# 67 MPG (US) Ford Focus ECOnetic announced



## begreen (Apr 8, 2011)

Announced today, nice looking in sedan and wagon. 103hp turbo diesel. Unfortunately not sold here. This has to change. 

http://www.insideline.com/ford/focus/67-mpg-ford-focus-econetic-debuts.html


----------



## smokinj (Apr 8, 2011)

My friend had a escort diesel back in the day. That thing would run forever on a tank of fuel. Look really funny filling up at the truck stop.


----------



## Jags (Apr 8, 2011)

BeGreen said:
			
		

> This has to change.



It makes me scratch my head every time I think about it.  Even if it didn't meet our per gallon emissions, it only uses 25% of the fuel I am currently using.  You can't tell me that it misses the emission mark by that kind of percentage.


----------



## briansol (Apr 8, 2011)

the US has been getting screwed on cars for 40 years.  nothing new.

Ford makes some NICE cars out of the US.  the aussie Falcon is awesome. I'd buy one today.  But they don't exist here.   Same deal with some focus trims.


----------



## TMonter (Apr 9, 2011)

Jags said:
			
		

> BeGreen said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



There is no "per gallon" emissions is why. The EPA's formula is created by idiotic bureaucrats who are completely clueless when it comes to emissions but of course they allow military vehicles and government vehicles and installations to continue to pollute with little or no repercussions.


----------



## jdemaris (Apr 9, 2011)

BeGreen said:
			
		

> Announced today, nice looking in sedan and wagon. 103hp turbo diesel. Unfortunately not sold here. This has to change.



67 MPG with the British test ratings probably equals around 58-60 MPG USA EPA highway ratings.

Sounds good, but I'd like to see actual road tests in real life with production vehicles.

My 91 low-tech Volkswagen 1.6 diesel Jetta has gotten a best of 51 MPG but 47 is the usually highway average.

My 81 Chevy Chevettte 1.8 diesel gets a best of 48 MPG (US gallons - not Canadian or British).

Not as good as the new Ford projections and neither as powerful.  But both cruise at 75 MPH just fine which is OK with me.


----------



## EatenByLimestone (Apr 9, 2011)

I like the Jetta TDI.   I'd love to have the cash to get one.  

Matt


----------



## begreen (Apr 9, 2011)

jdemaris said:
			
		

> BeGreen said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Note that the title says 67 mpg (US). The Focus ECOnetic is expected to use less than 3.5 litres of diesel per 100 kilometers (67 mpg US) and to deliver CO2 emissions of less than 95g/km when certification is completed later this year.


----------



## Flatbedford (Apr 9, 2011)

I would buy it. I have an '06 Focus that has just over 100K on it. In that time I have only done oil changes, replaced tires and had the front brake pads replaced and rotors turned. On my 80 mile, mostly highway commute, it gets about 31 mpg. I would love to cut my fuel consumption in half. Please Detroit, bring the small diesels to the US!


----------



## jdemaris (Apr 9, 2011)

BeGreen said:
			
		

> Note that the title says 67 mpg (US). The Focus ECOnetic is expected to use less than 3.5 litres of diesel per 100 kilometers (67 mpg US) and to deliver CO2 emissions of less than 95g/km when certification is completed later this year.



Yes, it states 67 statute miles per United States liquid gallon, but the figure is for the British Test Cycle.  From what I've see with other cars and tests. the EPA highway rating will be around 5-7 MPG less.  Time will tell when the car actually gets built, sold, and tested.

Still a good figure, but not what I'd consider a huge leap since I can get 50 MPG with my 91 Volkswagen.

I used to have an 80s Honda CRX HF with a gas engine that just about always got better then 50 MPG on the highway. 

Right now, with the diesel 40 cents more per gallon then gas, I suspect that Honda would be near as cheap to drive as a new diesel Focus. It was smaller though.


----------



## begreen (Apr 10, 2011)

Could you point out where the British test cycle figure is used? I have reread the article and a few others on this car and don't see the reference. You could be correct, but I don't see the connection.

FWIW, the release is expected and real unless the EU shuts down. Why the skepticism?


----------



## jdemaris (Apr 10, 2011)

BeGreen said:
			
		

> Could you point out where the British test cycle figure is used? I have reread the article and a few others on this car and don't see the reference. You could be correct, but I don't see the connection.
> 
> FWIW, the release is expected and real unless the EU shuts down. Why the skepticism?



From what I've read, the better question is where do you NOT see it mentioned?

I've probably read through 20 different Web-announcements from all over the world and they are seem to be citing the same information source.

"The 1.6 TDCi is rated on the European driving cycle at the U.S. equivalent of 67 mpg."

Where are you NOT finding this?


----------



## jdemaris (Apr 10, 2011)

BeGreen said:
			
		

> Could you point out where the British test cycle figure is used? I have reread the article and a few others on this car and don't see the reference. You could be correct, but I don't see the connection.
> 
> FWIW, the release is expected and real unless the EU shuts down. Why the skepticism?



Not total skepticism on my part.  My opinion is based on what I've seen in the past 60 years, over and over. EPA specs are usually lower then Bristish test-cycle specs.   Claims of new cars not yet actually tested in the real world often wind up being a little less. If not, that's fine with me. I am a new Ford fan since they are the only self-owned USA car company left.

If I have any innate skepticism, it is about the USA-American consumer in general.  Autos built primarily for fuel efficiency have never been good sellers here.  Gas or diesel. Not unless there was a big fuel crunch going on, that is often regarded as temporary.  I've seen it happen several times in my lifetime, including back when we had odd and even number license plates and could only buy gas on the correct day.

