Ford Changover: Euro Models Come in 2010

[Sniffs]

Rotary Junky: that's cause most of the rest of the world is physically smaller than americans, and I don't just mean weight and width. heightwise, we seem to come off way taller. think about how Yeoh(SP) Ming (and another Chinese giant currently trying to get in) got so much attention.

Niky: in america, Deisels generally start at 8 liters volume and go up. I think the smallest regular deisels, here are in UD's and Fusos. we only used deisels OURSELVES in passenger vehicles between 83-86. and they were mostly converted 5.7's/350's. only imports used smaller displacement deisels.
to most americans Deisel=big rigs. deisel power is used in Construction equipment, mostly.

 

[TheCracker]

I think you're being nieve if you believe that diesel engined cars will not become common place in the US within the next 5 years. They're coming, get used to it.

 

[Jim Prower]

Ah, great...here comes the Diseasel Debate.

 

[MustangSVT]

Give me a car the weight of your Lancer. 3800 (or any other low-end specialty) V6 and a 2.5-2.75 final gear with a .67-.69 overdrive.

When it never needs to work, it's not going to take much fuel, is it? Christ, a Mustang Mach 1 can and will match a Prelude or Celica (at least when they're geared either like Brad's Celica or Boz Mon's Preludes) on the freeway in terms of fuel economy, and that's with a 4.6L V8 tuned to make torque a bit higher up and running 3.55 gears and a .62? overdrive.

So let me get this straight. You seriously think that 3.8L V6 in my Lancer would still get 30mpg on my morning city drive and 25mpg in my afternoon drive (full rush hour for my afternoon drive, literally bumper to bumper traffic, stop, drive up to 20-30km/h for a few seconds, then stop again, repeat a dozen times). You must be out of your mind. If all you're considering is highway mileage, then that's useless. I can get 45mpg out of my Lancer if I'm doing 90-95km/h constant and staying behind some other car so I could use that sort of mentality as well for highway and claim crazy numbers that your 3.8L V6 won't be ever able to match. And I doubt you'll get 30mpg at 75mph/120km/h which is what I get at that speed. City mileage is the one that's important however.

 

[homeforsummer]

Ford does need the euro models... Though not necessarily with the same badging. Fiesta ain't going to fly in the US. Just no. There's too much of a "oh, that's a little pile of dog crap" idea about anything called a Ford Fiesta. Focus might be able to get away with it. The Mondeo could be badged up as a Mercury and sold that way... Giving Ford a reason to keep Mercury alive AND finding a slot for the Mondeo. Mercury Marquis (note lack of a "Grand") makes its return?

I'm sure Ford could import the Fiesta as long as it wasn't called that. The car itself (well, the new gen Fiesta that's coming soon) will be good enough, bigger than the Mini which sells well there, but the name doesn't fit and I think it has a bad reputation.

I mean... bloody awful colour, but I'm sure this would sell:

 

[Jim Prower]

Oh, I dont' know...they could have an ad campaign, "Not FESTIVA, it's a FIESTA!!!"

Something like that could get stuck in people's heads. Make it really goofy, too, add a mariachi band in there somewhere.

 

[Tornado]

I think you're being nieve if you believe that diesel engined cars will not become common place in the US within the next 5 years. They're coming, get used to it.

Actually, that's something I wouldn't bet money on. I doubt they will ever match the comparative sales of diesels to petrol in Europe. What I bet is that they will sell more, but as diesel gets farther and farther away from the price of 87 octane, I dunno how much we can predict they will sell. Remember, diesel has gone from being around 20 cents cheaper than regular last year to about a dollar more expensive, and I don't think many are willing to gamble that it will stay that close just for a few MPG more.
I don't, however, think old American opinion of diesels is that relevant nowadays, because GM single handedly wrecked public opinion long enough ago that it probably doesn't matter, and many people have been driving diesel trucks for a while.

 

[Rotary Junkie]

So let me get this straight. You seriously think that 3.8L V6 in my Lancer would still get 30mpg on my morning city drive and 25mpg in my afternoon drive (full rush hour for my afternoon drive, literally bumper to bumper traffic, stop, drive up to 20-30km/h for a few seconds, then stop again, repeat a dozen times). You must be out of your mind. If all you're considering is highway mileage, then that's useless. I can get 45mpg out of my Lancer if I'm doing 90-95km/h constant and staying behind some other car so I could use that sort of mentality as well for highway and claim crazy numbers that your 3.8L V6 won't be ever able to match. And I doubt you'll get 30mpg at 75mph/120km/h which is what I get at that speed. City mileage is the one that's important however.

Actually...

30mpg is the norm at 75-80mph for an aerodynamic brick of a 1990 Buick Park Avenue with a 2.86 final and a .69 (iirc) overdrive ratio.

City in said car works out to about 23mpg. And it weighs damn near two tons. Then again... The "city" traffic it usually is subject to is not constant stop-and-go. It's a bit more open, but it's not just constant flow either.

I'm sure Ford could import the Fiesta as long as it wasn't called that. The car itself (well, the new gen Fiesta that's coming soon) will be good enough, bigger than the Mini which sells well there, but the name doesn't fit and I think it has a bad reputation.

I mean... bloody awful colour, but I'm sure this would sell:

Oh, I'm not doubting that it would sell; it looks GREAT. Issue is... Fiesta... NO! JUST NO! The American car-buying public will think "Oh, a new POS!".

Prower's idea is quite nice... In fact, that might work. Just some REALLY GOOFY advertising. Of any sort. 20 clowns jumping out of the new Fiesta or something...

 

[MustangSVT]

Actually...

30mpg is the norm at 75-80mph for an aerodynamic brick of a 1990 Buick Park Avenue with a 2.86 final and a .69 (iirc) overdrive ratio.

City in said car works out to about 23mpg. And it weighs damn near two tons. Then again... The "city" traffic it usually is subject to is not constant stop-and-go. It's a bit more open, but it's not just constant flow either

So you're saying that if me in my Lancer and you in a '90 Park Avenue go out for a highway drive, you don't think I'm gonna do better on gas? Surely someone else agrees with me that what you're saying is not possible. I don't understand how you can say that bigger displacement is better when the only cars getting better mileage than me are the 1.6 turbo diesels in Europe that can get like 50-60mpg on the highway which tells me smaller displacement (and a bit less weight) does better on gas by a long mile. And again you're stressing highway driving, when in fact, I would guess that the large majority of gas used up in North America comes from city driving, where again you're gonna get better gas with a smaller engine, not with a V6. I bet you'd get under 20mpg in said Park Avenue in the same city commute that I do 20 minutes each way to work everyday.

Also going by your quoting "30mpg" for a '90 Park Avenue, when it's rated for 27 highway, by the same reasoning my Lancer which is rated for 33.5 highway gets 36.5 and 36.5 is better than 30 so that's out the window.

 

[Rotary Junkie]

So you're saying that if me in my Lancer and you in a '90 Park Avenue go out for a highway drive, you don't think I'm gonna do better on gas? Surely someone else agrees with me that what you're saying is not possible. I don't understand how you can say that bigger displacement is better when the only cars getting better mileage than me are the 1.6 turbo diesels in Europe that can get like 50-60mpg on the highway which tells me smaller displacement (and a bit less weight) does better on gas by a long mile. And again you're stressing highway driving, when in fact, I would guess that the large majority of gas used up in North America comes from city driving, where again you're gonna get better gas with a smaller engine, not with a V6. I bet you'd get under 20mpg in said Park Avenue in the same city commute that I do 20 minutes each way to work everyday.

Also going by your quoting "30mpg" for a '90 Park Avenue, when it's rated for 27 highway, by the same reasoning my Lancer which is rated for 33.5 highway gets 36.5 and 36.5 is better than 30 so that's out the window.

I'm quoting 30mpg because that's what the damn thing gets, not tacking on 3mpg because I feel like it!

In fact... When my dad brought it up from Florida, it fluctuated between 30 and 36mpg the entire trip.

It'll do 20 flat in pure city driving at minimum. (Stopping every 1/4 to 1/2 mile)

You don't get it though... You realize how much you give up to get your extra fuel economy? Your Lancer is much smaller and lighter than a Buick Park Ave. It has a smaller engine. It is probably a stick. Tell me why you only get a few MPG over that brick.

 

[Joey D]

I even have to fill up the tank tomorrow so I'll take a photo of the receipt to prove to you what I put in and the trip meter to so how far I've gone.

Because I said I would:

Granted this is a more mixed highway/city environment on this tank, it's still quite good. 455.4 miles / 12.845gal = 35.45mpg.

===

Honestly I want to see a larger car that could pull off that kind of number.

 

[Tornado]

My dad's car doesn't get too awfully worse than that when my mom drives it.

 

[MustangSVT]

I'm quoting 30mpg because that's what the damn thing gets, not tacking on 3mpg because I feel like it!

In fact... When my dad brought it up from Florida, it fluctuated between 30 and 36mpg the entire trip.

It'll do 20 flat in pure city driving at minimum. (Stopping every 1/4 to 1/2 mile)

You don't get it though... You realize how much you give up to get your extra fuel economy? Your Lancer is much smaller and lighter than a Buick Park Ave. It has a smaller engine. It is probably a stick. Tell me why you only get a few MPG over that brick.

By the same mentality, I will claim how I get 32mpg in the city because that's what I was getting on average when I drove to school everyday (between September and April) since it was still in the city, but not doing rush hour and on some roads with 70kmh and one with 80kmh speed limit. Again, I guarantee you wouldn't get that sort of fuel consumption. What am I giving up? I'm not giving up anything. The Lancer is fine to seat 4 people, I can put stuff in the back, it's easy to park, handles great, can take corners very fast, and is fast enough to get you into trouble. Why would I want a boat of a car like the Park Avenue for city driving? And yes I have taken my Lancer on "road trips", have been twice to Saskatoon which is like 700-800km away and it satisfied my needs. And what does that have to do anything anyway. You're claiming that bigger displacement is better and that a 3.8L engine can get the same fuel consumption my Lancer gets, when in reality, that's a blatant lie.

Tell me why you only get a few MPG over that brick.

I just showed how depending on the situation, I can get up to 32 in the city. That's more than 50% better than the old Buick in the city. You think that's bad?

 

[mustangGT90210]

Because I said I would:

Granted this is a more mixed highway/city environment on this tank, it's still quite good. 455.4 miles / 12.845gal = 35.45mpg.

===

Honestly I want to see a larger car that could pull off that kind of number.

Well, a Ford Escape 2.3L 4-pot will pull 28-29mpg all day in 100% mix driving

I find it amazing that your car only gets 6-7 more mpg's than the overweight escape!

 

[Rotary Junkie]

By the same mentality, I will claim how I get 32mpg in the city because that's what I was getting on average when I drove to school everyday (between September and April) since it was still in the city, but not doing rush hour and on some roads with 70kmh and one with 80kmh speed limit. Again, I guarantee you wouldn't get that sort of fuel consumption. What am I giving up? I'm not giving up anything. The Lancer is fine to seat 4 people, I can put stuff in the back, it's easy to park, handles great, can take corners very fast, and is fast enough to get you into trouble. Why would I want a boat of a car like the Park Avenue for city driving? And yes I have taken my Lancer on "road trips", have been twice to Saskatoon which is like 700-800km away and it satisfied my needs. And what does that have to do anything anyway. You're claiming that bigger displacement is better and that a 3.8L engine can get the same fuel consumption my Lancer gets, when in reality, that's a blatant lie.

Face, meet palm. Palm, meet face.

I'm not claiming that more displacement is the damned answer. I want to know why yesterday's bricks aren't horribly much worse on gas than today's.

I did claim that a 3800 with some tall gears behind it will match your Lancer in city driving in a car that is about the same weight as your Lancer. And promptly eat it on the freeway. It may be a slight exaggeration, but not too much.

I just showed how depending on the situation, I can get up to 32 in the city. That's more than 50% better than the old Buick in the city. You think that's bad?

Simple answer: Yes.

 

[Joey D]

Well, a Ford Escape 2.3L 4-pot will pull 28-29mpg all day in 100% mix driving

I find it amazing that your car only gets 6-7 more mpg's than the overweight escape!

The tank was still probably 75% city driving. I haven't done a proper highway drive yet. Honestly though how easy do you have to drive the Escape to get that sort of mileage? I have a really heavy foot, run the A/C, and let the car idle quite a bit...I'm not an ideal fuel consumer.

 

[mustangGT90210]

The tank was still probably 75% city driving. I haven't done a proper highway drive yet. Honestly though how easy do you have to drive the Escape to get that sort of mileage? I have a really heavy foot, run the A/C, and let the car idle quite a bit...I'm not an ideal fuel consumer.

A/C is always on, and shift point is max of 3,000RPM.

Get out of 3rd and into 4th at 40mph then into 5th anywhere 45-50 or more.

 

[Joey D]

I still have a hard time believing the Escape gets that, but I don't own one so I can't really make an accurate judgment on it. If you guys have one though that is fairly impressive for an SUV. I wonder what sort of mileage I could get if I didn't have a heavy foot?

