The 65 mpg Ford the U.S. Can't Have

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Denny Crane

It's not even loaded!
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
May 24, 2007
Messages
73,114
Likes
10,945
Points
113
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/08_37/b4099060491065.htm?chan=rss_topStories_ssi_5

The 65 mpg Ford the U.S. Can't Have

<!--/HEADLINE--> <!--DECK--> Ford's Fiesta ECOnetic gets an astonishing 65 mpg, but the carmaker can't afford to sell it in the U.S. <!--/DECK-->

0904_mz_ecocar.jpg

The ECOnetic will go on sale in Europe in November

by David Kiley


If ever there was a car made for the times, this would seem to be it: a sporty subcompact that seats five, offers a navigation system, and gets a whopping 65 miles to the gallon. Oh yes, and the car is made by Ford Motor (F), known widely for lumbering gas hogs.

Ford's 2009 Fiesta ECOnetic goes on sale in November. But here's the catch: Despite the car's potential to transform Ford's image and help it compete with Toyota Motor (TM) and Honda Motor (HMC) in its home market, the company will sell the little fuel sipper only in Europe. "We know it's an awesome vehicle," says Ford America President Mark Fields. "But there are business reasons why we can't sell it in the U.S." The main one: The Fiesta ECOnetic runs on diesel.

Automakers such as Volkswagen (VLKAY) and Mercedes-Benz (DAI) have predicted for years that a technology called "clean diesel" would overcome many Americans' antipathy to a fuel still often thought of as the smelly stuff that powers tractor trailers. Diesel vehicles now hitting the market with pollution-fighting technology are as clean or cleaner than gasoline and at least 30% more fuel-efficient.

Yet while half of all cars sold in Europe last year ran on diesel, the U.S. market remains relatively unfriendly to the fuel. Taxes aimed at commercial trucks mean diesel costs anywhere from 40 cents to $1 more per gallon than gasoline. Add to this the success of the Toyota Prius, and you can see why only 3% of cars in the U.S. use diesel. "Americans see hybrids as the darling," says Global Insight auto analyst Philip Gott, "and diesel as old-tech."

None of this is stopping European and Japanese automakers, which are betting they can jump-start the U.S. market with new diesel models. Mercedes-Benz by next year will have three cars it markets as "BlueTec." Even Nissan (NSANY) and Honda, which long opposed building diesel cars in Europe, plan to introduce them in the U.S. in 2010.

But Ford, whose Fiesta ECOnetic compares favorably with European diesels, can't make a business case for bringing the car to the U.S.

TOO PRICEY TO IMPORT


First of all, the engines are built in Britain, so labor costs are high. Plus the pound remains stronger than the greenback. At prevailing exchange rates, the Fiesta ECOnetic would sell for about $25,700 in the U.S. By contrast, the Prius typically goes for about $24,000. A $1,300 tax deduction available to buyers of new diesel cars could bring the price of the Fiesta to around $24,400. But Ford doesn't believe it could charge enough to make money on an imported ECOnetic.

Ford plans to make a gas-powered version of the Fiesta in Mexico for the U.S. So why not manufacture diesel engines there, too? Building a plant would cost at least $350 million at a time when Ford has been burning through more than $1 billion a month in cash reserves. Besides, the automaker would have to produce at least 350,000 engines a year to make such a venture profitable. "We just don't think North and South America would buy that many diesel cars," says Fields.

The question, of course, is whether the U.S. ever will embrace diesel fuel and allow automakers to achieve sufficient scale to make money on such vehicles. California certified VW and Mercedes diesel cars earlier this year, after a four-year ban. James N. Hall, of auto researcher 293 Analysts, says that bellwether state and the Northeast remain "hostile to diesel." But the risk to Ford is that the fuel takes off, and the carmaker finds itself playing catch-up—despite having a serious diesel contender in its arsenal.

Kiley is a senior correspondent in <cite>BusinessWeek</cite>'s Detroit bureau.
 
