100mpg(Imp) family hatch diesels within three years

[skyking]

despite the rhetoric in the thread, more than 57% of the poll responders said yes.

 

[Zenmervolt]

I wouldn't call it an opposing side.
As for the insecurity: This was the predominant emotional vibe I got from most of the responses so far.
The image of dying because the car is too small, too light, too slow has been perpetuated whenever this kind of topic arises.
It's not about superiority - we are all equally susceptible to FUD-marketing. This is just one specific instance where 'security/safety' gets used as an argument, when the actual impact is quite negligible.

Also, regarding geographical features. I just drove across three alpine passes for fun on my way home from work - I found more of a safety feeling in having huge frickin' brakes on my car, than the fun revvy 135 HP engine, which gave me enjoyment, but anywhere out of second gear I was just breaking the law...So a family diesel car with 4 passengers and holiday gear would be heavier, and slightly less powerful...but the turbo should help at altitude...Also, most of the time when people are too slow going uphill around here - that's because they just drive really slowly.

Also, at this point, I'd rather die in an accident, because my car was too light, than end up killing some family-parents, because my heavy car crushed them....But I guess that's not compatible with American values of self preservation and advancement before all.

Where did I say anything about safety? I know others have made hyperbolic references, but nowhere did I mention it. As such, your reply doesn't really touch on any of the points I actually made. If all you're going to do is argue straw men and appeal to ignorant stereotypes about America (e.g. "self-preservation and advancement before all") then there really isn't any hope of you being receptive to any kind of serious response. Still, I'll attempt it once more.

Mountain passes absolutely suck if you're driving something like the old Geo I mentioned. When you're foot-flat-to-the-floor in 3rd gear at 45 mph it's a horrible experience. It's just plain unpleasant to have the engine buzzing away at 5,000 RPM for 15 minutes while you're getting passed by semis. The car feels like it's wearing itself out and given the preference I'd much rather have a couple hundred horsepower simply because it's less tiring.

Because we've had the space and the cheap gas to make it possible for most people to exercise this preference, most people have chosen to do so. An appliance may well be an appliance, but people still prefer an appliance that seems like it's doing the job easily rather than one that seems like it's only just barely capable.

ZV

 

[SparkyJJO]

People who tell me "you don't need those cars/trucks/SUVs, you wasteful American!" kind of bug me. I think your tiny little putt-putt cars are cramped, uncomfortable, and quite lame, but I usually keep my opinion to myself.

Mind your own business and I'll mind my own, thank you very much.

 

[twinrider1]

Predicting 3 years out? Three years isn't very far out in auto manufacturing terms. I'd be shocked if Ford doesn't already know what platform/power train they plan to be selling in 3 years.

 

[foghorn67]

Predicting 3 years out? Three years isn't very far out in auto manufacturing terms. I'd be shocked if Ford doesn't already know what platform/power train they plan to be selling in 3 years.

Agreed. We are already in the know of products in the 2 year range. Down to engine, gearboxes, etc. Nothing amazing or revolutionary noted.

 

[master7045]

People who tell me "you don't need those cars/trucks/SUVs, you wasteful American!" kind of bug me. I think your tiny little putt-putt cars are cramped, uncomfortable, and quite lame, but I usually keep my opinion to myself.

Mind your own business and I'll mind my own, thank you very much.

You do realize that in an internet forum, people come to voice their opinions, right? Anyway, on topic, I, (an American), think it's ridiculous how everyone "needs" a minivan/SUV to car their family around. My wife and I have a 2. year old and a newborn on the way, and I do understand why new parents would want a large car. It was mentioned before, that our car seats are massive. I drive a Jeep Grand Cherokee and the car seat touches the back drivers seat. I'm 6'2" so that is working against me, but in a tiny car I'm just not comfortable nor can I see out of the car easily. Our other car is a 01 GS300, which is the perfect size in my opinion. I constantly go back and forth w/ my wife on getting rid of the Jeep, we just don't need the "utility" part of it.

 

[Ferzerp]

Our newest small car, I believe, is the Chevy Sonic(Aveo). The 1.4L Turbo hits 60 in under 8 seconds and gets 29mpg city and 40mpg highway.

So, you don't necessarily need to be slow.

Seems slow to me

 

[50 mpg by 2012]

Yeah, not to mention that the current very high MPG cars over there do it by putting in like 75hp diesel motors, 0-60 in 12-18 seconds depending on model. That's about enough to get you killed over here.

In the UK ...

Name
0-62mph Top speed CO2 MPG(Imp) Price

Gasoline
Mazda CX-5
2.0 SE-L 5dr Estate
9.2secs 124mph 139g/km 47.1mpg £21,220


SkyActiv-D (Diesel)
Mazda CX-5
2.2d SE-L 5dr Estate
9.2secs 126mph 119g/km 61.4mpg £22,940

Mazda CX-5
2.2d SE-L 5dr Auto Estate
10secs 123mph 139g/km 53.3mpg £24,120

Mazda CX-5
2.2d SE-L 5dr AWD Estate
9.4secs 122mph 136g/km 54.3mpg £24,520

Mazda CX-5
2.2d SE-L 5dr AWD Auto Estate
10.2secs 121mph 144g/km 51.4mpg £25,705

http://www.autocar.co.uk/ Reviews – Specs and Prices

Best guess is the FWD MT diesel will provide the moderate US driver about 45~50 mpg(US) in mixed driving while the AT and AWD will probably be 39~46 mpg(US) range. This 2.0L MT gasoline will probably be in the low~mid 30s.

The nice thing about turbo diesels (even the < 2 liter ones) ... they have the torque ... and in the EU many can tow up to 90% of curb weight with brake assist.

 

[50 mpg by 2012]

I really would not want to merge on I-95 or I-40 here in NC in a car that takes 15 seconds to get to 60mph.

Everyone is doing 70 on 95 and 75 on 40, at least. The on ramps are often not very long.

If it takes 12 or 15 seconds to get to 60, how long to get to 75?

IMO, it's just way too slow to merge safely.

Perhaps if driving conditions and roads, and drivers, were different.

It's all dem durn impatient yankees that immigrated into the Research Triangle/TRIAD. :biggrin:

I doubt that I have had more than 2 vehicles in the last 30 plus years than could beat 11 sec 0-60. One was a 62 Buick Skylark (that car could scoot) and the other is my 95 Civic CX.

I simply have not found it to be a problem either here in NC (RTP, High Point/Greensboro, or Charlotte), DC, Baltimore, NY/NJ, or big cities around Texas and many places in between.

At least that is my experience. Maybe ... I am just too mellow ... past the mid-life crisis. Hmmm ... or ... maybe it is a combination of mutual courtesy, patience, experience, and skill???

Rick:
Aaaanyway, to get back on topic: It seems to be a cultural insecurity issue, that's preventing America from downscaling their vehicular demands.
Maybe a gradual change can happen, but it's unlikely, as especially in crowded areas, more people will feel that insecurity, and cling to their ridiculous vehicles.

I think this is only "some" ... and not a US cultural issue.

I have had 2 accidents in the last 4 years. In both cases I was rear-ended while I was FULLY stopped for a red light. Distracted driving/cell phone/texting???

But, I have never had a merging accident in many years of driving.

 

[_Rick_]

Where did I say anything about safety? I know others have made hyperbolic references, but nowhere did I mention it. As such, your reply doesn't really touch on any of the points I actually made. If all you're going to do is argue straw men and appeal to ignorant stereotypes about America (e.g. "self-preservation and advancement before all") then there really isn't any hope of you being receptive to any kind of serious response. Still, I'll attempt it once more.

I didn't feel like I was only discussing the issue with you alone, there were a number of parallel posts. These posts gave me that impression. While you argued from a different point of view, the number of more "stereotypically American" responses was higher, leading to me giving them credence when it came to something I expected to be a cultural issue.

Mountain passes absolutely suck if you're driving something like the old Geo I mentioned. When you're foot-flat-to-the-floor in 3rd gear at 45 mph it's a horrible experience. It's just plain unpleasant to have the engine buzzing away at 5,000 RPM for 15 minutes while you're getting passed by semis. The car feels like it's wearing itself out and given the preference I'd much rather have a couple hundred horsepower simply because it's less tiring.

Well, the turbo diesels don't gain much of a benefit of running beyond 4krpm.
And yes, if you actually do live in a mountainous region, AND have to regularly climb those passes, an extra bit of performance is somewhat reasonable. Similarly if you have regular snow falls and still need to climb said passes, AWD would become a reasonable investment.
But, even in America, this still is the exception, that people live or work above 2000 ft altitude in truly mountainous areas. I'm willing to grant exceptions, and if you do live in a ski resort and have a family of four, sure, do get some more horse power. If you only go up there on your holiday, it doesn't matter anymore though, if your engine is a bit out of breath. It's only once a year!

