Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Chrysler are in fact making 35 MPG cars & SUVs in America, but American citizens can't buy them...

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
Turborama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 10:18 AM
Original message
Chrysler are in fact making 35 MPG cars & SUVs in America, but American citizens can't buy them...
If you want to know more about why buying diesel vehicles is a multiple win, check out "Diesel cars: 7 worries, 7 answers" on my journal: http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Turborama

One of the keys to restarting the American economy is staring us in the face. While our future hinges on the rapid adoption of fuel-efficient vehicles, our government stands in the way of a rapid free market solution.

35 MPG can be an immediate reality, with one domestic manufacturer, if the United States government would only allow it to happen. Our elected representatives need to be aware of the facts and make the appropriate decisions.

Chrysler is uniquely positioned among the Big Three US automakers. Unlike Ford and General Motors, Chrysler is already building a slew of high-MPG diesel-powered vehicles right here in the United States.

Amazing as it may seem in these difficult times, Chrysler is not allowed to sell those cars domestically, due to recently tightened emissions regulations. With the exception of the domestically-available Jeep Grand Cherokee diesel, all of Chrysler’s North American manufactured high-MPG diesel-equipped vehicles are being shipped abroad.

Each and every one of Chrysler’s European models is available with a diesel engine, with the exception of the Dodge Viper. In fact, a diesel engine can be found under the hood of more than 50% of the vehicles that Chrysler sells in Europe.

All-in-all, a dozen Chrysler, Dodge, and Jeep diesel-engined models are currently available outside of the United States, but are not sold domestically.

Here’s the eye-opener … half of those models currently achieve 35 miles per gallon combined.

That’s 35 MPG … right now.

And what’s even more crazy? All of these 35 MPG cars and SUVs are built in North American plants by North American workers … American citizens cannot buy and drive the fuel-efficient cars they build.

The thriftiest of the bunch delivers nearly 50 MPG on the highway … and it’s no dog off the line, turning in 0-62 mile per hour (MPH) times under nine seconds. The fastest in the pack delivers 7.6 second 0-62 times and 35.6 MPG on the highway.

Needless to say, these are wonderful world-class cars, a world apart from your Uncle’s noisy, slow, smelly 80’s-era diesel.

The Mercedes-Benz V6 diesel-equipped Jeep Grand Cherokee is the first US-built passenger vehicle to meet the tougher Federal emissions requirements. With the emissions work done on the Mercedes’ 3.0 liter engine, we expect the Chrysler 300 to be the next diesel-powered domestic, as it shares the same powerplant. (At present, diesel 300s are being built in Graz, Austria.)

Chrysler is using four different diesel engines, in all:

2.0 liter Volkswagen turbo-diesel inline four (Avenger, Caliber, Compass, Journey, Sebring, Patriot)
2.2 liter Mercedes-Benz inline four (PT Cruiser)
2.8 liter VM Motari inline four (Cherokee, Grand Voyager, Nitro, Wrangler)
3.0 liter Mercedes-Benz V6 (300, Commander, Grand Cherokee)
What if the federal government temporarily rolled back the emissions requirements for one or two years, to allow the sale of these fuel-sipping vehicles while Chrysler and its partners complete the engineering necessary to meet the current regulations?

Crazier schemes have been implemented to stimulate the economy, no doubt about that. But this one just might work … by spurring investment and putting people back to work.

As you ponder that thought, take a gander at a group of specifications that compare the European diesels with the most fuel-efficient engines in each of the US domestics here:
http://www.mpgomatic.com/2008/03/15/35-mpg-why-wait-until-2020


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
yellowdogintexas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 10:20 AM
Response to Original message
1. I will have to pass. diesel makes me sick, really sick. We are talking migraine
headache sick
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WildClarySage Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 10:22 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. And I really think we can aim higher, do better, than 35mpg.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ian David Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 10:23 AM
Response to Reply #2
5. Agreed. I think 80 MPG is a reasonable short-term goal. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pavulon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 10:45 AM
Response to Reply #5
14. Diesel hybrid..
modern diesel are more efficient than gas, last longer and are cheaper to operate.