Regulation and taxes are great!
 
2nd highest corporate tax rate in the world.

Even though I'd rather have an Explorer, I would definitely drive that.
 
Last edited:
2nd highest corporate tax rate in the world.

Even though I'd rather have an Explorer, I would definitely drive that.

I'm sorry, what does this story have to do with the corporate tax rate?

but if you want to go there, let me point out that in many countries, asset depreciation is not deductable. There are probably other deductions here in the U.S. that are not available elsewhere. Also, in some countries there is a B2B sales tax. Thus, simply comparing the nominal tax rate is pretty irrelevant.
 
I'm sorry, what does this story have to do with the corporate tax rate?

but if you want to go there, let me point out that in many countries, asset depreciation is not deductable. There are probably other deductions here in the U.S. that are not available elsewhere. Also, in some countries there is a B2B sales tax. Thus, simply comparing the nominal tax rate is pretty irrelevant.

Yes I believe tax rate paid is comparable to European countries.
 
I'm sorry, what does this story have to do with the corporate tax rate?

but if you want to go there, let me point out that in many countries, asset depreciation is not deductable. There are probably other deductions here in the U.S. that are not available elsewhere. Also, in some countries there is a B2B sales tax. Thus, simply comparing the nominal tax rate is pretty irrelevant.

Don't forget using large amount of debt, that was accumulated to finance growth, to offset income for tax purposes. Or the large number of accountants that make, as a group, tons of money working on preparing and auditing corporate taxes.
 
Yet while half of all cars sold in Europe last year ran on diesel, the U.S. market remains relatively unfriendly to the fuel. Taxes aimed at commercial trucks mean diesel costs anywhere from 40 cents to $1 more per gallon than gasoline.

My bad, that sure looks like taxes and regulation to me.
 
My bad, that sure looks like taxes and regulation to me.

apparently, if you believe this article, taxes are not the primary reason why the car is not going to be sold in the U.S.; it is the preferences and boases of the American consumer. Regardless, "taxes" and "regulation" are not interchangable.
 
People aren't going to buy cars that use gas that costs $1 more gallon to run. One party in congress has pushed CAFE standards since forever, yet here's the 65 MPG car built by a US company that is economically unfeasible to sell here because of the rules that same congress passed.
 
People aren't going to buy cars that use gas that costs $1 more gallon to run. One party in congress has pushed CAFE standards since forever, yet here's the 65 MPG car built by a US company that is economically unfeasible to sell here because of the rules that same congress passed.

Again, that is marketing. $1 dollar more per gallon for that many more miles per tank is easy to sell.

This is a nation that thrives on purchasing over priced coffee and smoothies.
 
People aren't going to buy cars that use gas that costs $1 more gallon to run. One party in congress has pushed CAFE standards since forever, yet here's the 65 MPG car built by a US company that is economically unfeasible to sell here because of the rules that same congress passed.

feel free to do the math.
 
California certified VW and Mercedes diesel cars earlier this year, after a four-year ban.

Do the math, indeed.
 
California certified VW and Mercedes diesel cars earlier this year, after a four-year ban.

Do the math, indeed.

yes, do the math. That has nothing to do with the article whatsoever, which I thought is what this thread was about. Not to mention it is IRRELEVANT because the car has just been introduced, and therefore would not have been subject to this ban.

Furthermore, you just got through blaming Congress, and now you raise a state-imposed regulation.
 
yes, do the math. That has nothing to do with the article whatsoever, which I thought is what this thread was about. Not to mention it is IRRELEVANT because the car has just been introduced, and therefore would not have been subject to this ban.

Furthermore, you just got through blaming Congress, and now you raise a state-imposed regulation.

That's a direct quote from the article. My bad.
 