My 80s Honda CRX  got over 50 MPG on reg. gas.  My 91 Volkswagen diesel gets up to 50 MPG. My 81 Chevy Chevette 4-door diesel gets a best aorund 46 MPG.   Now, in 2012 - to me a big jump would be a small car that gets maybe 70 or 80 MPG?  Considering the price of a new car, the 40 cents more per gallon now for diesel, the lower energy in today's diesel, and the difficulty of repair on new tech cars- seems some of the older high-mileage cars were, and still are, pretty good.

Here are some of the claims I see repeated all over the Net - often reworded and paraphrased.

â€œIt's based on the regular Focus model, but it features a series of efficiency tweaks to push fuel consumption down to 3.5 liters/100km in the European cycle (that's 67 MPG in US gallons, though it would probably be a bit lower on the US testing cycle). â€œ

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x839478

â€œThe 1.6 TDCi is rated on the European driving cycle at the U.S. equivalent of 67 mpg.â€

http://www.insideline.com/ford/focus/67-mpg-ford-focus-econetic-debuts.html


â€œFord claims that the Focus Econetic can achieve up to 80 mpg on the European testing cycle, or about 67 mpg here in the U.S.â€

http://www.autoblog.com/2011/04/06/ford-shows-off-66-mpg-focus-econetic-ahead-of-amsterdam-debut/

http://green.autoblog.com/2011/04/07/ford-shows-off-66-mpg-focus-econetic-ahead-of-amsterdam-debut/


----------



## begreen (Apr 10, 2011)

Still didn't read anything about a British testing cycle. The first quote is just a forum opinion. The more telling info comes from the autoblog posts which indicate the adjustment (80mpg in Europe ending up being about 67mpg here) has already been applied. 

We'll see. I hope it's a winner. Like you said earlier, the proof of the pudding will be once the car is on the market and tested.


----------



## peedenmark7 (Apr 11, 2011)

67 mpg ?  I drove a '67 big block Buick GS for many years... I like that idea better


----------



## begreen (Apr 11, 2011)

That's quickly becoming an anachronism.


----------



## jdemaris (Apr 11, 2011)

BeGreen said:
			
		

> Still didn't read anything about a British testing cycle. The first quote is just a forum opinion. The more telling info comes from the autoblog posts which indicate the adjustment (80mpg in Europe ending up being about 67mpg here) has already been applied.
> 
> We'll see. I hope it's a winner. Like you said earlier, the proof of the pudding will be once the car is on the market and tested.



Ford has mentioned the British Test Cycle many times in their own projections.

Granted that some the news posted have it written where it is up to interpretation.

Fords claims are not.  

Ford claims that the Focus Econetic can achieve up to 80 mpg on the European testing cycle, or about 67 mpg here in the U.S
That does not mean 67 MPG with US testing. It means that original 80 MPG uses British gallons, and when that same figure it conveted to US gallons, ti's only 67.

67 miles/gallon(US) = 80.4 miles/gallon(UK) and  3.5 liters/100 km


----------



## Jags (Apr 11, 2011)

jdemaris said:
			
		

> It means that original 80 MPG uses British gallons, and when that same figure it conveted to US gallons, ti's only 67.
> 
> 67 miles/gallon(US) = 80.4 miles/gallon(UK) and  3.5 liters/100 km



I believe that is EXACTLY what BG was sayin'

That car in the USA with USA gallons should test out at 67 mpg.


----------



## jdemaris (Apr 11, 2011)

Jags said:
			
		

> jdemaris said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



No.  That 67 MPG USA is miles-per-US gallon with the British Test Cycle, NOT the EPA test.  The EPA test always shows less. It is NOT equal to the British Test.

Pretty simple math.  Ford projects 80 MPG with the British test cycle and with the larger UK gallons.  The same equals 67 US gallons, just by math. No adjustment has been posted to change that high British Test Cycle number - down to the EPA  number. 

67 MPG (with US gallons) adjusted to the US EPA figures comes to around 60 MPG. 

Some of this makes me laugh bit since there have been problems for years when US people see European mileage projectiions and think we here in the US are getting ripped off.   Yes, we don't get the true economy cars many do in Europe, but much is hyped due to bad conversions.   Different test cycles and larger gallons in the UK and Canada.  Next time you see a Canadian brag that a full size diesel Chevy pickup truck is getting 27 MPG, that's why.  27 MPG in Canada is only 22 MPG in the USA - with the same truck when tested exactly the same.


----------



## Jags (Apr 11, 2011)

jdemaris said:
			
		

> Jags said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



If that is in fact the method of the tests, thank you for clarifying.  It is somewhat muddled info.


----------



## begreen (Apr 11, 2011)

It's all speculation until we see some actual road mileage figures. EPA figures don't represent real world either. I know of several Prius owners that have steadily managed to exceed EPA test mileage. It depends a lot on the local terrain, temperature, wind, and the weight of the driver's right foot.


----------



## Seasoned Oak (Apr 14, 2011)

Perhaps automakers think theres no money to be made trying to outdo each other in the high MPG wars


----------



## begreen (Apr 14, 2011)

As gas prices jump upward, just the opposite is happening. Right now there is a surge in high mpg car sales.


----------



## mayhem (Apr 14, 2011)

Incredibly promising Focus, this sort of thing needs to come to the US.  I have high hopes that the newer deisels in the BMW 3 series and VW's are going to go a long way to changing US attitudes in general about deisels...unfortunately much of our national perception of deisels is based on the horrible GM gas-deisel converted cars from the late 70's.  They don't sounds like dump trucks anymore, nor do they spew massive clouds of black soot everywhere.

Been wondering why hybrid car's don't use small turbodeisels and work more like a deisel-electric locomotive.  You could run a little 2 cylinder turbodeisel as an electric generator and do away with most of the heavy weight and high cost of a hybrid...the batteries and just run a small bank of batteries to hold enough charge to filter out any power spikes and run the accessories for a couple hours or so.


----------



## Flatbedford (Apr 14, 2011)

mayhem said:
			
		

> Been wondering why hybrid car's don't use small turbodeisels and work more like a deisel-electric locomotive.  You could run a little 2 cylinder turbodeisel as an electric generator and do away with most of the heavy weight and high cost of a hybrid...the batteries and just run a small bank of batteries to hold enough charge to filter out any power spikes and run the accessories for a couple hours or so.



I don't understand that either. I am no engineer, but I imagine that a small diesel powered generator could recharge batteries efficiently and cleanly too. If the generator runs at a constant speed emissions and economy could maximized as well.


----------



## Seasoned Oak (Apr 14, 2011)

BeGreen said:
			
		

> As gas prices jump upward, just the opposite is happening. Right now there is a surge in high mpg car sales.



As the US automakers pointed out many times there is not much profit to be had selling small cars. High MPG cars tend to be small.
Sales and profit do not always go hand in hand. Now that GM and Chrysler have unloaded a lot of baggage perhaps they can sell small cars at a profit now.


----------



## MishMouse (Apr 14, 2011)

If you go to Ford's European Site http://www.ford.co.uk/ and look around there you will see that Ford makes some fairly big cars that get good MPG.  Its just that they are not sold here.


----------



## begreen (Apr 14, 2011)

mayhem said:
			
		

> Incredibly promising Focus, this sort of thing needs to come to the US.  I have high hopes that the newer deisels in the BMW 3 series and VW's are going to go a long way to changing US attitudes in general about deisels...unfortunately much of our national perception of deisels is based on the horrible GM gas-deisel converted cars from the late 70's.  They don't sounds like dump trucks anymore, nor do they spew massive clouds of black soot everywhere.
> 
> Been wondering why hybrid car's don't use small turbodeisels and work more like a deisel-electric locomotive.  You could run a little 2 cylinder turbodeisel as an electric generator and do away with most of the heavy weight and high cost of a hybrid...the batteries and just run a small bank of batteries to hold enough charge to filter out any power spikes and run the accessories for a couple hours or so.



Citroen/Peugeot has been working on that approach I think. Also, there is a little trailer being designed for the Nissan Leaf that contains an aux. battery pack and a small diesel generator.


----------



## begreen (Apr 14, 2011)

MishMouse said:
			
		

> If you go to Ford's European Site http://www.ford.co.uk/ and look around there you will see that Ford makes some fairly big cars that get good MPG.  Its just that they are not sold here.



Yes, there is a shifting in the market. The auto dealers are finding that folks that buy a small car don't necessarily want a barebones box. This is the way small cars used to be made, some were absolutely spartan. Nowadays, the market for well-equipped small cars is doing quite well. Look at the success of the BMW Mini for example.


----------



## Seasoned Oak (Apr 14, 2011)

mayhem said:
			
		

> .unfortunately much of our national perception of deisels is based on the horrible GM gas-deisel converted cars from the late 70's.  They don't sounds like dump trucks anymore, nor do they spew massive clouds of black soot everywhere.
> 
> .


 Well they(GM)really vindicated themselves with the Duramax diesel  6.6 They been putting in HD pickup trucks since 2001.
Those babies are bulletproof , have 2 in the family. First diesel i ever saw that could squeal the tires. Ford and Dodge have been playin catch up ever since. Amazing MPG as well low 20s on the Hwy for a 6500LB truck empty. 3970HP 765 Ftlbs torque.
  Engine can be dialed up to 600 HP quite easily with a simple Mod although you may void the warranty.  
They also have a little brother the 4.5 Duramax waiting in the wings. was about to launch it for light duty suberban ,van, 1/2 ton PU ect when the bottom fell out on the truck market in 08. I hear they can do mid-high 20s MPG


----------



## Jags (Apr 15, 2011)

trump said:
			
		

> They also have a little brother the 4.5 Duramax waiting in the wings. was about to launch it for light duty suberban ,van, 1/2 ton PU ect when the bottom fell out on the truck market in 08. I hear they can do mid-high 20s MPG



If they are not jumping all over that RIGHT NOW, they are fools.  One of the reasons that the foreign competitors were/are so successful is that they are more nimble getting to the market with a product that is being sought.  Why would they sit on such a thing?  There IS a CURRENT market for such things.  (look at how the Dodge sprinter came into the market).


----------



## Flatbedford (Apr 15, 2011)

Jags said:
			
		

> There IS a CURRENT market for such things.  (look at how the Dodge sprinter came into the market).



...or the Mitsubishi Fuso, or the Izuzu, or the one that International and Ford sell. There have been small fuel efficient diesel trucks in the US for years , but only in the commercial market.


----------



## Seasoned Oak (Apr 15, 2011)

Jags said:
			
		

> trump said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The buzz is they are preparing it again for launch,i guess they are busy with the volt,and the truck market is once again declining but i would think this particular model would sell well.


----------



## begreen (Apr 15, 2011)

BeGreen said:
			
		

> Citroen/Peugeot has been working on that approach I think. Also, there is a little trailer being designed for the Nissan Leaf that contains an aux. battery pack and a small diesel generator.



My error, it's not for the Leaf. Looks like it might be a Mopar product designed for the Bambini. It costs almost as much as the car and it actually pushes the car to expend range. 

http://green.autoblog.com/2010/11/02/emav-thinks-up-the-pru-a-sleek-power-trailer-for-your-electric/

has already been done in this neat project:

http://www.mrsharkey.com/pusher.htm


----------



## begreen (Apr 15, 2011)

Flatbedford said:
			
		

> Jags said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Funny, in the past couple days I just happened to have followed late-80's Toyota and Isuzu diesel pickups. They seemed to be running strong still.


----------



## Flatbedford (Apr 15, 2011)

Don't for get the VW Diesel pickup of the late '70s
http://www.mpgomatic.com/45_MPG_Pickup_Truck.html


----------



## begreen (Apr 15, 2011)

Yes, I knew a friend that had that truck, twas quite the dog, but reliable. What surprised me about the Toyota and Isuzu was how well they were accelerating up a fairly steep hill. I was thinking I was going to have to pass them, but they kept right up with traffic.


----------



## Flatbedford (Apr 15, 2011)

I think that the need for every vehicle to be fast is not helping the fuel efficiency thing. There was a time that trucks went up hills slowly and that was OK. Why do light trucks have to have the same horsepower as medium duty trucks when they are run empty or nearly empty most of the time? I want a full size 4x4 pickup with a diesel engine with similar power and torque output as the 300 cid inline six that my '83 Ford F250 had. I think it was rated at about 120 hp and 200 ftlb torque. It was no dragster, but it could move anything as long as I was not in a big hurry. It got around 15 mpg. A diesel with similar output would surely use much less fuel than that and still make the truck quite capable, especially with a modern 5 or 6 speed transmission.


----------



## begreen (Apr 15, 2011)

True. Reliable, efficient and gets the job done are good attributes for a truck. Speed is not everything.


----------



## Jags (Apr 15, 2011)

Flatbedford said:
			
		

> I think that the need for every vehicle to be fast is not helping the fuel efficiency thing. There was a time that trucks went up hills slowly and that was OK. Why do light trucks have to have the same horsepower as medium duty trucks when they are run empty or nearly empty most of the time? I want a full size 4x4 pickup with a diesel engine with similar power and torque output as the 300 cid inline six that my '83 Ford F250 had. I think it was rated at about 120 hp and 200 ftlb torque. It was no dragster, but it could move anything as long as I was not in a big hurry. It got around 15 mpg. A diesel with similar output would surely use much less fuel than that and still make the truck quite capable, especially with a modern 5 or 6 speed transmission.



Flatbed - you have hit on a topic that I have stated many times.  I don't need a pickup that can squeal its tires with 3000 pounds in the bed.  It was on this forum in the past that I have stated - give me a 4x4 with the same performance as my jeep (230hp/230 ftlb of torque) and it will do everything that I will ask of it.  Heck in a diesel model that would equate to ~160hp.  AND...you could still get the economy side of the world.  I don't need a race truck.


----------



## begreen (Apr 15, 2011)

Not while you've got that racing chair!


----------



## Jags (Apr 15, 2011)

BeGreen said:
			
		

> Not while you've got that racing chair!



Hmmm...that would be quite a ride.

Naaa...if I wanna go have fun on the roads I pull the Challenger out of the shed.


----------



## Seasoned Oak (Apr 15, 2011)

Jags said:
			
		

> Flatbedford said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


THe reason GM dodge and Ford are duelling over HP and Torque is they are for pulling 17000 LB horse trailers ,campers, boats ect. with these HD trucks
Yes the 4.5 little duramax still has 300HP which is plenty for a light duty truck or suv ,even more than enough. 300hp means more in a diesel than it does in a gasser.


----------



## Jags (Apr 15, 2011)

trump said:
			
		

> Yes the 4.5 little duramax still has 300HP which is plenty for a light duty truck or suv ,even more than enough.



That is my point exactly.  Why 300HP at (probably) 400ftlbs of torque?  I pull my utility trailer with 3000 pound loads or my fishing boat with ease with my 235 ftlbs of torque Jeep.  I mean really easy.  As in it doesn't come out of overdrive, unless climbing a fairly steep hill.  It has more acceleration than I use (or would want to for that matter).


----------



## jdemaris (Apr 15, 2011)

Flatbedford said:
			
		

> I want a full size 4x4 pickup with a diesel engine with similar power and torque output as the 300 cid inline six that my '83 Ford F250 had. I think it was rated at about 120 hp and 200 ftlb torque. .



GM tried it starting in 1982 up to early 90s and sales were lousy. GM is the only one that made an effort to put a low power diesel for their own design in a full-size half-ton truck.

I suspect one problem is that USA-Americans seem convinced that diesels are more powerful than gas engines - and actually it's the opposite.   I know when the 6.2 (378 c.i.) diesels came out, many new owners thought they ought to have more power then 350 gasers instead of less.   Seems even today, many still believe the "more power" myth.  Even the story about diesels having more torque is not true.    Take a gas engine and a diesel engine with the same bore and stroke and the gas will have more horsepower, and more or equal torque at the same RPMs.  It just so happens that since diesels are usually made for HD use, they tend to have long stroke versus smaller bore -which makes torque.  Gas engines in cars are usually oposite.  Big bore and short stroke to make high RPMs. 

In the auto industry, it is rare to find a gas and diesel with the same bore and stroke,  It is very comon though with farm tractors and all the test specs are around to be read.  As I recall, the only engine made by one of the big three that came as gas or diesel was the late 70s, early 80s Oldsmobile 350.   Same bore and stroke for each and the gas version had more horsepower and more torque.  Isuzu and Nissan also did it, but just with small engines.  1.8 Isuzu diesel used in Chevy Chevettes and Isuzu Imarks was also available in gas version.

The 6.2 V8 diesel that Detroit Diesel designed for GM was intended to be an equal power replacement for the 305 c.i. gas engine.  136 max. horse and 240 lbs. of torque at 2000 RPM.  Just about exactly the same max horse and torque as the 305, but could get 20 MPG instead of 14 MPG.

A few others tried but did even worse. Jeep with a Perkins diesel in the 60s, Dodge tried one year (1978) with a small 6 cylinder Mistubishi diesel, etc.

I don't believe anything has changed today. Low power vehicles made for utilty and fuel economy always fail in the USA except during times of crisis.

305 (5 liter) GM V8 gas engine - 140 horse at 4000 RPM and  235 lbs. torque at 2000 RPM.
378 (6.2 liter) GM V8 diesel engine - 130 horse at 3600 RPM and  240 lbs. torque at 2000 RPM.
300 (5 liter) Ford 300 in-line six - 115 horse at 3000 RPM and 223 lbs. torque as 1600 RPM.
243 (3.9 liter) Dodge-Mitsubishi in-line six - 100 horse at 3700 RPM and 165 lbs. torque at 2200 RPM.


----------



## begreen (Apr 16, 2011)

90's vintage 4 cyl Ranger or Toyota pickups are plentiful and sold well. There are many high milers still on the road today. They aren't fast and need to be geared down for power, but I have moved many cords of wood (and the Alderlea) by taking my time ours. Unloaded on the highway we get in the low 30mpg range. With my previous Ranger I could hit 35 mpg, mostly because there was nothing hanging on the engine besides the alternator and it had a manual, OD transmission. It was slow but steady. I sold it to a flooring installer who is still using it daily.


----------



## jdemaris (Apr 16, 2011)

BeGreen said:
			
		

> 90's vintage 4 cyl Ranger or Toyota pickups are plentiful and sold well. There are many high milers still on the road today. They aren't fast and need to be geared down for power, but I have moved many cords of wood (and the Alderlea) by taking my time ours. Unloaded on the highway we get in the low 30mpg range. With my previous Ranger I could hit 35 mpg, mostly because there was nothing hanging on the engine besides the alternator and it had a manual, OD transmission. It was slow but steady. I sold it to a flooring installer who is still using it daily.



I still have my 85 Isuzu 2.2 liter diesel 4WD PUP truck.  Great rig that gets around 33 MPG at best.  It's not a full-size truck though.   There were many "mini" diesel or not-quite-truck diesels made 60s-80s, None sold well including the Ford Rangers with the Mazda-Perkins diesels, Chevy S10s and GMC S15s with Isuzu diesels, Jeeps with Perkins diesels, IH Scouts with Nissan diesels, Chevy LUVs with Isuzu diesels, Dodge mini-Rams with Mitsubishi diesels, Volkswagen Rabbit diesel mini trucks, etc.  None sold well - but the Volkswagens had the biggest run.


----------



## begreen (Apr 16, 2011)

I should qualify my previous statement, our Rangers were gasoline vehicles and I was referring to the gas Toyota pickups which are as common as trees out here. Point being, there is a huge market for lower horsepower trucks. It just seemed that somewhere around 2000 marketing decided that trucks needed to be bigger, brawnier and more macho. I have to laugh because one day I was watching a poor sod loading his new Ford pickup with the tailgate like 4ft off the ground. I do half the lifting for the same load.


----------



## Flatbedford (Apr 16, 2011)

How about one of these with a Ford/Dodge/Chevy full size cab on it?
http://www.mitfuso.com/en-US/Models/FG4X4
4x4, 7k payload, 4cyl diesel.


----------



## begreen (Apr 16, 2011)

Displacement 183 cu. in (3.0 L)

Max. output (SAE, gross) 161 hp @ 3500 rpm

Max. torque (SAE, gross) 295 lb.-ft. @ 1600 rpm

And it has a cup holder! Sold.


----------



## Flatbedford (Apr 16, 2011)

That would be a perfect power plant for a full size pickup.


----------



## begreen (Apr 16, 2011)

Yep, gobs of low end diesel torque there.


----------



## Flatbedford (Apr 16, 2011)

Where I live probably 2/3 or more of the light trucks run by landscapers or Mitsubishi and probably 95% of the smaller delivery vans too. The domestic makers haven't even bothered to compete until a year or so ago when Ford and Navistar started selling these Mexican made trucks.
https://www.fleet.ford.com/showroom/2009fleetshowroom/2009-LCF.asp
http://www.internationaltrucks.com/Trucks/Trucks/Series/CityStar


----------



## Seasoned Oak (Apr 16, 2011)

A good solution for those needing a pickup from time to time is a trailer. Saw a guy with a Jetta diesel pulling a trailer full of wood. NO need for a separate low MPG vehicle.  A diesel pickup about the size of a ford ranger would sell like hotcakes. OR HOW ABOUT A PLUG IN OF ANY SIZE.


----------



## jdemaris (Apr 16, 2011)

trump said:
			
		

> A good solution for those needing a pickup from time to time is a trailer. Saw a guy with a Jetta diesel pulling a trailer full of wood. NO need for a separate low MPG vehicle.  A diesel pickup about the size of a ford ranger would sell like hotcakes. OR HOW ABOUT A PLUG IN OF ANY SIZE.



I've got two Jetta 1.6 diesels and don't regard ever pulling any trailer with wood as a viable option - unless I wanted to burn them up fast. Not even on a down-hill grade. Good little cars with fantastic fuel mileage - but they've got just enough power to pull themselves along with a few people inside. Also just enough drive-train to sustain normal use and just enough brakes for the normal load.   I've seen people do many things with over-loaded and/or over-stressed vehicles.  You can take a 1/4 or 1/2 ton truck and put 2 tons of wood on it and get along for awhile.  Doing it a few times is one thing and having the vehicle last is another.

As to small diesel pickups?  There have many very good ones sold in the USA since the 80s and none ever sold well.  And that was at a time when diesel fuel was substantially cheaper then regular gasoline, instead of 40 cents more per gallon.   IH Scout diesel, Ford Ranger diesel, Chevy and GMC S10/S15 diesels, Chevy LUV diesel, Isuzu PUP diesel, Toyota  and Nissan mini-pickup diesels, Dodge mini-Ram diesels, Volkswagen Rabbit pickups, etc.   A few years ago, Jeep released a diesel SUV version again - and sales were terrible.  Not quite a truck, but it DID have a small engine instead of a large V8.


----------



## jdemaris (Apr 16, 2011)

BeGreen said:
			
		

> I should qualify my previous statement, our Rangers were gasoline vehicles and I was referring to the gas Toyota pickups which are as common as trees out here. Point being, there is a huge market for lower horsepower trucks. It just seemed that somewhere around 2000 marketing decided that trucks needed to be bigger, brawnier and more macho. I have to laugh because one day I was watching a poor sod loading his new Ford pickup with the tailgate like 4ft off the ground. I do half the lifting for the same load.



I'm sure there's a time-lag, but the types of vehicles produced are a response to what comsumers tend to buy.   There are still four-cylinder gas trucks made every year, but they aren't common.  Much easier to find a small truck with a V6 and loaded with gobs of options.  Even the used car dealers do not want to take in four-cylinder, utilitarian trucks on trade - or buy for resale at auction. 

One of best small trucks I ever owned in my life was an 85 Toyota 2WD with a 2.4 four-cylinder engine, fours-speed manual trans, manual trans. roll-up windows, etc.  Got a best around 31  MPG which is pretty impressive for a non-overdrive mini-truck with a carburetor. I later had a 98 Ford Ranger 2WD with the 2.5 four-cylinder engine and 5 speed manual with over-drive and electronic fuel injection, OBII, etc.  It got a substantially less then my older Toyota - around 25-26 at best.   Not what I'm going to call a major leap in usefullness. 

I'm curious to see how the new ones do.  My in-laws traded in their 2001 AWD Ford Escape with the 3 liter V6 that got a best of 24  MPG.  They now have a 2011 Escape AWD with the 2.5 four-banger and it's getting near 30 MPG which is much better.  Seems it should do even better in a Ranger 2WD pickup.  But Ford doesn't offer that engine in the Ranger.


----------



## jdemaris (Apr 16, 2011)

Flatbedford said:
			
		

> How about one of these with a Ford/Dodge/Chevy full size cab on it?
> http://www.mitfuso.com/en-US/Models/FG4X4
> 4x4, 7k payload, 4cyl diesel.



I've used the Fuso trucks on the highways here in hilly NY.  Not the newest ones but I doubt there's much difference.  With a moderate load they get 17-20 MPG which is pretty impressive.  I also know of several full size pickup trucks with those engines transplanted.  Reports are around 23-26 MPG for best highway mileage. Not sure it's worth the expense of buidling one now though since diesel is often 40 cents more per gallon then regular gasoline.   A gas pickup truck that gets 21 MPG is just as cheap to drive as a diesel that gets 24 MPG.  Considering the extra expense of building or buying such a diesel truck - seems the potential savings aren't there any more.

Now, if they come out with a 1/2 ton pickup that gets 35 MPG or better, and diesel fuel doesn't get jacked way above gasoline - then I'd see a nice advantage.

Chevy/GM was also working on a small diesel-engine that runs on gasoline instead of diesel fuel. Not sure where that is at. The word "diesel" here meaning a compression-ignition engine.


----------



## maverick06 (Apr 17, 2011)

my vw jetta diesel has 157,000 miles and still gets 50-53mpg.   Thats hard to argue!


----------



## jdemaris (Apr 17, 2011)

maverick06 said:
			
		

> my vw jetta diesel has 157,000 miles and still gets 50-53mpg.   Thats hard to argue!



I've got a pair of 91 four-door 1.6 diesel Jettas. Both with manual trans and both have over 200K.  Back before the energy content got lowered in the new low-sulfur diesel -I could get around 51 MPG at best on a flat highway and no wind against me.  My 81 diesel four-door Chevette with the 1.8 diesel a little lower at 47 MPG.

Haven't done any testing with the "new" diesel with 5% less BTUs per gallon and priced at 40 cents more then regulaor gas.

All have been great cars.  Both the Volkswagens though have always run hot.  Never boiled over, but the needle is always toward the "very hot" zone. I tried to buy new radiators a while back and could not get one.  Only ones available were for non-AC diesel Jettas.  I got one and it won't fit. Totally different top hose-neck.  Since they've been running hot for over 10 years, I'll keep using as they are.


----------



## begreen (Apr 17, 2011)

trump said:
			
		

> OR HOW ABOUT A PLUG IN OF ANY SIZE.



http://www.phoenixmotorcars.com/

AWD,  SUT (sport utility truck). (Though I like to think of it as a sporty-looking utility truck.  )

 -- Unfortunately they went bankrupt, but it is a nice idea.


----------



## Seasoned Oak (Apr 18, 2011)

BeGreen said:
			
		

> trump said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Iv known about these for some time. THey were like $50000 if im  not mistaken, kind of small for that kind of dough. Id much rather convert my existing GM HD 2500 EX long box. Raser tech the company that builds the electric hummer has the best thing going today IMO.
THey convert hummers and full sized pickups with a 200HP electric motor and 40 mile range. THats something i can see myself driving in the near future. ALthough i think they only convert new trucks at this time. ID be willing to drop say $15,000 to convert my truck.


----------



## jdemaris (Apr 18, 2011)

trump said:
			
		

> THey convert hummers and full sized pickups with a 200HP electric motor and 40 mile range. THats something i can see myself driving in the near future. ALthough i think they only convert new trucks at this time. ID be willing to drop say $15,000 to convert my truck.



Mabye I'm missing something. In the USA, where's the electricity supposed to come from?  More coal burning?   At present, a electric vehicle in the USA is apt to just be a indirect coal-burning machine.

In many parts of Canada, there's a lot of "hydro" electric power availabe.  That tentatively makes more sense for electric vehicles but . . . I'm not sure if Canada has  a lot excess.  Some of it gets sold to the USA.

I've yet to see a workable plan - even on the drawing board - for making much more electric power in USA  so we can run cars, trucks, and trains with it.  As it stands now - we barely make enough to meet demand and most is from coal burning, along with old tires and waste motor oil thrown into the fire.  We're going to have problems meeting electric demand as it is  - without huge fleets of electric vehicles.   And when coal gets tougher to get?  Or Al Gore mangages to outlaw its use?  I suspect many who thought nuclear was the answer are know thinking twice about it.   I'm not saying there isn't an answer to be found - but it certainly hasn't been discovered or invented yet.  Pushing electric vehicles now is putting the "horse before the cart" to the extreme.


----------



## begreen (Apr 19, 2011)

Ironically, in the PacNW they are looking at tethering major wind farms out here because of a surplus of hydro due to an anticipate large spring snowmelt. This is why we need the smart grid.


----------



## mayhem (Apr 19, 2011)

trump said:
			
		

> mayhem said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I agree the newer deisels are great motors, but the problem is they're stuck in HD or heavier trucks.  While they do sell alot of those, the sales volume pales in comparison to a basic family car...or even a half ton truck.  When they screwed up the image of the deisel in the 70's, they were stuffing them under the hoods of station wagons and large sedans like Impalas or Caprices.  We need small, quiet, sootless, moderm 4 cylinder turbo-deisels in mainstream family cars like the Impala or 3 cylinder turbos in commuter cars like the Cobalt.

BMW, to their credit, is marketing their 3 series deisel pretty heavily and by all reports its a great car.  Love to try one out.


----------



## Highbeam (Apr 19, 2011)

"We need small, quiet, sootless, moderm 4 cylinder turbo-deisels in mainstream family cars like the Impala or 3 cylinder turbos in commuter cars like the Cobalt."

You can have that if you aren't an american.

Since you do live here, a Volkswagen TDI is very available and maybe the BMW will be good but likely very expensive. I don't drive a BMW becuase even the gas cars are very expensive. The VW diesel option has been available for quite sometime and even mercedes has had diesels in its modern fleet. 

Bottom line is that the diesel technology exists, is used in other countries in the SAME vehicles, but is somehow prevented from appearing on US soil.


----------



## maverick06 (Apr 25, 2011)

jdemaris said:
			
		

> but the needle is always toward the "very hot" zone.



Sounds like the thermostat is bad.... could be the temp sensor... or a radiator.... but probably the thermostat.


The diesel selection here in the us is highly limited as so few people will buy diesels (for whatever the reason is) that the auto companies do not wish to spend the money to get the engine approved for US use. The US, EPA, clean diesel requirements are more stringent than most other countries, further making it trouble. 

I drive a JW Jetta TDI... its a big 4 door car, I am the only person EVER in it. i would like a smaller diesel. This has 157k miles and still gets 50 mpg.... Diesel is pretty awesome. I am always looking for the next car and cant find anything else. 

Too bay my wife doesnt drive a manual transmission and has no interest to learn it.


----------



## charly (Apr 25, 2011)

maverick06 said:
			
		

> jdemaris said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


  Wife has a 98 diesel beetle, an honest 42 mpg overall . 13 years old, with 160,000 miles and still runs great. Had Amsoil since about 30,000 miles.  I have to laugh about the fuel mileage I see on some so called fuel efficient SUVS, 20 MPG.   My 1 ton standard transmission 2004 dodge cummins diesel get's 22 mpg! I agree about installing more small diesels in cars. I always thought a 4 cyl cummins in a Jeep Wrangler would be a hot selling vehicle that I would expect to get at least 30 mpg . That would be nice fuel mileage for a four wheel drive vehicle. I bet people would be lined up for them.


----------



## Jags (Apr 25, 2011)

xclimber said:
			
		

> I always thought a 4 cyl cummins in a Jeep Wrangler would be a hot selling vehicle that I would expect to get at least 30 mpg . That would be nice fuel milegae for a four wheel drive vehicle. I bet people would be lined up for them.



Make it a Grand Cherokee and consider it "SOLD".


----------



## charly (Apr 25, 2011)

Jags said:
			
		

> xclimber said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 I can't believe how many people would love to see more diesel vehicles  and nothing is offered. Subaru was going to have a slick diesel but emission's squashed that. It was going to need to run a Urea tank and Subaru thought that consumers would not go the expense.


----------



## Jags (Apr 25, 2011)

xclimber said:
			
		

> Jags said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



And they were probably correct.  It is our own darn fault.  The emission standards that we use are silly.  Not because they have strict rules, but because of the way they are measured.  It shouldn't be measured per gallon.  It should be measured per mile, albeit with a very strict and regulated measurement *method* that tells the whole truth.


----------



## Exmasonite (Apr 25, 2011)

Another satisfied Jetta TDI ('09 sportwagen) owner here just banging his head against the wall about the lack of diesel options here in the states.


----------



## lukem (Apr 26, 2011)

I still can't wrap my head around why diesel isn't catching on like wildfire in this country.  I would be the first in line for a diesel half ton pickup.  The problem is it is just way too damned expensive.  If you do a build/price for a diesel pickup its about an $8k option.  Doesn't make financial sense.

Some people are taking matters into their own hands and building their own.  I've seen where people are putting 4BT's into half ton pickups and getting mid-20's.

There are some immortal diesel engines out there that will practically last forever and get good mileage while doing it.  I have a couple friends who are diesel mechanics.  The shop they work at does everythng from TDIs to tractors to you're average Duramax pickup.  They specialize in building high performance racing/pulling engines (this one for example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAUY0-LnZRQ ).  To illustrate my earlier point about diesel longevity, most top fuel dragsters get a complete engine rebuild after every run.  This one gets rebuild after every SEASON.  Now this isn't as fast as top fuel, but it ain't slow either.  That's pretty much a stock 5.9 bottom end with some goodies on the top end.  Needless to say it takes some abuse.

A lot of the problem, in my opinion anyway, is mis-understanding about HP ratings by the average consumer.  A half ton diesel truck would (if done right) would have about 180 HP and 360 lb/ft of torque.  My F-150 has 292HP and about 320 lb/ft.  Looks like the diesel is underpowered, right?  Most people say more HP is better.  In reality the diesel would take my truck to school when it comes to towing...and get close to double the loaded mileage while doing it.  But hey, we Americans loves us some HP.


----------



## Flatbedford (Apr 27, 2011)

In a truck HP is not nearly as important as torque.

On the 4BT there is a guy out in Washington state who put one in a '70 F250 with a 5 speed transmission. He claims as much as 30 mpg and says it will easily tow 10,000 lbs over mountains.


----------



## charly (Apr 27, 2011)

Flatbedford said:
			
		

> In a truck HP is not nearly as important as torque.
> 
> On the 4BT there is a guy out in Washington state who put one in a '70 F250 with a 5 speed transmission. He claims as much as 30 mpg and says it will easily tow 10,000 lbs over mountains.


    It's ashame, we could have some really nice diesel vehicles here in the US .


----------



## Highbeam (Apr 27, 2011)

Flatbedford said:
			
		

> In a truck HP is not nearly as important as torque.
> 
> On the 4BT there is a guy out in Washington state who put one in a '70 F250 with a 5 speed transmission. He claims as much as 30 mpg and says it will easily tow 10,000 lbs over mountains.



Do you have a project link or something? Would love to read and see how the install went. Not that I would want to tow 10,000 with a 40 year old F250 but the 30 mpg part is refreshing and cummins engines make excellent swap candidates. Oddly, the little 4 cylinder 4bt cummins is more expensive to source than the bigger 6 cyclinder that was used in Dodge trucks.


----------



## Jags (Apr 27, 2011)

I just looked up the specs for that engine (they can be found here: http://www.cumminsdieselspecs.com/4bt.html).

That sounds like an absolutely perfect size for the Grand Cherokee, 1/2 ton and Dakota size vehicles.  With 265 ft pounds of torque it would still be a very capable towing vehicle for the average person.  My jeep runs at about 230-235 ft pounds and does a dandy job for anything that I am doing.

I WANT ONE.


----------



## Flatbedford (Apr 27, 2011)

He is actually in Oregon.
Here's a thread on our old Ford truck site
http://www.fordification.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=52673&hilit=4bt+conversion
another
http://www.fordification.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=22091&hilit=4bt+conversion
 Here's his website
http://allmarasdieselmachine.com/default.aspx
You can also try here
http://www.4btswaps.com/forum/index.php


----------



## Highbeam (Apr 27, 2011)

Drat, you need to be a memeber to see photos.


----------



## madrone (Apr 27, 2011)

I'd be all over a crew cab Ranger with a diesel. We'll never see that here though...


----------



## charly (Apr 27, 2011)

CJ Jeep Wrangler be sweet!


----------



## Flatbedford (Apr 27, 2011)

Its an old thread. I'm a member and I can't see them either. The pictures are just gone.


----------



## Highbeam (Apr 27, 2011)

Turns out I am a member of 4btswaps.com already. I must have thought it was a good idea some time ago. Lots of knowledge on that site.


----------



## jdemaris (Apr 27, 2011)

madrone said:
			
		

> I'd be all over a crew cab Ranger with a diesel. We'll never see that here though...



Ford was offering turbo-diesel Rangers here in the USA in 1986 and Jeep was offering the Perkins diesel in 1968. Neither sold very well.


----------



## madrone (Apr 28, 2011)

jdemaris said:
			
		

> madrone said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



 Oh, well then never mind. 

 :-S


----------

