Give americans what they want, never mind what makes sense

I don't know, but that it the main reason that I did not consider buying a Rabbit or Beetle - the mileage for the 2.5 liter engine is terrible.

 

I discovered this subject when i worked for Waldenbooks 30-some years ago.
The shopping mall book store I worked in received different stock than a nearby store (a few miles away) in an upscale downtown shopping district. When I inquired as to why there was such a difference in the quality and subject matter of the two stores stock--i was told that surveys indicated that the store i was employed in serviced customers with lower education, and income levels--that the stock was tailored to match the customer data base.
I'm sure that mass production vehicle firms conduct similar research and may have determined that the American customer base is unable to think in a manner similar to the European customer base.
Not true for everyone but these decisions are based on the whole.
just my thoughts
Froley

 

What a great way to make sure the customers never improve their education or income level. :madgrin: I hope the libraries don't follow a similar philosophy.

 

I agree--
my sentiments exactly
this was one of those things I was told in an very off-hand manner, that somehow struck me and that I still remember---very strange.
regards
Froley

 

As far as fuel economy ratings, it's important not to confuse miles per Imperial gallon, with miles per US gallon

As far as vehicle choices, blame the Mad Men for that. Consumers have little say in what models finally end up at the showroom, though they can still vote with their wallet

I'll agree the Dumbing Down of our culture is well on the way to being a complete success.

One way to change things is to pass a law prohibiting foreign source energy. Once folks have to pay for the *real* cost of energy extraction - and expose the lies of oil shale "buck a gallon" - they will be forced to make more intelligent choices

Of course, with a severe global recession, energy consumption goes down anyway

 

Foreign source energy isn't such a bad thing, as far as trade goes, but setting oil prices equal to extraction costs is waaay too low. What about all the other costs? Let's include ALL the costs and benefits for all forms of energy, and then make an informed, intelligent choice.

Nah, let's subsidise the hell out of it, foist the true costs on an unsuspecting public, rape and pillage the environment to our heart's content, steal from our children, invade sovereign countries so we can put in pipelines, and dismiss alternatives as 'too expensive'. Yay! The kids win again! Candy for breakfast!

 

Um, have you been in a library recently? Sad

 

Hence my pet peeve of Crown Corporations subsidizing oil extraction at Hibernia. Or the very generous taxpayer grants and giveaways to fund and run the Tar Sands

How about those diamond mines in the Canadian arctic region? Canadian companies can even suck the teat of Export Development Corp, Canadian International Development Agency, and Industry Canada, to fund foreign operations, such as the copper mining in Chile

Of course, these crown corps are not subject to audit or investigation

 

Actually, I have been using the library more lately since I'm unemployed. We have a reasonable library system in Sacramento, my only complaint is that most of the books are a decade or two old so that they are not usable for researching technical subjects like computers, et. al. I did manage to find an AutoCad book that is only a couple of years out of date, but still useful.

 

Why does the VW Rabbit have a 170 hp 2.5L engine? Because it sells at a higher price point that the competition. VW does not directly compete for the lower end of the compact segment but instead targets the upper end. VW believes that their US customers want more horsepower.

The 5th generation A platform is also a expensive car to build so VW has simplified the offerings to lower cost. (The A5 platform is expensive because VW went to greats lengths to improve there quality after the A4's many electrical issues.) The A4 Golf was available in the US with 3 different engines; 2 gasoline and 1 diesel.

The VW Golf for sale in Europe is built on the A6 platform, one generation newer than those sold in the US. Also due to much more expensive fuel, Europeans are much more willing to purchase cars with less horsepower and slower acceleration than Americans that pay less the 1/2 as much for fuel. They are also more willing to pay for more for complicated and expensive engines that offer good fuel economy and good performance. The 1.4L TSI engine is a great engine but expensive to manufacture.

