By on March 7, 2013

With a US-EU free trade agreement looming on the horizon, Ford is calling for a harmonization between the US and EU vehicle standards, as well as a removal of tariffs on vehicles between the two entities.

Automotive News reports on some of the positives; niche vehicles could be imported without the expensive homologation process, and production flexibility would be drastically increased if the US accepted vehicles that adhered to the ECE standard as well as America’s own FMVSS regulations. Ford’s Wolfgang Schneider told Automotive News

“It will allow us far more flexibility to produce in the best place,” Wolfgang Schneider, Ford’s European vice president for governmental affairs, told Automotive News Europe in an interview. “Do we need this when we sell 500,000 units of a particular model in a country? No. But you are talking about 20,000 or 30,000, yes, because it enables you to bring in niche products.”

While European car makers and EU officials have expressed reservations about FTAs with Japan and South Korean, the US-EU deal has won widespread support. Ford in particular would stand to benefit, as its “One Ford” plan for a single, harmonized lineup could then be fully integrated (global Ranger and Focus RS, perhaps?).

Worth noting is that Ford stopped short of calling for true harmonization. The level of minutiae that would have to be agreed upon is apparently too daunting for either party to consider, and a likely stumbling block to reform. Instead, Ford suggested “mutual recognition”, which would ostensibly be some kind of reciprocity agreement whereby the US and EU would accept vehicle’s built to either standard.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

246 Comments on “Ford Calls For Harmonized US-EU Vehicle Standards, Will Help Niche Vehicles...”


  • avatar
    Felis Concolor

    About Damn Time Dept: Just Do It.

    And strike down that silly 25 year import ban while you’re at it.

    • 0 avatar
      jeffzekas

      One should be able to buy any car in any country- but ALL cars should have the SAME smog and factory pollution standards (we’re talking to you, China)- it’s too bad cars are so much the same (remember when “Citroen” meant “really weird French car”?)- this idea really is 30 years too late- we can’t buy a Marcos or a classic Austin Mini, so what’s the point?

      • 0 avatar
        niky

        All cars worldwide should be built to first world standards? Cool. Let me get back to you on that when my white collar job starts paying me more than $700 a month.

    • 0 avatar

      Hell yeah!!! But be careful, cuz we wouldnt want to stop teaching fourth-graders and immigrants WTF 29/64ths is…..and/or that would “solve this” and “build a smarter planet”

  • avatar
    european

    first the D3 want tariffs to protect their NA operations, now
    they wanna harmonized standards. double faced buggers.

    anyways i’m so not against harmonization. i wish the ford Ka
    would be sold in the US. but they would have to rip the 4 seats out
    and just put one seat inside, centered properly. to accomodate the bigger american bottoms of course.

    • 0 avatar
      sportyaccordy

      How long ago was Ford calling for tariffs? You do realize D3 is comprised of 3 “D”ifferent companies?

    • 0 avatar
      european

      … but!! they shouldn’t jack the Ka up, raise it few inches, put some plastics underneath it and glue a JEEP badge on it, coz this might give hardcore americans an heartattack.

      ugh-oh??? what? wrong car manufacturer???

      so sorry, my humble apologies for raising your blood preasure

      /bows

    • 0 avatar
      morbo

      European can have his girly man Ka car. I’ll bring some American freedom to EuroLandia with a Raptor or maybe a Navigator.

      America!!! F^kC YEA!!!

      • 0 avatar
        MeaCulpa

        You can already import a raptor or a navigator to Europe, within 150 km of my location there’s four raptors and four Navigators for sale, but just two regular F150s for some reason, oh and 10 escales.

      • 0 avatar
        european

        morbo buddy,

        didnt you read Baruth’s article about the Grand Caravan.
        apparently, mommy & girly cars are all the rage right now.

        DONT HATE ON THE FORD KA, BRO!

      • 0 avatar

        While I think european chooses to express himself in very impolite terms, don’t mess with my Ka!!!!!!!!!!:)!

        Go read my article on it and you might see it for what it really is.

        Anyways, calling a car a girl’s car in this day and age is an insult? Maybe calling it a hairdresser’s car might be construed as such, but I for one am the proud owner of a girlie car and would love to put another girlie car next to it. The 500 Abarth…Sweet!