 

[Philly]

Actually, that's something I wouldn't bet money on. I doubt they will ever match the comparative sales of diesels to petrol in Europe. What I bet is that they will sell more, but as diesel gets farther and farther away from the price of 87 octane, I dunno how much we can predict they will sell. Remember, diesel has gone from being around 20 cents cheaper than regular last year to about a dollar more expensive, and I don't think many are willing to gamble that it will stay that close just for a few MPG more.
I don't, however, think old American opinion of diesels is that relevant nowadays, because GM single handedly wrecked public opinion long enough ago that it probably doesn't matter, and many people have been driving diesel trucks for a while.

I've been hearing that petrol prices should start catching up to diesel prices by the end of summer. And, because so much of the country's industry runs on diesel, I think diesel prices would have to level off before we start adding to the recession our country is already headed for. Meanwhile, very little industry and most of the private sector run off gasoline, so prices of that will be able to keep going up and as people run out of money, they will start to hop on the bus or get a smaller car. You can go from your Suburban to a MINI, but not from a diesel Cat to something smaller.

Well, a Ford Escape 2.3L 4-pot will pull 28-29mpg all day in 100% mix driving

I find it amazing that your car only gets 6-7 more mpg's than the overweight escape!

That is slightly questionable. I'm getting 24 with my current mixed driving, although I have a pretty heavy right foot. 21 all city and high twenties on the highway. And that's with a 3300 pound car with a 2 liter.

As for that small difference, if the Escape's numbers are true, it is quite tough to squeeze extra MPGs out of the car once you get into the 30s I think.

The tank was still probably 75% city driving. I haven't done a proper highway drive yet. Honestly though how easy do you have to drive the Escape to get that sort of mileage? I have a really heavy foot, run the A/C, and let the car idle quite a bit...I'm not an ideal fuel consumer.

Those numbers you're getting there are pretty amazing. Although, being in Michigan, I would guess that your city driving isn't all that much different from our highway driving. It is still pretty impressive that you can get those kinds on numbers out of that thing.

 

[Rotary Junkie]

If it's a FWD Escape, sadly, it doesn't weigh much more than your Golf, Philly.

 

[mustangGT90210]

I still have a hard time believing the Escape gets that, but I don't own one so I can't really make an accurate judgment on it. If you guys have one though that is fairly impressive for an SUV. I wonder what sort of mileage I could get if I didn't have a heavy foot?

I found it amazing when my mom and I calculated that. We're consistently getting 28-29 sharing the driving.

Without a heavy foot I bet you could get high 30's for your mix driving.


EPA for '06 Escape 2.2L is 22/27

 

[harrytuttle]

Less efficient engines use more fuel. Period. Cheater gear ratios only go so far to negate that fact. The fact of the matter is that more efficient engines will soon become more common (as they are in Europe) because less efficient engines are less efficient.

Phixed. (Up to a certain degree, size has nothing to do with it...which, strangely enough, was your point in the ZR-1 thread.)

You are deluded if you think that larger, torquier engines are what is needed to help solve problems at the pump; funnily enough, your own Mustang example betrays you.

Seconded. Why do people let their personal preferences color their objectivity...oh, wait.

Oh, I'm not doubting that it would sell; it looks GREAT. Issue is... Fiesta... NO! JUST NO! The American car-buying public will think "Oh, a new POS!".

Eh. Just rename it and the dim-witted public will buy it up. Judging by the sales numbers and cars on the road, cars like the Mini/Fit/Yaris do just fine. Many buyers would be happy should Ford follow suit, even if they're 3 years late to the game...again.

But, yes, the Fiesta/Festiva does not have a good reputation here. They need to pull a new name out of their hat if that car is going to do anything but gather dust.

 

[Sniffs]

rotary junky's right, I hate to tell you.

that monster Park Ave is a NINTEY. the engine is a leftover from america's 80's econo-tuning era, and probably with a lower than usual compression ratio. also, the ave is a member of the US Jellybean design group that perdominated from the mid eighties to the mid ninties. we're talking a half decent CoD, here.

I got something close to that when I had to bum a well worn Taurus. with a load on, i was still estimating 27 per.

unfortunatly, in the US once something gets a rep, it keeps it forever...specially if it's a BAD rep. curved shapes were dissed for being overdone (third gen Taurus, anyone?), and thus dropped, Renault sent us the crap the usually reserved for their overseas Departments, and got the boot. Wagons/Estates, and now Minivans, have a rep for being "mom-mobiles" ONLY. thus, sales disintigrated. the last wagon in the US is on the chopping block. I wouldn't be suprised one DROP if SUV's suddenly disappeared COMPLETELY after this, even if their needed!

 

[Tornado]

Phixed. (Up to a certain degree, size has nothing to do with it...which, strangely enough, was your point in the ZR-1 thread.)




Seconded. Why do people let their personal preferences color their objectivity...oh, wait.

You'll note that I stopped bothering with this discussion when I changed my mind in the Corvette thread.

 

[niky]

Technology moves. New cars have the double whammy of tighter emissions restrictions (which always means less torque for the amount of fuel, compression and ignition advance you put in) and more weight per usable volume due to crash standards and refinement.

Back in the early 90's, you could get 40s with a Civic. Heck, the Suzuki hypermilers often get way into the 50's on decade-old cars with normal driving.

Nowadays, with all the heehaw over NOx, particulates and sulfur emissions, good luck building a brand new big engine that can achieve fuel economy figures that'll match the high-milers... that will sell. You'd likely have to make it so pathetically weak that people wouldn't buy it anyway.

My 2-liter car, personally, is a gas hog. But that's because it's making about 90 hp per liter (chasing the magic 100 hp). But back when it was still stock, I could get nearly 40 mpg on the highway. Still could, I guess, if I tuned it for ultra-lean burn and sacrificed maybe 30 hp in timing and exhaust work. But I don't really feel like it. I like my car fine, the way it is.

Very few cars that can get over 40, nowadays... due to the extra weight... but a few, notably the Yaris and the Fit, can get around 45 mpg when driven right. "Right" meaning driven the way they're meant to be driven, at their natural cruising speed and not the EPA-mandated American highway speeds in testing.

 

[Sniffs]

*grin* niky's been keeping up with american testing regs, I see. yes, they estimate everything based on interstate running, and an average speed of 45, i think.

I'm guessing that american cars have over 200 kilos or 500lbs of added necessary safety equipment nowadays...usually 4-6 airbags and braces in the doors. plus, comfort items are now stock in american cars (and in some locations, Air is an absolute necessity).
just think, up into the eighties, radios and rear defrosters were expensive as crap options!

the only thing I find really odd is that only in the states are manufacturers required to have anything on the SIDE of the car that's night lit. everybody else seems to get away with headlights, taillights, driving lights, and rear fogs.

 

[YSSMAN]

Yeah, We're Getting This... After a Bit of Delay...

Finally. The European Ford Focus will go into production in the United States in 2010 along with the Fiesta. This has been officially confirmed by Ford, which will offer the Euro Focus here in both four- and five-door body styles. That's not the only news, either. Production of large trucks and SUVs will be further dialed back for the remainder of this year, and the introduction of the new F-150 pickup truck has been pushed back two months to "late fall". The catalyst for all this? Expensive gas, the new boogeyman that has people running from trucks and SUVs en masse. The F-150 delay is designed to give dealers more time to thin out existing '08 truck inventory before the new pickup arrives in the fall. On the flipside, Ford will add shifts to increase production of the current Focus, Mariner/Escape, Edge/MKX, and the new Flex. In the end, however, expect more red ink on the balance sheet, as Ford states that its pre-tax Automotive results will fall short of 2007's, and follows that up with an announcement that it expects Ford Motor Credit to post a loss, as well.

 

[ROAD_DOGG33J]

There's no 3-door?

 

[McLaren]

2010? Bah, 1 year late then for the 2009 RS model.

 

[niky]

*grin* niky's been keeping up with american testing regs, I see. yes, they estimate everything based on interstate running, and an average speed of 45, i think.

I'm guessing that american cars have over 200 kilos or 500lbs of added necessary safety equipment nowadays...usually 4-6 airbags and braces in the doors. plus, comfort items are now stock in american cars (and in some locations, Air is an absolute necessity).
just think, up into the eighties, radios and rear defrosters were expensive as crap options!

the only thing I find really odd is that only in the states are manufacturers required to have anything on the SIDE of the car that's night lit. everybody else seems to get away with headlights, taillights, driving lights, and rear fogs.

Actually, I thought it was more like 60...

200 kilos... not just the add-ons... The local race school runs Mark II Focus Diesels, and stripping it of all un-necessary weight lowers the weight from 1475 to just under 1400 kgs. There's a lot of weight in the diesel lump, yes, but there's a ton of weight in the crash structure. That's why a damned Honda Fit still weighs 1000 kgs.

---


Oh, on the Focus note... that's an ugly grille lip... ewww...