Volkswagen News

New regulations could end many U.S. diesel passenger car sales

New U.S. emissions regulations affecting 2007 model year vehicles may force companies like Volkswagen to stop offering cars with TDI in the United States. Leftlane has received a handful of reports from VW dealers in the U.S. regarding this rumor, with each source reporting virtually the same thing. While it’s possible automakers will find a way to meet the new regulations before it begins building MY2007 cars, the current thinking is that there is no economical way to quickly comply with the new rules. Instead, VW will likely have to wait for scheduled redesigns to introduce new technologies, which means the U.S. market could be left without diesels for some time. Some manufacturers will be able to circumvent the new rules by classifying their vehicles as “trucks,” but this loophole would only be applicable to borderline crossover vehicles. Accordingly, diesel variants of vehicles like the VW Touareg are likely to be eligible for sales in the U.S. in 2007.
 
this line of argument is ridiculous. Clean diesel is a very new technology, and it will take a few years for the rules to be updated. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the EPA has programs designed to support the private development of clean diesel technology.
 
Clean diesel is newer than 2007? That's REALLY new!

Wait a second here... The VW cars and the NEW REGULATIONS are from 2007.
 
Clean diesel is newer than 2007? That's REALLY new!

Wait a second here... The VW cars and the NEW REGULATIONS are from 2007.

I guess you just understand the regulatory process better than I do.
 
I guess you just understand the regulatory process better than I do.

I just scratch my head at this kind of thing. Does congress and the EPA want us to have better mileage cars? They're regulating against our own auto manufacturers, which makes no sense, even from the standpoint where the Unions are one of the party in control's bigger constituencies.

I know enough that VW and every other auto maker has a slew of lobbyists, so it's not like our brilliant govt. employees didn't know this new diesel tech was coming or even coming the same year they were promulgating or passing new regulations.

I am doing the math, tho.

If a 30 MPG car burns 1 gallon of gas to go those 30 miles, and a 65 MPG car burns ~.5 gallons of diesel to go those same 30 miles, and both gas and diesel are roughly the same when it comes to pollution, which is better? Regulation from the pollution / green guilt POV doesn't even make sense if you apply a teeny bit of logic to it. That's not even accounting for the cleaner diesel engines.

On top of that, these diesel engines can burn biodiesel fuels, so the pollution would at least smell like french fries or something.
 
I just scratch my head at this kind of thing. Does congress and the EPA want us to have better mileage cars? They're regulating against our own auto manufacturers, which makes no sense, even from the standpoint where the Unions are one of the party in control's bigger constituencies.

I know enough that VW and every other auto maker has a slew of lobbyists, so it's not like our brilliant govt. employees didn't know this new diesel tech was coming or even coming the same year they were promulgating or passing new regulations.

I am doing the math, tho.

If a 30 MPG car burns 1 gallon of gas to go those 30 miles, and a 65 MPG car burns ~.5 gallons of diesel to go those same 30 miles, and both gas and diesel are roughly the same when it comes to pollution, which is better? Regulation from the pollution / green guilt POV doesn't even make sense if you apply a teeny bit of logic to it. That's not even accounting for the cleaner diesel engines.

On top of that, these diesel engines can burn biodiesel fuels, so the pollution would at least smell like french fries or something.

Now I don't know whether you are railing against Congress, the EPA, or both. If it is the EPA, I suppose we could discuss the rulemaking process if you really want to.
 
Now I don't know whether you are railing against Congress, the EPA, or both. If it is the EPA, I suppose we could discuss the rulemaking process if you really want to.

EPA can't pass laws or regulations, they can only enforce what congress passes and the president signs. The laws in question are the Clean Air Acts and amendments of 1970, 1977, and 1990.

CAFE standards were enacted by Congress in 1975. Last amended by (guess who?) Congress in 1997 (surprised at the date?).

What EPA can do is promulgate various provisions of the law - that is, selectively enforce those various provisions (or not enforce them).
 
EPA can't pass laws or regulations, they can only enforce what congress passes and the president signs. The laws in question are the Clean Air Acts and amendments of 1970, 1977, and 1990.

