Posted on 06/08/2013 3:17:41 PM PDT by rickmichaels
I’ll be the first to admit that this, the third installment in Post Driving‘s ongoing fuel economy comparisons, is not original. Consumer Reports issued a press release some four months ago that decried the supposed fuel economy advantage of small turbochargers over the larger — typically V6 engines — that they are supposed to supplant.
(Excerpt) Read more at life.nationalpost.com ...
you can get a focus without a turbo. the non-eco-boost model.
That FR-S harkens back to my old Opel GT except TONS more fun and I can actually carry stuff in it. If I needed more storage space (I used my Scion xB for that) and needed to transport more than one adult with me on any kind of regular basis, the FR-S would be out. I probably would have settled for the Focus, sans turbo.
they are not classed as an suv anymore, they are a crossover. you can’t get then withg a v6. they are competing with rav-4, honda cr-v vehicles, not suv’s.
‘91 Jetta, naturally aspirated diesel... father bought it new... he gave to me when he bought a new gasser Jetta in 2001. Car has 317k on the OD... still gets 40 MPG.
If VW made this car today and sold it for $40,000, I’d buy it.
91 Jetta means the back doors probably don’t open
Basically because it has terrible drag. I have a 4 cyl non-turbo escape and it gets 27 at 75-80 and 30 at 60.
A large part of the reason that sort of thing doesn't happen is because government regulations (think EPA and NHTSA) require mileage and crash test certification for every unique body/engine/transmission combination. This is quite expensive, and as a result, we have less engine innovation than the European manufacturers.
For an example of the practical effects of this, take a look at a model available in both the U.S. and Europe, like the VW Golf. At VW.com, we find you can get a Golf with a 2.5L gas engine with either a 5-speed automatic or 6-speed manual transmission (I'm considering GTI and R20 as separate models, not under consideration here).
Now, if we go to VW.de to see what the home market can get, we find a large array of choices with 5 or so engines, and 3 transmissions (manual, torque converter automatic, and dual-clutch automatic), 15 choices altogether.
This over-regulation is innovation-killing and is probably 99% of the reason U.S. manufacturers don't try some small diesels in their trucks. There is too much cost in regulatory compliance for what may turn out to be a small market. So they play it safe, and innovation and customer choice in the marketplace suffer badly.
Now, to really push this home, check out the Amarok at the VW Brazil site. It is the small- to medium-sized truck you're looking for, available with both 4- and 6-cylinder turbo-diesel options.
VW makes a pickup, who knew?
BTW, I am wrong, it isn’t available with a 6. There are two versions of the 4-cylinder TDI, one with a single turbo and one with a biturbo.
VW does make some cool 3.0 TDI 6 cylinder engines, found in the Touareg here, as well as in several Audi models.
Nope... I know what you mean, but I have access to OEM parts,and _everything_ on the car is fixable... unlike any modern POS.
Can you even get a car with crank-down windows anymore?
All the BS crap they put on cars now to satisfy soccermoms, yentas, and spoiled brat douchebag bankers.... heated seats, heated mirrors, dual climate control... whathaveyou... every time there is a failure it’s a $700 stealership repair (minimum) and then a computer replacement because they can’t figure out why the cheap plastic dogturd crap ding dong parts don’t work.
NO THANKS. I can do almost everything I need to with a 13mm combination wrench, 8mm allen wrech, and 13mm socket.
My Cavalier is crank windows. My son makes fun of it. When I get something from the trunk, he starts “Use the remote to open it. Did you turn off the alarm?”
It is true that it's classified as a "crossover" now rather than an SUV, but it weighs about the same as the previous version, has the same (class II with the 2.0 Ecoboost engine) towing capacity, and has similar interior room and ground clearance. It isn't shaped as "SUV-ish" as the previous version, but it's really not that much different in practical terms. Other than the fact that the 2.0 turbo has about a 35 HP advantage and more torque than the old 3.0 V6.
I think that the previous Escape competed pretty directly with the Rav-4 & CR-V which have always been in a similar size class.
It's the Explorer that lost it's body-on-frame construction and higher towing capacity 2 or 3 years ago in an effort to improve fuel economy. I think that the Expedition is the only truck-based SUV-type vehicle in the Ford lineup now.
Mahindra gave on their diesel pickup citing changing US car market. It was likely the EPA.
There is a Dodge 1500 1/2 ton diesel due this year. I’m not enthused.
The problem is to pass the USEPA emission levels with a diesel, you wind up making it look a lot more like a gas engine (greatly reduced compression, massive amounts of exhaust gas recic, etc).
The escape didn’t compete with the rav-4 and cr-v, they are noticeably smaller platforms. The escape was a truck, these were crossovers or prior to changing, small suvs. They didn’t have the width or length. I’ve been in all of them and the cr-v is small and makes me clastrophobic and I am not a tall (or fat) person. Both are narrower than the escape - at least 2001-2012 models.
Also, the new escapes are lighter than the former.
Curb weight of the base models are around 3500 pounds. My 2001 is a 4400 pound vehicle.
You must have been including some burly passenger load.
This spec says base weight on the 2001 Escape was 3065 lb.
http://www.ford-trucks.com/specs/2001_escape_1.html
New Escapes are based on the Ford Focus platform, about the same size inside and out as the CR-V, etc., but you’re right, design can make the same size space more comfortable for some people than it is for others.
The Escape was never a truck-based SUV. That doesn’t mean it was or wasn’t an SUV, but it was not based on a truck frame. The original Escape was built on a unibody platform that it shared with the Mazda-6.
It competed well with the CR-V originally because of the V6 option which, IIRC, Honda didn’t offer at the time. Yes, it was a little roomier, but it wasn’t that much bigger.
I was pretty comfortable in my 2003 Escape, and I am also in my 2013 Escape. My 2008 Honda Civic Si was a little tight, to say the least. Different kind of animal entirely.
It wasn’t a truck frame like an f-150 frame, but it was a truck type vehicle, it looks like a truck, you stack it next to the explorers and next to a GMC Jimmy and it fits right in. These new ones do not.
It was not a head-to-head competitor of the CR-V. It was for the GMC Jimmy, and the Chevy equivalents, they were the same sizes and general dimensions. The CR-Vs were always smaller, and the people who were buying them - unless they wanted a bigger vehicle, were not looking at the Escapes.
Now with the styling change and the shrinking of the vehicle, and design changes, you can see they are competing against the cr-v, rav-4, smaller hyundai crossover.
The escape has gone to compete against these, the Explorer has been shrunk a bit to now for the people (miss the truckish Escapes) who want an SUV that gets them up higher, and the Edge is for the Escape people who wanted a lower and still smaller, but more powerful, suv/crossover blend.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.