Study: European variants of US cars average 60% better gas mileage
by Steve Austin - 2007/06/04
The base model Ford Focus gets 37 MPG in the US, which is pretty decent mileage. But it gets 59 MPG in Europe which is 60% better gas mileage! Today we compare the mileage of 8 base model compact cars available both in the US and in Europe. Cars in the study consist of US models equipped with economy, no-thrill engines and their European cousins equipped with diesel engines. Each US/European car only differs by the engine. Other than the engines, cars are identical. GT/sports models and Hybrids are excluded from the study to keep it fair. Chart I can't reproduce- http://www.gas-cost.net/
Across the board, European models get an average of 52 MPG versus 32 MPG for the US version of the same car. So the same car on European roads gets 60% better gas mileage than on American roads.
Interestingly this 60% difference is not limited to the Ford Focus which gets the best mileage of the set, the difference averages also 60% for all cars. The difference is widest for the BMW 3 series: gas mileage on the European 1.8D is 80% better than on the smallest gasoline engine offered in the US (BMW 328).
So you may wonder: "How do the engines differ?"
European cars are powered by turbocharged "common-rail" diesel engines. This type of engine has been widely used in Europe for the last 10 years. They don't need spark plugs, run on diesel fuel including bio-diesel and have a high compression ratio of 17 to 25:1 versus 9:1 found on a typical gasoline engine, making them that much more efficient. And by the way, did I mention that they run on bio-diesel as well? US car manufacturers attempted to produce diesel engines in the 80's but failed. They used standard engine blocks designed for gasoline, not for these high compressions and as a result the blocks cracked. Ever since diesels have had bad reputation in the US while they equip most cars in Europe and are highly reliable. Now you may ask: "When will Ford or Chrysler bring their diesel compact cars to the US?" This is a very good question. After all the big 3 are loosing double-digit market share every quarter to more efficient car makers. Shouldn't it be time for them to react and bring these diesel compact cars in the US? American companies already make them for goodness sake!
Well you'll be suprised but they have no plan to do so. For the time being US consumers will have to choose between the Volkswagen TDI and the Mercedes-Benz E 320 diesel.
"The answer, as in with most things, seems to be moderation and compromise. There will never be a magical product that will accommodate the global appetite for its fuel dependent lifestyle" .. (bottom here) ..
from previous .. Several studies last year showed that growing corn to make ethanol biofuels was pushing up the price of food. Environmentalists have highlighted other problems such deforestation to clear land for growing crops to make the fuels. The UK government's renewable fuels advisors recommended slowing down the adoption of biofuels until better controls were in place to prevent inadvertent climate impacts.
Using computer models developed by the US Environmental Protection Agency, the researchers found the total environmental and health costs of gasoline are about 71 cents (50p) per gallon, while an equivalent amount of corn-ethanol fuel has associated costs of 72 cents to $1.45, depending on how it is produced.
The next generation of so-called cellulosic bioethanol fuels costs 19 cents to 32 cents, depending on the technology and type of raw materials used. These are experimental fuels made from woody crops that typically do not compete with conventional agriculture. The results are published online today in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?Message_id=46113631&txt2find=ethanol
Rarely a day goes by without the media bringing attention to the myriad of problems afflicting the planet. The ever-rising cost of gasoline, global warming, peak oil – these issues can seem hopeless. However, there has been a strong move towards finding alternative sources of energy, and at the forefront of this movement, ethanol seems to be a product that people are putting much of their hopes into. So is ethanol the fix-all solution that some would advocate it to be?
Ethanol’s main attraction comes from the fact that it burns cleaner than petroleum oil, and that it is more cost and fuel-efficient. With the state of current vehicles constantly expelling carbon monoxide gases into the atmosphere, using ethanol as a fuel would be a significant step towards cutting down carbon monoxide emissions and curbing the greenhouse gas effect. Ethanol is also a renewable energy resource, an important factor considering our high dependence on petroleum, being non-renewable, which is entering into a stage of scarcity, or peak-oil, driving the price of gasoline up. Furthermore, the production of ethanol may have a hand in easing the global economic crisis. The financial worth of ethanol producing crops will drive up the prices of vegetation such as corn, so farmers can enjoy a significant profit. These same crops need to processed, meaning there will be an increased need for factories and labor. So with all of these benefits, why isn’t everybody driving around in their ethanol fuelled cars just yet?
Unfortunately, the production of ethanol has many negative points working against it in its potential role as the next major source of fuel. The most pressing, it would seem, is the fact that creating ethanol is thought to consume more energy than its overall output. The amount of crops needed to fuel a car for only one day could go a long way towards feeding a person for considerably longer. Furthermore, although ethanol is being advocated as environmentally friendly, the amount of farmland needed to sate the global thirst for fuel is staggering. This need for fuel means that more farmlands must be created, resulting in considerable deforestation. There would also be less of an incentive for farmers to grow other crops, when ethanol-producing harvest would fetch more of a price, or even using vegetation, such as corn, for food products instead of as fuel. The result would be over-inflated prices on all food products, an expense that could further damage populations already dealing economic distress. The cons of ethanol seem dismal indeed, so should we just throw away the idea of ethanol as a potential solution to such problems?