Can run b100 if it was ever made available.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lumberjack_jeff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 10:58 AM
Response to Reply #2
19. It takes a certain amount of energy to move a given mass.
Most commuter cars can be pretty small, but on the weekend most families need something bigger.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Turborama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 11:09 AM
Response to Reply #19
21. The top ten most fuel efficient cars in the UK do over 60 MPG (the top three over 70 MPG)
They have families too... ;-)

I made a post with full details, here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x4510556
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lumberjack_jeff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 11:18 AM
Response to Reply #21
24. I'm colored by my own experience.
70% of the time I go anywhere, I'm either towing a tractor or carrying 1000# of tools/materials. 70% of the remainder, I'm either hauling 10 cubic feet of groceries one-way or four passengers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Turborama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 11:21 AM
Response to Reply #24
25. Fair enough, but have you seen the comparisons on the linked story?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lumberjack_jeff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 12:42 PM
Response to Reply #25
27. I was reacting to the view that 35mpg wasn't good enough.
35mpg is great mileage for the kinds of cars in question. You won't get better mileage than that unless you sacrifice cargo capacity. Cargo capacity = mass. Mass requires energy to move.

I'm a big fan of diesel. More btu per gallon, a much narrower powerband in an IC engine and it can be made from plants.

I concede that I'm atypical. I don't have a commute as such, so my transportation needs are not primarily for me. I'm not delivering myself somewhere, I'm delivering my cargo.

I've had a motorcycle for 30 years. The current one for 15. Whenever I'm going somewhere sans passengers or cargo, I try to use it. I bought it with 12,000 miles on it. It now has 19,000.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Turborama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 01:45 PM
Response to Reply #27
34. Ahh, sorry, my mistake. Talking of making it from plants...
... have you seen this post yet? Something I find very exciting, as you could probably tell, lol.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=4509092&mesg_id=4510016
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ContinentalOp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 12:50 PM
Response to Reply #19
30. The average family size in the US is only 3 people.
Why do you need something bigger than a car? And for that matter what does an SUV really provide over something like a station wagon? How many people are actually going off road in their big trucks?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lumberjack_jeff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 05:09 PM
Response to Reply #30
37. I think SUV's are pretty worthless
I had a mini-van which was a great family rig for grocery shopping & etc. Given the size, weight and typical cargo, 25-27 mpg was pretty acceptable. With a turbodiesel, it probably could have gotten 35.

35 would have been great, I don't think it's worthwhile "to hold out for something better" when it would have required major concessions to the minivan's purposes.

In my case, I frequently tow my tractor (and stuff) so I need a powerful truck. I frequently tow it to muddy places, so I need 4wd. I go off-road often, but (with the exception of the 7 mile goat-trail drive to the cabin) it's rarely recreation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hlthe2b Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 10:23 AM
Response to Reply #1
6. I'm not sure the new cleaner diesels smell like that of old
Europe is really moving towards "clean diesel." Perhaps someone can comment on how it differs from the diesel of old...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Turborama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 10:39 AM
Response to Reply #6
11. Sure, I've got loads of info on that...
There's a lot about this in my journal. For easy access,here's the link again: http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Turborama


Here's some more, it's a little dated but still valid...


A cleaner diesel has carmakers revved up for US

Foreign automakers are primed to start selling cars in the United States that produce less carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide and get 20 to 40 percent better mileage than vehicles already on the market.

And they do it by efficiently burning a cleaner type of diesel fuel.

Diesel vehicles have long deserved their reputation as loud, smoky, and dirty. In some states -- including Massachusetts -- new models have been banned for years because their exhaust systems were inefficient and diesel fuel contained too much sulfur to meet emissions standards.

But revised federal pollution rules that took effect in January reduce the allowable sulfur content of diesel fuel from 500 to 15 parts per million, and the new cars are outfitted with sophisticated exhaust and filtering systems that further cut pollution. As a result, they will be allowed for sale in all 50 states by the end of the year. Consumers will pay extra for a diesel, though not as much as the $2,000 to $7,000 tacked on to the price of gas-electric hybrids. For instance, a Mercedes-Benz E320 diesel sedan costs about $1,000 more than a similar gas model. But it gets more than 35 miles per gallon, about 10 miles per gallon better than a comparable gas-fueled Mercedes.

Makers of diesel vehicles say they also are prepared to seek a consumer tax break similar to the one hybrid buyers enjoy, about a $2,000 federal deduction.

Foreign companies sped ahead of of US automakers in introducing hybrids a decade ago, and now plan on being leaders in the diesel market. Chrysler, which is owned by German automaker DaimlerChrysler and also makes Dodge and Jeep brands, will offer diesel-powered passenger cars. But Ford Motor Co. and General Motors Corp. plan to limit their diesel business to trucks until they see how the American market for passenger cars unfolds.