Golf Prices in the UK:
Model ------- Engine ---------------- Price ---------- 0-62 mph
Golf S ---- 1.4L (80 hp) ------------ $21,856 ------- 13.9
Golf S ---- 1.6L (102 hp) ----------- $23,325 ------- 11.3
Golf S ---- 1.4L TSI (122 hp) ------ $24,507 -------- 9.5
Golf S ---- 1.6L TDI (90 hp) ------- $24,450 -------- 12.9
Golf S ---- 1.6L TDI (105 hp) ----- $26,009 -------- 11.3
(This is the most basic Golf with a manual transmission and crank windows for the rear doors)

On the other hand the Rabbit starts at $16,300 in the US and goes 0 - 60 in 8.0 seconds.


The US will get the A6 Golf this fall as a 2010 model. It will be sold with a detuned version of the 2.5L gasoline engine (157 hp / 177 lb-ft) or the 2.0L CR TDI currently offered in the Jetta.

A final note, EU fuel economy ratings cannot be compared to US fuel economy ratings even if you successfully convert the units. The EU and US use very different test schedules and even the same car with the same engine will be rated much lower in the US test.

 

Our stupid over regulation of emissions on light duty diesels are to blame

The main reason we have so few engine options are our overburdeness emissions on light duty diesels in the US . It costs a fortune to certify anything for the US market gasoline or diesel powered .

IF we adopted similar emissions standards to EU standards an array of options would be opened up for US sales . And the average fuel economy , CAFE would easily hit mid 40s to low 50s+ mpgUS overnight .

Not a lot of clean air to be gotten from over regulating cars that for the most part haven't been sold in the US since 1986 ...........

 

Very informative.

 

Re: Our stupid over regulation of emissions on light duty diesels are to blame

It cost just as much to certify an engine in the EU as it does in the US. However, the EU is VW's main market at they sell 10x the number of Golfs in Europe as they do in the US. It doesn't make much sense for VW to certify as many engines in the US considering that VW only sells 310,000 cars in the US out of a total of 6.5 million vehicles worldwide.

If the US and the EU could agree on a common emission standard it would save a lot of money. However since the US refuses to even use the metric system when every other country in the world does, I don't see this happening. The EU is more concerned about CO2 and fuel economy while the EPA focuses on smog forming emissions.

I'm not sure what cars you are talking about when you refer to cars not sold since 1986. Care to clarify?

 

In 1985 the last year of CAFE , real CAFE with yearly increases twards the 40 mpgUS target set in 1975 every manufacturer from Chevy to Toyota had a wide variety of diesel powered car & light truck options . All except Honda sold a wide variety of high mpg diesel options , Honda had plans for 87-88 to introduce a diesel option to US but with no CAFE pressures they dropped the plan like all the other auto makers .

In 1985 most auto makers had far exceeded the 27.5 mpgUS CAFE in law requirement . Much of the import fleet ( including the re badged big three options and Asian diesel engine transplanted options ) was well into the mid to high 30s CAFE mpgUS range by this time . When real CAFE with yearly increases was abandoned in 1986 all light duty diesel sales ended . By the end that MY-(Model Year) all manufacturers had removed their 40-50 mpgUS diesel options from the US line up .

Every MY since there has only been limited diesel auto sales in the auto market , less than 1 % of US fleet for most years . With only VW & MB even selling any US spec diesel powered cars until today . Years 87-89 & 93-96 there were no light duty diesel options sold in the US . Today 09 MY only VW , MB & BMW have US spec diesel cars . By the End of the year Audi will have joined that group .

So I say again not a lot of clean air to be gotten from over regulating light duty diesel cars that stopped being sold here in 1986 !!!!!!!

 

light duty diesels haven't been sold here since 1986 for the most part

None , zero not one single auto maker sold any diesel autos in 87-early 1989 & 93-96 . Only in Feb of 89 did VW reintroduced a Jetta Diesel to the US market , 49 state . These sales lasted until 92 MY . From 93-96 in the US no auto diesel options available from anyone again including VW . In 1996 the Diesel option was re introduced to the US market . The TDI reintroduced the diesel option to the US in the Passat (EPA rated 38 city / 48 highway ), Jetta & Golf (EPA rated 40 city / 49 highway ). The New Beetle was introduced with a diesel option in 1998 ( 42 city / 49 highway ).

In 99 CARB increased emissions standards on light duty diesels so MB abandoned the US market until a couple of years ago . Only VW stuck with it selling diesels continually every since in US spec versions . CARB strickened emissions again in 2004 MY on the less than 1 % of what was sold on the road by only one manufacturer VW . In 2004-06 MY the US light duty diesel sales peaked just above 3 % of US fleet sales , sold in 4 models .

In 2007 the US standard joined the CARB stupid over regulation of light duty diesels that made up less than <3 % of total auto sales . These emissions were adopted before the required ULSD to meet these emissions was available , how dumb is that .

So VW over built the 06 MY Jetta TDI-PDs to be sold until the current TDI-CRs became available . They built just enough of the car for it to qualify as a 06 MY spec model ( 06.5 Diesel Editions ) with the rest of the car assembled as late as fall/winter of 2007 . These models were sold until spring of 08 , last few sold as late as March/April of 08 .

The TDI-CRs were delayed from introduction until summer of 08 by the lack of reliable ULSD supplies across the US until spring of 08 . ULSD is required so as to not destroy the expensive emissions equipment required to pass our ridiculous emissions standards . In testing in Southern CA in the fall of 07 VW found that many pumps marked as ULSD did infarct have sulfur content in the 200-300 ppm causing testing issues . Far above the ULSD spec .

Chrysler buys VW built 2.0 L TDI-PD engines and installs them in many models built here but only sold in Europe with that diesel option . If we allowed emissions back to say 03-05 MY spec they could start selling tomorrow 40-50 mpgUS versions of these cars , no re-engineering $$$$ required . GM & Ford both have fleets of models identical to what is sold here they sell with diesel powered EU spec drivetrains . A very slight adjustment for a short time to EU emissions standards could give us a real world CAFE of 40s-50 mpgUS in short order . After we have a few years of sales under our belt raising CAFE to a more acceptable level then we could re adopt the current emissions standard if we so chose .

I care about our countries energy security that is why I've been driving 40-50 mpgUS cars over 3,000,000 miles during the last 30 years . I make my own BD from waste oil and run it in as high of % as the weather allows . In my TDIs I average mid 50s mpgUS running on mixed city loops . I average ~50 mpgUS on higher speed runs across the US . I care less than nothing about 0-60 mph but I do care about 0-1,000 miles on a tank of fuel . The earliest US spec Passat TDIs had little trouble hitting the 1,200-1,300 mile mark on a tank of fuel . With care these cars have little trouble achieving high 50s to low 60s mpgUS tank after tank .

Again I'm not anti Hybrid but I do think today the diesel option is a more sensible option for most in spread out USA to get us out the energy mess we face today .

 

Consider that the Europeans also now understand the importance of emissions standards. Prior to 1993-1994, EU cars did NOT require catalytic converters or other emissions controls

If you want a taste of lack of emissions controls, pay a visit to Mexico City. I like having clean air

One cannot directly compare 80's cars to modern cars. Safety performance alone is day and night different. Those small cars from the 70's and 80's that got great fuel economy, had far greater emissions, and were death traps

Biodiesel is NOT a mass market option for us. It's the same dead end as ethanol from grain. Furthermore, makers like VW and Mercedes do NOT approve >5% bd in their modern motors. Good luck with a warranty issue

 

come on , you can't be that uninformed about real controls on diesels emissions spec in the US in 03

All of the TDIs sold here have had significant emissions controls on them , your statement of dirty air is baseless . No one including me is talking about emissionsless diesels . Your statement about Mexico city is a ridiculous silly comparison as all the diesels sold in the last 13 years are plenty clean .

The 03-05 emissions rules I speak of , @ current EU levels are more than clean enough for the small % of light duty diesels that are sold here . Or would be sold over the next few years if we adopted EU levels .

If you are really worried about pollution you should apply your attention at vehicles sold under the Heavy Vehicle Loophole for the last 20 years . One of these SUVs or over sized pickups that make up as much as 3/4 of what is on the road today sold under loophole rules over the last 20 years belches as much pollution as 100 TDI-CRs or Prius .

It take 60-70 TDIs 2004-06 spec and 40-50 TDIs 1996-03 US spec light duty diesels to equal the pollution spewing out of one loophole vehicle . One of these loophole vehicles spews out more pollution in an afternoon than you do in your hybrid in 3+ months or my older TDI in 1 1/2 months covering the same distance . You want clean air go after loophole vehicles and leave the few diesels here alone . The positive impact to US oil use more than outweighs any emissions impact of the low percentage of total US fleet we account for .

And on BD use because of these ridiculous over regulated emissions regulations we must pass today the BD option has been removed in % above 20 % . The older stuff pre-04 MY has no trouble using high %s of BD , up to 100 % . And the PDs sold here in 04-07 can handle % as high as 50-60 % safely in warmer summer months .

And before anyone brings it up the tons of ultra fine PMs coming out of all gasoline powered vehicles are far more dangerous than the larger ones that came out of older diesels . The bigger PMs that came out of older diesels fell harmlessly to the ground in short order . While the ultra fine PMs that today come out of all gasoline engines stay aerosolized for weeks to months at a time . They are also small enough to pass through the blood brain barrier where the larger older diesel PMs could not . And if we adopted the current EU pollution standards a PM trap would be required so they are plenty clean .

This fact was backed up by an EPA study of the brown cloud that hangs over Denver in the winter months a few years back . Diesels had gotten he blame for the brown cloud for years but turned out they had almost nothing to do with it . Gasoline powered cars & SUVs/pickups and the slag they used to put on the road in winter were to blame . And much of brown cloud in Southern CA can be attributed to aerosolized gasoline engine produced PMs and sand that get blown into the air .

And Our NOx standard is ridiculously over stringent on light duty diesels that make up less <3 % of US fleet today . There are studies out there today that show that diesel emission NOx emissions in particular actually can help to clean up ozone clouds that the current fleet of loophole vehicles are mainly to blame for .

And even with the 03-05 standard the CO & CO2 emissions are off the scale low compared to most of what is currently on our roads .

So I state again , Not a lot of clean air to be gotten from restricting out of existence cars not sold here for the most part since 1986 ....

 

Dreamer,

Your argument is odd. On one hand you say that over regulation by CARB and the EPA prevent manufacturers from selling light-duty diesels in the US. On the other hand you say that the pollution from these diesels are insignificant because very few of the vehicles are on the road. However, if you got your way wouldn't we have large numbers of these vehicles on the road? At what point does the extra pollution become a problem?

While I currently drive a TDI I disagree with you completely. I strongly support regulations on diesel vehicle emissions that bring them inline with those of gasoline cars. There is no reason for diesels to be a protected class of vehicles that are allowed to emit more pollution when the technology is readily available for them to be cleaner. However, the knife cuts both ways and we should also be testing a regulating the PM from gasoline vehicles.

There were more reasons than CAFE for automakers to drop their diesel vehicles in the late 80's. The primary reason was that fuel was incredibly inexpensive and the majority of car buyers were not willing to buy the noisy, smelly, and slow diesel vehicles of the time. Diesels became popular in the US due to the rapid rise in fuel prices during the early 80's. However, the price of fuel then fell rapidly until 2000 when adjusted for inflation. By In contrast Europe was steadily increasing taxes on fuel and subsidizing diesel fuel and vehicles. It is not wonder that diesel vehicles became popular in Europe while all but disappearing in the US.

​

 

Wrong forum, oops.