CAFE standards were enacted by Congress in 1975. Last amended by (guess who?) Congress in 1997 (surprised at the date?).

What EPA can do is promulgate various provisions of the law - that is, selectively enforce those various provisions (or not enforce them).

That's mostly incorrect. As the Government's subject-matter experts, agencies promulgate regulations to fill in the gaps created by acts of congress. The bills typically lack detail, thus enabling agencies great leeway in figuring out how they should be implemented. The regulations will go through a public notice-and-comment cycle and are published in the C.F.R. The head of the agency sets the agenda and decides which regulations to enact or amend, and ultimately decides what the new rules will require. The head of the EPA is appointed by the President. I believe that the EPA has a single Commissioner, but I don't feel like looking it up right now. One thng that the E.P.A. cannot do for itself is litigate on behalf of the government; that is handled by D.O.J. But if you want to get partisan about it, there has been plenty written about this administration's control over the decision-making process at the E.P.A., including what legal claims against rule violators to pursue and which to ignore.
 
That's mostly incorrect.

A widely known example of promulgation is the so-called "gag rule" on abortion. Both Bush I and Bush II promulgated rules in different laws:

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/03/4/gr030413.html

The gag rule, originally promulgated in 1988, overturned that policy by prohibiting health care professionals in Title X family planning clinics from providing any abortion-related information or referrals, even when specifically requested to do so.
And the text of the law in question, passed by congress in 1970:

http://www.hhs.gov/opa/about/legislation/ofp_regs_42cfr59_10-1-2000.html

Sec. 59.5 What requirements must be met by a family planning project?

(a) Each project supported under this part must:
(1) Provide a broad range of acceptable and effective medically
approved family planning methods (including natural family planning
methods) and services (including infertility services and services for
adolescents). If an organization offers only a single method of family
planning, it may participate as part of a project as long as the entire
project offers a broad range of family planning services.
(2) Provide services without subjecting individuals to any coercion
to accept services or to employ or not to employ any particular methods
of family planning. Acceptance of services must be solely on a voluntary
basis and

[[Page 409]]

may not be made a prerequisite to eligibility for, or receipt of, any
other services, assistance from or participation in any other program of
the applicant.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ Section 205 of Pub. L. 94-63 states: ``Any (1) officer or
employee of the United States, (2) officer or employee of any State,
political subdivision of a State, or any other entity, which administers
or supervises the administration of any program receiving Federal
financial assistance, or (3) person who receives, under any program
receiving Federal assistance, compensation for services, who coerces or
endeavors to coerce any person to undergo an abortion or sterilization
procedure by threatening such person with the loss of, or
disqualification for the receipt of, any benefit or service under a
program receiving Federal financial assistance shall be fined not more
than $1,000 or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(3) Provide services in a manner which protects the dignity of the
individual.
(4) Provide services without regard to religion, race, color,
national origin, handicapping condition, age, sex, number of
pregnancies, or marital status.
(5) Not provide abortion as a method of family planning. A project
must:
Bush II promulgated a rule of a different law:

http://www.reproductiverights.org/pub_fac_ggrbush.html

On January 22, 2001, on his first business day in office (and the 28th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision establishing a woman's right to an abortion), President George W. Bush re-imposed the Global Gag Rule on the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) population program. This policy restricts foreign non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that receive USAID family planning funds from using their own, non-U.S. funds to provide legal abortion services, lobby their own governments for abortion law reform, or even provide accurate medical counseling or referrals regarding abortion. The 1973 Helms Amendment is a legislative provision that already restricts U.S. funds from being used for these activities.
 
Last edited:
FWIW, I'm pro choice and have mixed views on these examples of promulgation.
 
Burton Guster would buy one immediately.
 
you guys are too smart for me but that sure does look like a nice car.
 
You say that now. Try putting a car seat and a stroller in it :devilwink: :baby:

good call.

i'm keeping my eye out for a good wagon, preferably with a woodie. we've got an elantra for now
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top