Consumers, however, may not want to wait, especially given the fuel-savings diesel offers. The results of a recent survey by Autobytel Inc., an online auto marketplace, showed 72 percent of Americans would "absolutely" consider buying a diesel vehicle. And the marketing and research firm J.D. Power and Associates forecasts that diesels, which currently account for just 3.4 percent of the cars on the road in the United States, will hit 15 percent within eight years. By comparison, J.D. Power projects that by 2011 hybrids will have only about 3 percent of the market, 11 years after the first one came ashore.

Even the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, which compiles an annual "greenest" and "meanest" vehicles list and is a long-time critic of diesel, is ready to accept the new cars.

"We would like to have seen them come into the market even sooner," said Therese Langer , the group's transportation program director.

DaimlerChrysler's Mercedes-Benz group, BMW, Audi, and Volkswagen will sell diesel-powered vehicles in the United States that use an elaborate exhaust and filter system, called Bluetec. Other automakers, including Honda, Hyundai, Kia, Nissan, and Mitsubishi, are planning to introduce diesels that use different exhaust and filter systems.

"We're looking heavily at diesel," said Len Hunt, chief operating officer of Kia North America. "I'm a believer in clean diesel because I had such a good experience in Europe with diesel." Hunt previously worked for Audi and Volkswagen.

Diesel cars have long been popular in Europe, largely because they are more powerful and responsive than gas-powered models. "In Europe we have the diesel just for driving pleasure," said Wolfgang Hatz, head of engine development for Audi.

The cars account for 60 to 70 percent of sales in some European markets, said Tom Purvis, chief executive of BMW North America.

Consumers like Beau Schless of Sudbury are already anticipating the arrival of new diesels. Schless, who tows his boats to Ipswich and works on a ski patrol in New Hampshire, needs power and four-wheel-drive. He thinks diesel may be the answer. "If I could find a relatively small, efficient, all-wheel-drive diesel, that's what I'd want," he said.

Diesel fuel and gasoline are produced simultaneously from a barrel of crude oil, and one can be more expensive than the other depending on how they are refined. But unlike gas-powered cars, diesels do not emit high levels of carbon dioxide, a critical greenhouse gas. Diesel pollution has come from nitrous oxide and particulate emissions, which contribute to smog and acid rain. But the new fuel, used with the new filter and exhaust systems, significantly cuts so-called "nox" and particulate emissions.

A four-cylinder diesel engine also can be more powerful than a similar-size six-cylinder gasoline engine, and a six-cylinder diesel can best a gas-guzzling V-8. Diesel-powered eight-cylinder SUVs, such as the line Mercedes-Benz intends to introduce next year, can achieve at least 24 miles per gallon, far better than the 10 to 16 miles per gallon many SUVs get.

Durability is another selling point for diesels, say automakers. Because the engines are so well made, it is not uncommon for them to last 500,000 miles, whereas a gasoline engine that logs 150,000 miles is considered ancient.

But there are complications, at least for models using Bluetec. To meet federal standards, diesel cars with Bluetec will require an additive, called AdBlue, an injection of water-based urea that eliminates nitrous oxides. Urea, a common chemical compound, will have to be periodically replenished by owners, causing the Environmental Protection Agency to worry that some won't properly maintain the system. The urea is stored in a tank much like the kind that holds windshield wiper fluid, and it can be replenished just as easily.

To prevent problems caused by lack of maintenance, the EPA told Bluetec's makers it wants cars to have warning lights that signal when the urea is running low. If ignored, an audible warning would be emitted, and finally if the car is operated without urea, the system would electronically hinder the vehicle's performance, forcing the driver to replenish the supply. The EPA and automakers have not yet worked out the details of such a warning system.

Honda says that because of even better technology it expects to introduce within 2 1/2 years, the Japanese company's diesel engine won't need the "after-treatment" required for Bluetec. Volkswagen, part of the Bluetec group, says it will eventually offer a diesel vehicle without urea.

Manufacturers acknowledge that in addition to its dirty and loud history, diesel still faces some other hurdles. The fuel still emits a stronger smell than gasoline, some consumers wrongly believe they are difficult to start in cold weather, and many believe it is hard to find diesel fuel, even though nearly half of the country's 180,000 fuel stations now offer it.

