Fiesta, but I didn't like the Mazda2 (feels as much like a tin can as the old Geo Metro), so I probably wouldn't like the Fiesta either. The Taurus is a fucking monster of a car and feels even bigger from behind the wheel, it transmits tire slap into the cabin like motherfucker, and is FWD. The Dodge Charger is the same size and is much better in every way. I would buy a Ram over the current F-Series, a Durango or Wrangler Unlimited over the new pussified Explorer, and an Infiniti over any Lincoln. Ford is building some really good cars right now and they are arguably industry leaders in most of their classes (not including the Taurus), but they just aren't for me.
Something got lost between the Ford Five Hundred and "return" of the Taurus. The Mercury versions, Montego and then, the Sable on the same platform as the Ford looked far better, IMO. The Taurus lost the sophisticated look of the "500" -- a car poorly marketed. I thought the pair should have replaced the aged Mercury Grand Marquis and Ford Crown Victoria instead of adapting new names (from the past) when first introduced...
"Marquis" opposed to G.M. (no pun intended) might have worked. The Grand Marquis was once the best selling car in Florida and improving upon that cars success with large car lovers with the Montego and lots of marketing dollars might of worked :huh: . We will never know...
I think when it comes to the 500, you're confusing "sophisticated" with "boring car that only old people would buy." :devil:
I'd say that was a dark period for Ford -- more boring, mediocre cars that weren't appealing to any great number of people. Compare that with what's coming down the line now: the new Focus, the aforementioned Fiesta SVT, the upscale Explorer and the stunning Fusion that's about to hit the market, and you can tell this is a new company. Ford is definitely moving to be more of a premium mainstream brand, a la VW, and I think that's a good place for them. For years, any American car that was the least bit luxurious or premium was marketed towards senior citizens, and it never made sense to me. I'm glad the tide is changing within Ford, as well as GM with the new ATS.
Also, I doubt anyone under age 75 would've bought anything with the word "Marquis" in it.
Now, they just need to blow up Lincoln and start a new luxury division...
I don't know... I drove a Five Hundred for a few days, and for such a spacious car it drove wonderful. Yah, it looked boring (did have awesome proportions, though), but the interior had plushness where it counted (touch points), the steering was very precise/accurate, cornered very flatly for its size, great visibility, and plenty of pep with the 3L/CVT combo. Good gas mileage, too.
Quote from: HotRodPilot on July 09, 2012, 09:15:04 AM
I don't know... I drove a Five Hundred for a few days, and for such a spacious car it drove wonderful. Yah, it looked boring (did have awesome proportions, though), but the interior had plushness where it counted (touch points), the steering was very precise/accurate, cornered very flatly for its size, great visibility, and plenty of pep with the 3L/CVT combo. Good gas mileage, too.
Oh yeah. I never thought/said it was a bad car, just that it looked so boring nobody except old people would buy it.
Quote from: TurboDan on July 09, 2012, 04:09:23 PM
Oh yeah. I never thought/said it was a bad car, just that it looked so boring nobody except old people would buy it.
You said it was a mediocre car.
Quote from: ifcar on July 09, 2012, 04:39:34 PM
You said it was a mediocre car.
Altogether, it was.
I'd never driven an Avalon, but I imagine the 500 was handled much better. The car was pretty good to drive and I had a MINI at the time. The 500 was a much better car than the Impala. Nicer inside than the Charger
Quote from: HotRodPilot on July 09, 2012, 10:54:09 PM
I'd never driven an Avalon, but I imagine the 500 was handled much better. The car was pretty good to drive and I had a MINI at the time. The 500 was a much better car than the Impala. Nicer inside than the Charger
I really like the Charger's interior in the higher trims where they have the nice touch screen and such. Looks kinda cool. The 500's interior was decent, but bland.
Quote from: HotRodPilot on July 09, 2012, 09:15:04 AM
I don't know... I drove a Five Hundred for a few days, and for such a spacious car it drove wonderful. Yah, it looked boring (did have awesome proportions, though), but the interior had plushness where it counted (touch points), the steering was very precise/accurate, cornered very flatly for its size, great visibility, and plenty of pep with the 3L/CVT combo. Good gas mileage, too.
The similar Mercury Montego looked better, IMO, even with just suttle styling cues. The Sable that followed got it right, I think, but it was obviously too late for this car, the entire division and with the public aware (or not) of FMC halting advertising dollars, the writing was on the wall.
There is currently a $1,000 customer rebate on the 2013 Ford Escape. Not a bad deal! It's also a great way to boost those initial sales figures. Failed to look at the 2012 incentives on this Ford while looking at my print edition of Automotive News yesterday but I imagine it bests the all new model. Monthly tallys do not separate 2012 from 2013 sale's numbers, so most of the credit is given to the '13. We shall see how the new model stacks up against others in its class once the '12 vehicles are all sold out. I predict it will do extremely well, even without incentives.
Saw LOTS of new Escapes on the road the last few days. They look decent enough.
Quote from: Madman on May 30, 2012, 10:37:24 AM
I think the US Government should take the opposite tack and incentivise diesel by taxing it at a lower rate then gasoline. All these big pickups and SUVs with huge gas-guzzling engines make absolutely no sense. Think of how much fuel could be saved if all these hillbilly trucks and breeder buses had the torquey, fuel efficient turbodiesel engines their crying out for.
It's such an obvious solution and yet no one is saying anything about it! :lockedup:
After being fixated on luxury vehicles recently (lol) I am getting back to read and comment on other topics, too...
Glad I did already for this is a brilliant idea, Madman. If you ever decide to run for public office, you've got my vote :ohyeah: !
Very surprised to see such large rebates on many 2013 Fords and 0% financing on some. $1000 of the 2013 Ford Escape (started out of the gate, I think) and is extended into the fall (Source: Automotive News). I saw one on the road yesterday and really like it... A grand off in the form of a rebate and/or low financing should boost sales. Financing is not quite as low as zero (as on the MY13 Taurus, others), but still enticing, especially for an all new model and one as fine as the new Escape. Incentives are better on the outgoing '12 models for those loyalists looking for that version and even greater savings.
Quote from: Atomic on August 03, 2012, 06:15:20 AM
Very surprised to see such large rebates on many 2013 Fords and 0% financing on some. $1000 of the 2013 Ford Escape (started out of the gate, I think) and is extended into the fall (Source: Automotive News). I saw one on the road yesterday and really like it... A grand off in the form of a rebate and/or low financing should boost sales. Financing is not quite as low as zero (as on the MY13 Taurus, others), but still enticing, especially for an all new model and one as fine as the new Escape. Incentives are better on the outgoing '12 models for those loyalists looking for that version and even greater savings.
They priced the new Escape pretty high to start - maybe some of that was built-in to account for the inevitable incentives?
Quote from: 3.0L V6 on August 03, 2012, 07:17:40 AM
They priced the new Escape pretty high to start - maybe some of that was built-in to account for the inevitable incentives?
I was thinking the same thing. The upcoming 2013 Ford Fusion will be significantly higher, too. It might be worth it, but some will find it out of their range, I think.