Because we've had the space and the cheap gas to make it possible for most people to exercise this preference, most people have chosen to do so. An appliance may well be an appliance, but people still prefer an appliance that seems like it's doing the job easily rather than one that seems like it's only just barely capable.
ZV

Hmm, that I think is where my mindset differs. I try to always get the appliance that does exactly what I need, and not more, at either additional cost, or loss of ease of use.
Extra horse power costs insurance, at the pump, etc. And it's purely wasted.
It's this culture of excess that is likely to give us westerners (it's not like Europeans don't get routinely inspired to partake in similar excesses - the mini SUVs sales being a shocking indicator) will give us a nice backhanded slap sometime soon, when we'll have nothing left to export.

 

[skyking]

One good thing about turbo diesels, they do maintain power at higher elevations. There is usually an excess of air available. My truck feels just as peppy at 6000 feet as it does sea level.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Well, the turbo diesels don't gain much of a benefit of running beyond 4krpm.
And yes, if you actually do live in a mountainous region, AND have to regularly climb those passes, an extra bit of performance is somewhat reasonable. Similarly if you have regular snow falls and still need to climb said passes, AWD would become a reasonable investment.
But, even in America, this still is the exception, that people live or work above 2000 ft altitude in truly mountainous areas. I'm willing to grant exceptions, and if you do live in a ski resort and have a family of four, sure, do get some more horse power. If you only go up there on your holiday, it doesn't matter anymore though, if your engine is a bit out of breath. It's only once a year!

Just because you wouldn't mind a great annoyance once a year doesn't mean that's the "correct" way to view things.

In any case, what I keep saying (and you keep ignoring) is that the American preference for larger and more powerful cars is a result of the conditions we've had throughout most of our history. If Europe and the UK had experienced similar conditions (cheap gasoline, wide and uncrowded roads, etc.) Europeans would also be driving larger, more powerful cars. The issue isn't that Europeans are somehow "more secure," but rather simply that the cost structure is radically different and it's much less affordable for Europeans to have larger, more powerful cars. All you're doing is trying to re-frame a necessity as a virtue.

Gasoline prices in the US today are half of what they are in the UK (and, unlike Europe and the UK, diesel costs more here). An American driving a car that gets 30 mpg ends up paying about the same as a European driving a car that gets 60 mpg (about 72 mpg using the Imperial gallon). Give Europeans the same prices for gasoline and they'd be much less concerned about fuel economy and power. And this isn't even getting into the additional tax structures that Europe has but the US doesn't around engine size and CO2 emissions.

Hmm, that I think is where my mindset differs. I try to always get the appliance that does exactly what I need, and not more, at either additional cost, or loss of ease of use.
Extra horse power costs insurance, at the pump, etc. And it's purely wasted.

By including the caveat of without "loss of ease of use," all you've done is repeat exactly what I said while (falsely) claiming to say something different. Being able to do the job easily is "ease of use." It's why people own cars when a bus or other public transportation option would technically function acceptably.

As far as horsepower costing more for insurance, no, it doesn't. At least not in the US. Now, sportiness costs more in insurance, but raw horsepower really doesn't have a significant affect. Going from a 4-cylinder Accord to a V6 Accord doesn't really change insurance premiums much. The 300-horsepower Lincoln Mark VIII I used to have wasn't expensive to insure because it wasn't a sportscar. My S70T5 is cheaper to insure than my 951, despite the S70 having more power (well, more power than the 951 did stock...). Perhaps European insurance agencies have surcharges explicitly for horsepower ratings, and if so, that just provides further support for my argument that it's all down to the cost structures and that if Europeans experienced identical cost structures to Americans they would drive the same cars.

ZV

 

[Doppel]

In any case, what I keep saying (and you keep ignoring) is that the American preference for larger and more powerful cars is a result of the conditions we've had throughout most of our history. If Europe and the UK had experienced similar conditions (cheap gasoline, wide and uncrowded roads, etc.) Europeans would also be driving larger, more powerful cars. The issue isn't that Europeans are somehow "more secure," but rather simply that the cost structure is radically different and it's much less affordable for Europeans to have larger, more powerful cars. All you're doing is trying to re-frame a necessity as a virtue.

Gasoline prices in the US today are half of what they are in the UK (and, unlike Europe and the UK, diesel costs more here). An American driving a car that gets 30 mpg ends up paying about the same as a European driving a car that gets 60 mpg (about 72 mpg using the Imperial gallon). Give Europeans the same prices for gasoline and they'd be much less concerned about fuel economy and power. And this isn't even getting into the additional tax structures that Europe has but the US doesn't around engine size and CO2 emissions.

Gotta agree with all this.

 

[Arkaign]

In the UK ...

Name
0-62mph Top speed CO2 MPG(Imp) Price

Gasoline
Mazda CX-5
2.0 SE-L 5dr Estate
9.2secs 124mph 139g/km 47.1mpg £21,220


SkyActiv-D (Diesel)
Mazda CX-5
2.2d SE-L 5dr Estate
9.2secs 126mph 119g/km 61.4mpg £22,940

Mazda CX-5
2.2d SE-L 5dr Auto Estate
10secs 123mph 139g/km 53.3mpg £24,120

Mazda CX-5
2.2d SE-L 5dr AWD Estate
9.4secs 122mph 136g/km 54.3mpg £24,520

Mazda CX-5
2.2d SE-L 5dr AWD Auto Estate
10.2secs 121mph 144g/km 51.4mpg £25,705

http://www.autocar.co.uk/ Reviews – Specs and Prices

Best guess is the FWD MT diesel will provide the moderate US driver about 45~50 mpg(US) in mixed driving while the AT and AWD will probably be 39~46 mpg(US) range. This 2.0L MT gasoline will probably be in the low~mid 30s.

The nice thing about turbo diesels (even the < 2 liter ones) ... they have the torque ... and in the EU many can tow up to 90% of curb weight with brake assist.

The Euro mileage estimates are ludicrously optimistic. For example, the first vehicle in that list is also available over here, and EPA numbers are 26/33 for FWD and 25/30 AWD. And that's with the SkyActiv 2.0L DI i4. Yes it's fairly quick for an i4 compact SUV, but it's not all that fuel efficient.

Small turbo motors like the 1.0L Ecoboost Focus :

http://www.caranddriver.com/news/2012-ford-focus-10l-ecoboost-first-drive-review

0-60 in ~10.1, which is .. okay.

EPA 32/41 MPG. Which means it basically has no reason to exist over here. On UK gallons with Euro fuel economy lax testing, the SAME vehicle rates 56.5MPG.

Our regular Focus 2.0 gets 28/38, and has a great deal more power, so driving on fast US roads is a lot more relaxing. A good example around here are many freeway entrance ramps which are quite short, and where the traffic is already moving at 70-80mph. Getting on there with a weak vehicle sucks (I've done it many times). As ZV has similarly noted, flogging the crap out of a ~100hp or less vehicle to merge with fast moving traffic is stressful and annoying.

My brother has visited Europe many times, and has noted that different vehicles make sense there. He had a Diesel SmartCar for many trips, and he said that it's outstanding over there especially in small towns. The traffic just doesn't move nearly as quickly, and space is a huge issue in many areas where driving a large vehicle makes no sense.

Over here the gas powered Smart is a bad joke, delivering poor fuel economy considering the size, and it's an absolute ant when surrounded by so many SUVs and giant cars.

 

[50 mpg by 2012]

Arkaign

I have no problem with your opinion ... particularly regarding trying to relate EU and US ratings for gasoline powered light passenger vehicles.

It is also true that the EU has an active proposal to revise their fuel economy test methods/proceedures and rating system by 2020 to make their "sticker" results closer to real world EU AVERAGE experience (This still will NEVER provide a match for ALL drivers under ALL conditions, same for the EPA).

[Also, the EU is scheduled to decide whether or not to formally commit to 95 gCO2/km fleet average by 2020 no later than August 2012. That is about 56/68 mpg(US) combine for gasoline/diesel respectively. Again, EU fleet average.]

Since there are very few current Det3 gas and NO diesel equivalent configurations on both sides of the Atlantic, it is very difficult to establish reasonable relationships between official US and EU ratings from the "outside".

VW/Audi are the exceptions, particularly the diesel. Those power trains are close but NOT absolutely identical in all aspects.

I have suggested to GSA, DOD, EPA, and DOE that much of the correlation could be resolved using DOD (and Dept of State) indigenous EU vehicles and their fuel consumption data ... regularly required by DOD (and Dept of State) and GSA for budget management/reporting purposes ... then by having DOE/EPA/ORNL analyze that data for relative EU USER MPG Estimates in mpg(US) similar to those in http://www.fueleconomy.gov/mpg/MPG.do?action=browseList

And of course those values could then be linked back to NEDC ratings of the appropriate vehicle configuration establishing a 1st order correlation between current EU ratings and US expected experience/potential benefit from EU fuel frugal technologies. As far as most studies go, this should be relatively inexpensive and quick. I guess it could be requested under the Freedom of Information Act.

BTW, IF ... you would like a source for EU USER MPG Estimates try http://www.thempg.co.uk/search-brnd.html

The difficulty I have had with Fuelly finding extact vehicle definitions (chassis configuration, fuel, engine details, transmission, wheels driven, etc). I even found 2 Mazda CX5 "diesel fuel economies" reported where the CX5 diesel is not even available (further, the reported values were more consistent with gasoline mpg than diesel). Sooo .... how does that improve fuelly's mpg estimates ... ??

It appears that http://www.thempg.co.uk does address a more accurate and broader level of detailed information. This system apparently even encourages entries regarding driving style IF the participant is willing to share.

Your dime and your time ... spend it as you wish.

 

[Ferzerp]

HP "cost[ing] insurace" is really only a very, very loose connection (if any at all). Insurance costs (per vehicle, ignoring the driver) are related to one thing: the average payout per vehicle for that exact vehicle. On my particular model, if I recall correctly, there is little to no difference in premiums between the $25k 300hp model and the $45k 470hp model.

Stay away from the models popular with idiots, and premium premiums for powerful cars disappear.

 

[AdamK47]

One of these days I'll get that 1.0L 3 cyl 5-spd 1990 Geo Metro I've been wanting. It's the perfect juxtaposition to what I already drive. It's hilariously great! Too bad the people selling them are marking them up at crazy prices.

 

[LTC8K6]

It's all dem durn impatient yankees that immigrated into the Research Triangle/TRIAD. :biggrin:

I doubt that I have had more than 2 vehicles in the last 30 plus years than could beat 11 sec 0-60. One was a 62 Buick Skylark (that car could scoot) and the other is my 95 Civic CX.

I simply have not found it to be a problem either here in NC (RTP, High Point/Greensboro, or Charlotte), DC, Baltimore, NY/NJ, or big cities around Texas and many places in between.

At least that is my experience. Maybe ... I am just too mellow ... past the mid-life crisis. Hmmm ... or ... maybe it is a combination of mutual courtesy, patience, experience, and skill???



I think this is only "some" ... and not a US cultural issue.

I have had 2 accidents in the last 4 years. In both cases I was rear-ended while I was FULLY stopped for a red light. Distracted driving/cell phone/texting???

But, I have never had a merging accident in many years of driving.

I think you are one of the guys I have to go around with my Hemi on the on ramps...

I've been in NC for thirty years, and 0-60 in 12 seconds is dangerous.

I can just imagine trying to pass on 421 in the country...

I'll have to imagine it, because I'm not buying it or trying it.

 

[LTC8K6]

despite the rhetoric in the thread, more than 57% of the poll responders said yes.

I'm interested. Not buying if it takes 15 seconds to get to 70, though.

Perhaps if I needed a second "city" car, and even then, you still have pretty fast traffic.

 

[skyking]

If it has enough power to pull the passes here at the speed limit, I am sure you can row through the gears fast enough to get on the freeway. Not being able to make the passes comfortably would be the dealbreaker for me.

 

[PlasmaBomb]

I really would not want to merge on I-95 or I-40 here in NC in a car that takes 15 seconds to get to 60mph.

Everyone is doing 70 on 95 and 75 on 40, at least. The on ramps are often not very long.

If it takes 12 or 15 seconds to get to 60, how long to get to 75?

IMO, it's just way too slow to merge safely.

Perhaps if driving conditions and roads, and drivers, were different.

I don't know the junction - do you start from a red light? (0 mph?)

 

[50 mpg by 2012]

I think you are one of the guys I have to go around with my Hemi on the on ramps...

I've been in NC for thirty years, and 0-60 in 12 seconds is dangerous.

I can just imagine trying to pass on 421 in the country...

I'll have to imagine it, because I'm not buying it or trying it.

I doubt that I am one of the guys you have to go around with your Hemi on the on ramps ... simply because I usually try to be between 40 and 50 mph by the time I reach the merge lane ... preservation of momentum ...

As for NC (and other states), I appreciate your comment about farm-to-market roads ... generally narrow, winding, short range of visibility. Some times one just has to switch to the "ZIN" mode of driving.

Travel safe ... regardless what and how you drive.

I seem to remember ... some mergers from a red light just north of NY City ... but that was many years ago ... I think speed limit was 45 ? 50 ? 55 ... can't remember.