But BMW's Purvis, like others in the auto industry, is confident diesel is finally ready to go mainstream in the United States. "The people who saw the problems of diesel in the '80s are not the young buyers who will look at them today," he said.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/02/24/a_cleaner_diesel_has_carmakers_revved_up_for_us/

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hlthe2b Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 11:15 AM
Response to Reply #11
23. thanks! Very helpful....
:toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dysfunctional press Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 12:49 PM
Response to Reply #6
29. we recently test-drove a diesel new beetle-
it was loud, it smelled, and the transmission shifted very roughly.
it was a car for my wife, and she absolutely hated the diesel. we bought a gas model instead.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hlthe2b Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 12:59 PM
Response to Reply #29
32. I'm not sure we have the new clean diesel available in the US
the low sulfur-content, clean diesel is a European staple, but I don't believe it is yet available here as yet. It is confusing, but given that Audi is going clean diesel turbo for it A4 and A6 sports cars (and have already won international races with them), I'm guessing the poor performance and smell you experienced is because the US is stuck with the old formulations and technology. Can someone speak to this?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pavulon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 10:29 AM
Response to Reply #1
9. Wife drives Bluetec e320
Edited on Sat Nov-22-08 10:31 AM by Pavulon
has zero diesel smell. 40 mpg. But I sympathize. Modern diesels have come a very long way and no longer smell like the school bus.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ian David Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 10:22 AM
Response to Original message
3. We need to re-regulate diesel fuel first.
Much of the toxic sludge generated in gasoline processing is re-added to diesel fuel, so that truckers will serve as the "waste disposal mechanism" for the refineries.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JVS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 10:22 AM
Response to Original message
4. You know, I always thought the 300, Magnum, or Charger would be sweet with a diesel to complete...
the whole Mercedes in drag kind of deal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
napi21 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 10:26 AM
Response to Original message
7. This is very true! My son and his family visited my other son in
Sicily this past June. They rented a 6 passenger SUV that was made by Chrysler while they were there. I don't recall the name of the car because even though they are made by US manufacturers, they all have different names in Europe. It was a deisel powered 4 cyl. and they got 45MPG on the Hwy and 37 MPG in the city. My son was really impressed, and then quite disappointed when he found out he couldn't buy one in the States!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Wielding Truth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 10:35 AM
Response to Reply #7
10. I think that the car companies have been discouraged in making
more efficient vehicles. I think that the oil companies have put pressure in every situation to slow and stop the better use of oil and gas to support their profits.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
baldguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 10:27 AM
Response to Original message
8. So, it's either lose major manufacturing capabilities, or be poisoned by the crap they produce?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NNN0LHI Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 10:39 AM
Response to Original message
12. Has anyone calculated the costs in medical costs and deaths caused by ...
Edited on Sat Nov-22-08 10:39 AM by NNN0LHI
... temporarily rolling back the emissions requirements for one or two years?

What is the cost benefit analyses in doing something like this?

Do we end up spending more money on higher health costs than we save on gas?

Has a cost benefit analyses been done on this idea?

And how many deaths are considered acceptable by doing this?

Don

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pavulon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 10:44 AM
Response to Reply #12
13. Smart People drive diesels..
they get much better millage. They are as clean as modern gas engines. The run forever.

We use them for fleet vehicles because they last forever. 50 state legal diesels can be made, affordable is the issue. Diesel upgrade works if you plan on keeping the car. I believe the mercedes is 50 state legal, not sure about the jetta. Jetta diesel is a great car.

They run low sulfur diesel and I run b20 when I can find it in Durham.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NNN0LHI Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 10:52 AM
Response to Reply #13
17. I didn't suggest that diesels haven't gotten a lot better
I have rode in some that I couldn't even tell they were a diesel. No clickety clack, no smell, no nothing. There is no denying that they have come a long way.

A cost benefit analysis would still need to be done though.

Don
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lumberjack_jeff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 11:13 AM
Response to Reply #12
22. a) most diesel is burned by commercial vehicles.
more stringent particulate emissions standards don't change that.

b) The only pollutant that gasoline produces less of are particulates. NOx, CO2 and CO are all higher with a gasoline engine. In general, burning less fuel generates less pollution.

Give a waiver to the emissions requirements for a few years, allow the automakers to demonstrate a market, and do the r&d to develop the particulate scrubbers.

Allow California to set their own rules, they are the ones for whom particulates are a big issue.