        Sorry for interrupting, carry on with your fight…

      • 0 avatar
        ZekeToronto

        Doubtful. One look at a Veneno and the Raptor will be running home with its tail between its legs! Now THAT’S a man’s car!

    • 0 avatar
      StaysCrunchy

      Don’t worry, we’ll send some of our cars your way as well.

      Of course we’ll have to remove all the interior mirrors first. Judging by your grooming habits, I’d say looking in a mirror would be far too upsetting to experience for the first time while driving.

  • avatar
    Type57SC

    Good luck with that Ford.

  • avatar
    CJinSD

    This would be great for the Germans, who know how to build cars that sell here and can also build cars here that sell there. I’d be pretty excited if I were building cars in South Carolina or Alabama, less so if I were building them in Michigan.

  • avatar
    doctor olds

    Good idea, but don’t hold your breath for the unelected bureaucrats on both sides of the pond accomplishing this anytime soon!

    • 0 avatar
      MeaCulpa

      Only ONE side needs to change, and that isn’t the side with the global standard.

      • 0 avatar
        Pig_Iron

        I used to do regulatory compliance and found a lot of arrogance on both sides. In general, I found the EU standards better (more logical). I can see phased in harmonization in the event of a free-trade challenge some day.

      • 0 avatar
        doctor olds

        Except that no environmental protection or safety group here will reduce their standards! They already face a constant cry for getting tougher as it is.

        I will cross my fingers, but not hold my breath.

  • avatar

    I can see this getting traction. The big three see that future growth will come from overseas so creating a world wide standard will help them compete. Without their lobbyists opposing it, this might actually go forward.

  • avatar

    Large vehicles won’t do in most EU Countries due to high price of Petrol, and you can add narrow Town and City streets too!

    • 0 avatar
      MeaCulpa

      I think that handling, interior fit and finish and lack of diesel is a larger stumbling block then the width of European streets or the price of petrol. Those things can probably be solved if there´s a will.

  • avatar
    Brian P

    If there is mutual recognition of each other’s standards, the most likely consequence is that the US-specific EPA and FMVSS standards would wither and die, becoming obsolete. There are enough countries in the world that recognize UN-ECE standards but wouldn’t be part of the EU trade pact, that if a vehicle manufacturer had a choice of building a vehicle to US-specific or UN-ECE, they would choose UN-ECE so that the vehicle could be sold world-wide in the same form.

    Not that there’s anything wrong with that … nothing whatsoever!

    • 0 avatar
      CJinSD

      We don’t even have a single standard in the US. For whatever perverse, subversive reason, the California Air Resource Board makes automakers jump through their own hoops in addition to the EPA’s in order to sell cars in the largest market in the US. Mind you this is exactly what the Commerce Clause was supposed to prevent, but progressives have no use for the Constitution between bathroom visits.

      • 0 avatar
        RS

        Harmonized standards reek with Common Sense. Politicians and bureaucrats will make it a harder decision than it needs to be.

        Insane loopholes and exclusions will probably be needed for passage. Look for the US EPA and it’s 5-7 independent state factions to lead the insanity.

      • 0 avatar
        Silvy_nonsense

        Get real, CJinSD. If you’re going to make partisan comments, please understand what the hell you are talking about next time.

        The Commerce Clause stops individual states from enacting laws that harm interests in other states, so the California legislature in Sacramento can’t pass a law that is prejudicial to manufacturers in Michigan, for example. However, the Federal legislature in Washington D.C. can pass a law that gives a particular state special treatment, and that’s exactly the case here. California’s exception is a negotiated compromise that is enacted in the Federal Clean Air Act. California can request waivers because a majority of the other states agreed to allow it. That’s the Constitution working as designed.

        U.S. Federalism – Get to Know It!

      • 0 avatar
        corntrollio

        Is this you, CJinSD?

        www dot theonion dot com/articles/area-man-passionate-defender-of-what-he-imagines-c,2849/

        CARB was of course created under the Mulford-Carrell Act, which was signed into law by that commie progressive Ronald Reagan.