The answer, as in with most things, seems to be moderation and compromise. There will never be a magical product that will accommodate the global appetite for its fuel dependent lifestyle. Ethanol can go a long way towards taking the strain off of the environment by being implementing in ethanol-gasoline, or ethanol-electric cars, but because of the environmental strain, as well as its potential role in driving food prices up, ethanol will never be an all encompassing, long-term solution. Ethanol will surely have an important role in the future, but for any progress to happen, the first step appears to be limiting global dependence on fuel. A tricky endeavor indeed. http://www.biofuelswatch.com/pros-and-cons-of-ethanol/
West Africa struggles to resolve Ivory Coast crisis Ola Awoniyi .. December 30, 2010 - 4:29AM
West African leaders sought to negotiate an end Wednesday to the crisis in the Ivory Coast, even as they planned for a possible military intervention to force Laurent Gbagbo to cede power.
Three regional heads of state had flown to Ivory Coast on Tuesday to warn Gbagbo to hand over power to his rival Alassane Ouattara or face military action, but left without a clear answer, promising to return next week.
"We are still talking," said Nigerian President Goodluck Jonathan, chairman of the regional bloc ECOWAS and leader of its military powerhouse. "People are negotiating. We are discussing. That is why they (envoys) are going back."
The foreign minister of Cape Verde, one of the states that delivered the ECOWAS ultimatum, said the region had dropped the threat of invasion "for now", but it emerged that military chiefs had begun laying plans for action.
Abdel-Fatau Musah, director of external relations for the 15-member ECOWAS, said senior officers began meeting Tuesday and Nigerian defence spokesman Colonel Mohammed Yerimah confirmed the session was under way.
A senior diplomat said the meeting in the Nigerian capital Abuja was about "the military planning ... and the logistics" of any eventual operation.
The planning came as the three leaders who went to Ivory Coast admitted they had failed to convince Gbabgo to make way for Ouattara, the internationally recognised winner of last month's presidential election.
Presidents Boni Yayi of Benin, Ernest Koroma of Sierra Leone and Pedro Pires of Cape Verde had gone to Abidjan to deliver Gbagbo an ultimatum: cede power or face the prospect of an intervention by ECOWAS forces.
The troika then flew on to Abuja to brief Nigeria's Goodluck, who admitted the envoys had not broken the deadlock and said they would return on January 3.
Pires had earlier said that a return to Ivory Coast was necessary.
His office said the "Ivorian parties" had asked for "time to reflect in order to find a viable way to conclude the electoral process, which is the only way to promote durable peace and stability in this West African country."
Jorge Borges, Cape Verde's foreign affairs secretary, said the focus of regional efforts was to find a mediated solution and that talk of a military intervention had been put on the back burner.
"This initial mediation has helped to establish a bridge to dialogue between the camps, and we are no longer talking of military intervention by ECOWAS which seems, thankfully, to have been set aside for the moment," he told AFP.
However Ouattara's spokesman Patrick Achi said: "The mediators' mission confirmed that Laurent Gbagbo is no longer president, it is only his departure that is being negotiated.
"If Cape Verde is saying that military action has been ruled out, it must certainly have news that Laurent Gbagbo is ready to go peacefully. And, with ECOWAS military chiefs meeting, the military option stays on the table."
Both Gbagbo and Ouattara claim to have won Ivory Coast's November 28 run-off election, but only the latter has been recognised as president by the world community, including ECOWAS, the United Nations and the European Union.
The EU upped the pressure Wednesday boosting to 61 the number of Gbagbo allies on whom it has placed a visa ban, a diplomatic source said.
Gbagbo's forces dominate the south of the country, home to the world's largest cocoa-exporting industry and the commercial capital Abidjan, while Ouattara's shadow government is blockaded inside its hotel headquarters.
There is no sign of the defiant incumbent loosening his grip. Gbagbo's supporters have begun harrassing UN peacekeepers and his regime has issued veiled threats against West African migrants living in Ivory Coast.
The country is home to millions of foreign workers, drawn to what is still a major economic hub of West Africa to work in huge cocoa plantations, major ports and a small but promising oil production sector.
Even before the poll, the country was split in two between the rebel-held north and Gbagbo's southern strongholds, and loyalist security forces hold Abidjan in an iron grip.
His troops have cornered Ouattara's shadow government in his former campaign headquarters, a luxury golf resort on the outskirts of the city protected by a cordon of 800 UN peacekeepers and supplied by helicopter.
Gbagbo has ordered French and UN troops to leave Ivory Coast, a demand they have rejected insisting they recognise only Ouattara's rule, and around the city the UN "Blue Helmets" are under increasing pressure.
On Tuesday a Bangladeshi soldier was wounded by a machete blow during a mob attack and a UN truck burnt out by pro-Gbagbo demonstrators.
The United Nations estimates that at least 173 people have been killed in post-election violence, many dragged from their homes at night by pro-Gbagbo forces, and that more than 19,000 refugees have fled the country.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