I'm a big believer in diesel passenger cars. Widespread use of diesel hybrids (electric, pneumatic or hydraulic) would increase average economy dramatically.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Turborama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 10:49 AM
Response to Original message
15. Clean Ultra-Low Sulphur Diesel Fuel Explained
What is Ultra Low Sulphur Diesel (ULSD) fuel? In a nutshell, it's cleaner diesel. Ultra low sulphur diesel fuel has been refined so that its sulphur content is 15 parts per million (ppm) or less. This is 97 percent cleaner than the standard highway-use diesel fuel sold in the US, which contains an average of 500 ppm of sulphur. Sulphur, a natural part of the crude oil from which diesel fuel is derived, is one of the key causes of particulates or soot in diesel. Soot is the main culprit of diesel engines' noxious black exhaust fumes, and is among the prime contributors to air pollution. The move toward ULSD is aimed at lowering diesel engines' harmful exhaust emissions and improving air quality.

ULSD fuel has been the standard in Europe for several years. In the U.S., the changeover process began in June 2006, when the EPA enacted a mandate requiring 80 percent of the highway diesel fuel produced or imported to meet the 15 ppm standard. The new ULSD fuel went on sale at most stations nationwide in mid-October 2006. Both diesel fuels will be on sale for the next few years, with the goal being a gradual phaseout of 500 ppm diesel. By December 2010, all highway-use diesel fuel offered for sale in the U.S. must be ULSD fuel. (ULSD is not to be confused with biodiesel, which is diesel derived from biological ingredients such as plant oil or animal fat and usually blended with standard diesel fuel.)

ULSD fuel will work in concert with a new generation of diesel engines that will begin arriving for the 2007 model year. Ideally, ULSD will enable the new generation of diesel vehicles to meet the same strict emission standards as gasoline-powered vehicles. The new engines will utilize an emissions-reducing device called a particulate filter. The process is similar to a self-cleaning oven's cycle: a filter traps the tiny particles of soot in the exhaust fumes. The filter uses a sensor that measures back pressure, or the force required to push the exhaust gases out of the engine and through to the tailpipes.

Read more:
http://puregreencars.com/Tehnology/Clean-Ultra-Low-Sulphur-Diesel-Fuel-Explained.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kirby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 10:52 AM
Response to Original message
16. Ford - 65mpg...
Edited on Sat Nov-22-08 10:53 AM by kirby
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bunkerbuster1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 10:55 AM
Response to Original message
18. I might take me one of those Caliber diesels
49 on the highway?

I had rented one (US version) a few months ago. A bit goofy design, but pretty roomy inside and decent build quality. I think it's crazy that we can't buy such a vehicle here, now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lumberjack_jeff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 11:01 AM
Response to Reply #18
20. I bought a caliber. 2.2l motor, consistent 31mpg.
The constant speed transmission would be a great match for the diesel.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bunkerbuster1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-23-08 09:08 AM
Response to Reply #20
38. That's about what we managed on our trip this summer.
A lot of highway driving in and out of mountains, we averaged about 30 mpg.

I wish the cartoonish rear flanks didn't make the car's rear windows so tiny (a problem I have with the Matrix/Vibe) - I think the Versa approach to a 5dr hatch is better. But a good effort.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NewJeffCT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 11:25 AM
Response to Original message
26. Didn't each of the Big 3 have 80mpg cars on the table?
that were developed during the Clinton years (with gov't funding help), but were later scrapped in 2001 when somebody else took office?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dysfunctional press Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 12:45 PM
Response to Original message
28. well there's an honest mpg comparison- a compact car vs. a pick-up truck...
:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Turborama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 01:28 PM
Response to Reply #28
33. They're selling them for the same price but one is twice the weight and horsepower than the other...
Edited on Sat Nov-22-08 01:32 PM by Turborama
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dysfunctional press Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 02:21 PM
Response to Reply #33
35. but supposedly, they can't make money on small cars...?
:shrug:

and it would seem that the people who'd be in the market for a pick-up aren't going to be swayed over to a compact.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ContinentalOp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 12:55 PM
Response to Original message
31. What's funny is that all of those cars listed are using engines from VW and Mercedes!
:rofl: Not only can't US automakers get their act together to make fuel efficient cars, but they don't even have the basic technology available to do so. They have to license everything from overseas.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pmdsyr32 Donating Member (16 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 02:40 PM
Response to Original message
36. wow
looks like the government is talking out of it's rear end. demanding fuel efficient cars but won't let us have them. what a crok.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Turborama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-23-08 09:37 AM
Response to Reply #36
39. Cosign. N/T
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 23rd 2024, 08:49 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC