Ford Inside News banner

1 - 17 of 17 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
55 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
An OPEN Letter to: Mr. Bill Ford, Jr. and Mr. Mulally,

I fully appreciate and support FORD's idea of "world cars".

In that spirit, WHEN is FORD going to provide the US/NA consumer the benefit of true fuel frugality like the small displacement turbo diesel vehicles listed below rated 52/62.8 mpg(US/Imp) combined (or higher) for the "light footed driver"?

Focus 2010 Onwards

1.6 Duratorq TDCi (90PS) 3/5 Door (ECO) M5 Diesel 65.7 mpg(Imp) combined
1.6 Duratorq TDCi (109PS) 3/5 Door (+DPF) M5 Diesel 62.8 mpg(Imp) combined
1.6 Duratorq TDCi (109PS) 3/5 Door (+DPF) M5 Diesel 64.2 mpg(Imp) combined
1.6 Duratorq TDCi (90PS) 3/5 Door M5 Diesel 64.2 mpg(Imp) combined
1.6 Duratorq TDCi (90PS) Estate M5 Diesel 64.2 mpg(Imp) combined
1.6 Duratorq TDCi (109PS) 5 Door (ECO +DPF) M5 Diesel 65.7 mpg(Imp) combined
1.6 Duratorq TDCi (109PS) Estate (ECO +DPF) M5 Diesel 65.7 mpg(Imp) combined
1.6 Duratorq TDCi (109PS) Estate (+DPF) M5 Diesel 64.2 mpg(Imp) combined


New Fiesta Model Year - Post 2009

1.6 Duratorq TDCi (90PS) (+DPF) (ECO) M5 Diesel 76.3 mpg(Imp) combined


And then there is the issue of the sale of Volvo and Volvo's "DRIVe" and "Stop/Start" technology [that apparently seems able to improve FE by up to 25% over standard power trains] that allows Volvo to have 4X more vehicles [ 2 - C30s, S40, and V50 ] rated ABOVE 61/72 mpg(US/Imperial) combined than FORD's one (1) diesel Fiesta. Besides, generally diesels can tow.
http://www.vcacarfueldata.org.uk/search/fuelConSearch.asp


Again Mr. Bill Ford, Jr. and Mr. Mulally, when will the US CONSUMER be "worthy" of these "in-house" FORD technologies?

And please do NOT try to hide behind US diesel emissions standards as an excuse ... particularly since Audi, BMW, Mercedes, and VW ... ALL have "50 state compliant" diesel product that now constitutes roughly 20% of their US sales and increasing.

WHEN IS FORD ... going to address this technology and US MARKET SEGMENT for the US consumer ... or is FORD going to "GIFT" this segment to the "foreign" OEMS as has happened with past opportunities?

I guess if Ford's engineers are not up to the task ... Ford could contract with Bosch's new "Emissions Abatement Group" to solve the problem for them. That would export a few more engineering jobs ... but, think what US sales could be with product that could get 45~64, maybe even more, mpg(US) combined and still have the ability to tow.

MANY of US would like to know your position so that WE can PLAN future automotive purchasing strategies.

Sincerely, A CONSUMER ... looking for "44 mpg in 2010"!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
282 Posts
Here is what Ford marketing is likely telling Mr. Mullaly
  1. Only a very small number of people in the US want a diesel. Don't you remember the Oldsmobile diesel fiasco ???!!!!
  2. Diesel fuel cost more than gasoline. Who wants to spend more at the pump and still have to add urea ?
  3. Offering another engine against the EcoBoost would confuse the customers. We have hundred of million invested in EcoBoost. Customers want one best solution !
  4. If all of the above are wrong, we can quickly certify a couple of those European diesel engines for a few applications.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
55 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
Here is what Ford marketing is likely telling Mr. Mullaly
  1. Only a very small number of people in the US want a diesel. Don't you remember the Oldsmobile diesel fiasco ???!!!!
  2. Diesel fuel cost more than gasoline. Who wants to spend more at the pump and still have to add urea ?
  3. Offering another engine against the EcoBoost would confuse the customers. We have hundred of million invested in EcoBoost. Customers want one best solution !
  4. If all of the above are wrong, we can quickly certify a couple of those European diesel engines for a few applications.
  1. Apparently Audi, BMW, Mercedes, and VW diesel sales are now about about 20% of their total sales and increasing ...! And that is with many US consumers having concerns about durability and post warranty maintenance costs with at least several of these OEMs.

  2. Fuel price differientials, when compared to the 2008 EPA "light passenger fleet average" of 21~22 mpg (4.65 gallons/100 miles) versus small displacement diesel 45 mpg (2.22 gallons/100 miles OR LESS), do not become significant until diesel pricing is at least 50%~80% higher than gasoline (discounting upfront vehicle cost). As for urea, that is just Mercedes' solution ... there are others.

  3. Is there any chance that a gasoline 1.6 EcoBoost could match or beat the 63 mpg(US) combined fuel economy of the diesel in a Fiesta? IF NOT ... FORD picked the "wrong horse" for the US. Look at all of the time and money waisted developing a weaker solution ... the EcoBoost. From a consumer's point of view what is the "up front price different" between a Turbo EcoBoost and a small displacement turbo diesel?

  4. Wouldn't it be nice IF ... there was a quick low cost way for FORD to test US consumer acceptance of their DuraTorq diesels? I think there is and IF FORD asks I'll gladly give them the info again. I think there are less than about 12 basic DuraTorq engines under 2.5 liters. I am certain there are several different calibrations for each ... but just starting with the 2010 (EU) configurations would be a good place to get maximum maturity.

  5. Keep in mind there is a lot more justifucation for a NEW purchase going from 25 mpg to 50 mpg than to just 30 to 40 mpg. And then throw in the torque of diesels ... for towing when necessary. That could easily mean many MORE SALES ... and GREATER MARKET SHARE!
Just thinking out loud ....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,710 Posts
Ford followed closely by GM are now class leaders in Fuel economy. Fusion and Malibu rival Civic/corolla in fuel consumption.

Their future offerings in the civic/corolla class will be over 40 MPG. thats close to the Prius highway mileage. what more do you want?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
55 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
BRENTWOOD, Essex �� Wednesday, 13 January 2010 ...

http://media.ford.com/news/thenew2010fordsmaxandgalaxydebutatbrusselsshow.htm

S-Max and Galaxy are roughly 4k pound curb weight 7 passenger vehicles that can tow about 3.8k pounds.

Interesting power train choices including Ford's PowerShift double wet-clutch transmission and

gasoline 2 liter EcoBoost SCTi @ 29 mpg(US) combined - 3.45 gallons/100 miles

diesel 2 liter DuraTorq TDCi @ 41 mpg(US) combined - 2.44 gallons/100 miles

The DuraTorq provides 30% lower fuel consumption rate than the comparable sized EcoBoost.

Anyone have comparative cost information on the 2 Liter EcoBoost SCTi and DuraTorq TDCi?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
282 Posts
Stop being logical !

You have forgotten that dozens and dozens of Ford middle level management have "bet their careers" on EcoBoost. They are not about to "fall on their sword" for diesel now that the EcoBoost parade is just ramping up !

They have a perfectly wonderful small V8 (4.4L) diesel that they will start building for Land Rover this year, but refuse to put it in any US Ford SUV/truck ! They spent lots of money on engineering and tooling and that engine and don't even want to try and recover the costs !!

Costs of the 2.0L EcoBoost and 2.0L DuraTorq would be pretty similar, except for the engine block. I'm assuming the DuraTorq uses CGI, which is pretty expensive, especially when you factor in machining.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
55 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
Stop being logical !

You have forgotten that dozens and dozens of Ford middle level management have "bet their careers" on EcoBoost. They are not about to "fall on their sword" for diesel now that the EcoBoost parade is just ramping up !

They have a perfectly wonderful small V8 (4.4L) diesel that they will start building for Land Rover this year, but refuse to put it in any US Ford SUV/truck ! They spent lots of money on engineering and tooling and that engine and don't even want to try and recover the costs !!

Costs of the 2.0L EcoBoost and 2.0L DuraTorq would be pretty similar, except for the engine block. I'm assuming the DuraTorq uses CGI, which is pretty expensive, especially when you factor in machining.
Yeaup, folks "bet on the horse races" EVERY DAY, but the number of winners are few! And just because a large number of better put money down on a horse does not assure a WINNER! That is what "odds" are about isn't it?

The 4.4L diesel may be a wonderful engine ... but what sort of fuel economy?

Like I have said, folks sometimes bet on their "own horse" and then don't even put them in the race.

Europe and the rest of the world have already demonstrated that a lot can be successfully done with LESS THAN 2 liters, particularly with diesel.

It is going to be interesting to see how diesel plays out in China and India.

BTW, please explain the CGI. I am not familiar with the term.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,933 Posts
Yeaup, folks "bet on the horse races" EVERY DAY, but the number of winners are few! And just because a large number of better put money down on a horse does not assure a WINNER! That is what "odds" are about isn't it?

The 4.4L diesel may be a wonderful engine ... but what sort of fuel economy?

Like I have said, folks sometimes bet on their "own horse" and then don't even put them in the race.

Europe and the rest of the world have already demonstrated that a lot can be successfully done with LESS THAN 2 liters, particularly with diesel.

It is going to be interesting to see how diesel plays out in China and India.

BTW, please explain the CGI. I am not familiar with the term.
Remember these engines need to meet our standards for emissions, especially California emissions
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
55 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
Remember these engines need to meet our standards for emissions, especially California emissions
Yes I know.

VW has already demonstrated that it can be done without eura about 3 years ago.

If Ford's technical staff can NOT get these engines to meet California standards ... they could always subcontract the task to Bosch's new "Emissions Mitigation Group" that started business Jan 1, 2010! Just an idea.

Ford does have some GREAT and quiet small diesel engines! And VERY fuel frugal TOO!!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
282 Posts
The 4.4L diesel may be a wonderful engine ... but what sort of fuel economy?
The 4.4L was designed specifcally to fit in the F150/Expedition/Navigator because the marketing people claimed there was a big demand for it (and GM was going to have a "small" V8 diesel also). When the GM small diesel died, and the price of diesel stay above the price of regular and even premium gasoline for most of 2008, the marketing people turned and said it was no longer "required".

Some engineers who had been working on the program claimed it was "too good" and would steal sales from the 6.7L in the F250 and low end F350 market.
Europe and the rest of the world have already demonstrated that a lot can be successfully done with LESS THAN 2 liters, particularly with diesel.

It is going to be interesting to see how diesel plays out in China and India
Europe and the rest of the world, especially India and China (who have both recently opened huge new refineries with excess diesel capacity for export) know a good thing when they see it and will remain heavily diesel oreinted except for scooter and motorcycles.
BTW, please explain the CGI. I am not familiar with the term.
CGI = Compact Graphite Iron. A casting process that results in a much stronger engine block than cast iron so that it can be lighter in weight. Difficult (i.e. expensive) to machine.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
55 Posts
Discussion Starter #13
Bosch already is Ford's exclusive worldwide diesel controls supplier.
Bosch's new "Emissions Mitigation Group" is apparently completely new, openning its' doors Jan 1, 2010, and includes associations (partnerships?) with other companies in the emissions abatement field.

Can this new Bosch Group solve California compliance without eura for Ford and others? Who knows? It appears particulates are very close to being solved in several configurations of Fords 2 Liter DuraTorqs ... leaving NOx approaching 132 mg/km, as the primary challenge.
http://www.vcacarfueldata.org.uk/search/vehicleDetails.asp?id=23817

But I'm betting they, Ford-Bosch, already know how because Ford has 1.6 Liter Focus configurations rated Euro Step 5. And Step 6 comes in to play in 2012.

Only time will tell!

Thanks for the clarification regarding CGI = Compact Graphite Iron!

As for your comments on India and China's diesel/petro strategy ... I think they are "on target" leaving the US automotives consuming petroleum at a rate per UNIT WORK at least 2X greater that of the rest of the automotive WORLD unless the US industry gets over its' EGO ... or government FORCES the issue.

I was just looking over this thread and our discussion about Ford's 4.4 liter diesel. It occurred to me that not many years ago 4 Liter diesels were considered "big" engines for long haul tractor-trailers with GVWs of 40 tons.

Here is an interesting meteric: (vehicle mass [GVW], in tons) x (mpg to move the load).

Some rough numbers for fun:
1970 tractor-trailer (gasoline) ~ 40 tons x 4 mpg = 160 ton-miles/gallon
2009 tractor-trailer (diesel) ~ 40 tons x 7 mpg = 280 ton-miles/gallon
2008 average US passenger vehicle ~ 3 tons x 22 mpg = 66 ton-miles/gallon
Prius ~ 2.5 tons x 50 mpg = 125 ton-miles/gallon
Mondeo diesel ~ 2.5 tons x 45 mpg = 112 ton-miles/gallon
Fiesta diesel ~ 2 tons x 63 mpg = 116 ton-miles/gallon
Volvo V50 DRIVe Stop/Start ~ 2.2 tons x 61 mpg = 134 ton-miles/gallon
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
282 Posts
As for your comments on India and China's diesel/petro strategy ... I think they are "on target" leaving the US automotives consuming petroleum at a rate per UNIT WORK at least 2X greater that of the rest of the automotive WORLD unless the US industry gets over its' EGO ... or government FORCES the issue.
Not likely, because it is the government who has the EGO problem !

To many untrained (no scientific and/or engineer background) officials and lobbyists forcing poorly thought out "solutions" (like using corn for ethanol) for the US energy issues.

A small group is starting to push back. For the US, compressed natural gas (CNG), a resource that we have in surplus and more is being discovered daily, would be a good interim fuel for most transportation (cars, trucks, buses, trains). It is much cleaner than diesel or gasoline and it would not have to be imported.

With the proper government incentives, the US could reduce its oil imports by more than 60% within less than 10 years. Imagine what that would do to all of the oil producing countries, to loose a customer like the US !
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
55 Posts
Discussion Starter #15
I don't have a major problem with CNG ... however it appears that many that were using it in the 1980s, 1990s, and early 2000s have radically cut their use of CNG vehicles.

If I am not mistaken CNG and LPG is only available as a retro-fit in the US. Maybe OEM in Canada?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
282 Posts
I don't have a major problem with CNG ... however it appears that many that were using it in the 1980s, 1990s, and early 2000s have radically cut their use of CNG vehicles.
Government dropped some tax incentives.

If I am not mistaken CNG and LPG is only available as a retro-fit in the US.
Roger ! LPG is not cost effective because it is made from petroleum.

CNG is not dead, just wounded ! If gasoline jumps above $4/gallon again I expect a lot of fleets will look seriously at CNG again.

I have a friend who insists that with the current tax rebates, and driving about 15,000 miles/year on an F150, you can recover your costs in less than 2 years, even at the current price of gasoline.

It is amazing how many filling station there are in a large metro area like Detroit !
 
1 - 17 of 17 Posts
Top