        • 0 avatar
          CJinSD

          Good point. My beef only applies to the years since 1970, when the EPA rendered the CARB redundant and a needless impediment to interstate commerce. You would have owned this argument in the late ’60s though, which is a real improvement over your usual level of relevance. Very encouraging.

    • 0 avatar
      dtremit

      The problem here is that EPA and FMVSS standards are stricter than UN-ECE in some areas, and for good reasons. I would be very surprised to see UN-ECE standards adopted as acceptable in the US without updates to address things like particulate emissions and bumper standards.

  • avatar
    celebrity208

    I’m surprised no one has mentioned the chicken tax yet. Hey, it’d be good for the environment too because we wouldn’t be shipping seats across the ocean in Transit Connects just to avoid the chicken tax. GREENS + CORPORATE SUITS UNITE!

    • 0 avatar
      DenverMike

      Green or not, import truck makers aren’t the ones complaining about the Chicken Tax as long as their trucks are selling and profits keep rolling in. As far as we know, they prefer playing Chicken Tax reindeer games instead of the 2.5% tariff import cars pay.

    • 0 avatar
      RobertRyan

      Totally stupid that a manufacturer has to do that to avoid even more expense.

  • avatar
    Hummer

    The US is really the only beneficiary here, the only thing Europe has to offer that we severly lack are diesels, albiet small, but the technology can be converted over to more useful sizes.
    The US on the other hand, can send over our vehicles without having to worry about contracts building new factories to avoid taxes and find out if anything we currently have turns out to be a hit without the initial investment.

    • 0 avatar
      CJinSD

      I think the Europeans(spelled G E R M A N S) would benefit because they could continue to bring over their cars that there is a ready market for without spending millions on certification for each model variation. They can offer a greater variety of models without having to worry about economies of scale for model certification that today limit them to just a sample of their lines in one of their biggest markets.

    • 0 avatar
      Big Al from Oz

      @Hummer
      What are you going to send over other than a few cult cars?

      UNECE clones you guys are already manufacturing.

  • avatar
    bwright1991

    It would be great if this happened. Emissions standards probably won’t be the same but crash standards should be. I think the EU should conform to the FMVSS. The american standard is safer and safer is always better.

    • 0 avatar
      RobertRyan

      Not really. Cars that have passed in the US have had some bad results in European testing. I think a long way to go before you get any “harmonization” there.

      • 0 avatar
        MeaCulpa

        US side impact standards used to be stricter. But Euro NCAP has introduced some side impact testing now as well. Personally I do believe that the need for regulation concerning occupancy safety is small. Cars with poor safety ratings tends to attract few, if any, buyers.

    • 0 avatar
      Brian P

      And this is exactly why this harmonization is unlikely to happen: the assumption that one’s own standard is “better” and therefore the other side has to give way and accept “ours”. Rest assured that the Europeans believe that their own standards are “better”. In reality, there are some aspects of each side’s standards that make more sense than the other. For example, there is little question that the E-code headlamp standard is better than the (obsolete) US standard, and I certainly believe that the UN-ECE requirement for turn signals to be amber (not red) and not combined with any other function, and with a repeater visible from the side, is better than the US standard.

      The UN-ECE standards are ahead of the US standards with regards to pedestrian safety, too. In European cities, it’s rather normal for around 50% of traffic fatalities to be pedestrians, and I know that Toronto is not much different.

      There are certain aspects of the US crash standards that do not make sense … notably, that the occupant need not be wearing seat belts. That’s absurd. The US standards are also weak with regards to between-vehicle compatibility (bumper heights, crash structure heights, etc).

  • avatar
    Beerboy12

    I cannot think of one good reason why an alignment of standards is a bad thing. Control imports to protect local business, if you must, by using taxes not manufacturing standards.

    • 0 avatar
      danio3834

      It’s good for consumers, bad for a select few interests who have something to gain from non-tariff barriers.

      • 0 avatar
        Luke42

        That’s a very diplomatic way of saying “companies that depend on barriers to free trade in order to make money.”

        I’m thinking that few years ago, those companies would have been Ford and Chrysler fighting to keep foreign competition from having a chance to win F-150 and Dakota customers. But now that they’re global companies, getting rid of these artificial barriers allow them to cut costs?

        • 0 avatar
          RobertRyan

          @Luke42
          That is why they are having parts built in Thailand the “Detroit of Asia”

        • 0 avatar
          RobertRyan

          @Denvermike
          Same standards no banning. Not same standards cannot sell and will be banned.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            @RobertRyan

            “Same standards no banning. Not same standards cannot sell and will be banned.”

            See, that’s what you’re missing. The 5.0 Mustang is banned from the EU and there’s no changing that. It’s done, It’s over for it. Modifying it’s emissions system won’t work because the EU or the global standard focuses on engine size and mpg and not just tail pipe emissions. This would also kill any chances of global full-size SUVs or full-size pickups with V8s.

            And without their V8s, what’s the point?

  • avatar
    Big Al from Oz

    It’s inevitable that the US will have to align itself to the rest of the world and become inclusive with UNECE regulations. As I’ve stated the US economy represents less than 20% of the global economy and is shrinking.

    The US only has several pickups and a few niche vehicles that are truly indigenous, the rest are “cloned” UNECE vehicles.

    CAFE will gradually grind the US industry by its very regulations that are trying to provide trade barriers for the US. The UNECE regulations concentrate on expanding existing technologies while the CAFE/EPA US regulations require more new technologies.

    The US manufacturers are finding it hard in the Eurozone while the German and Asian manufacturers are suriving in an hostile environment.

    The way I see it this way for the US manufacturers – Chrysler is at the point of no return controlled by a UNECE based parent, Ford has its global plan which is why it wants the UNECE model, where does that leave GM?

    Ford and GM are trying to use China to bear more fruit, but the Asians and Euro manufacturers already have a foothold.

    Excluding Africa, where are the Chinese vehicle exports going? To UNECE aligned countries. Where does that leave the US and more importantly GM, China will align itself to the UNECE model. Even for political reasons.

    As the global vehicle manufacturers globalise there will be fewer of them. GM will lose out and Ford will be left as the only US controlled vehicle manufacturer.

  • avatar
    ranwhenparked

    Well, that’s the best news I’ve read all day. Enthusiasts have wanted this for years, but I believe this is the first time a major automaker has ever come out in support of it. Most of the current regulations in the US were actually created because of OEM lobbying in the first place, the West German luxury brands wanted to stop all grey market imports so that American buyers would be restricted to whatever the automakers decided to offer through their US dealers.

    I would imagine the usual hysterical groups will come out against this with tirades about lowering safety standards for the children or surrendering sovereignty, etc. etc. I just hope Ford’s voice is able to drown all that out and that other big automakers sign on to support them.

    If the US really does start recognizing EU standards, this could potentially mean someone could go over there and buy any car certified for sale in Europe and privately import it. Jaguar XF estate, Citroen DS3, Fiat Panda, pick your poison.

    • 0 avatar
      RobertRyan

      Yes it will open up a whole panorama of opportunities.At the moment you cannot import a manufacturer or brand that is not sold in The US. That will change IF this “harmonization” goes ahead.

    • 0 avatar
      Manic

      Means also big changes in used car business, probably, if deal is reached and it’s valid for used cars too (don’t hold your breath).
      Currently if you want to bring used car to EU from US (well, historically prices have been always much lower for second hand cars in US as sales prices are lower and cars are less taxed), in most EU countries inspection people expect you to have EU standard (E4 or something) lights, safety belts and glass + kph speedo. It makes import an non-starter if you don’t have these on the car, as changing all those parts makes it just too expensive. Some cars in US have some of these.

  • avatar
    Flybrian

    NO stupid EURO pedestrian regs. Period.

    • 0 avatar
      Brian P

      Incorporating the same standard in the North American market would have almost no effect, because vehicles designed for worldwide sale (includes most vehicles in the North American market) are already designed with compliance to the European pedestrian-impact standard in mind.

    • 0 avatar
      Luke42

      Lots of cars on American roads comply with the standard. I think of it as the “California Effect” writ large.

      Doesn’t bother me none, though. I walk, bike, motorcycle, and aviate in addition to just driving – and idiotic drivers have pit me in danger plenty of times.

      I also like it that most drivers have ABS and TCS now. I don’t need them personally, but I sure feel better knowing that the inattentive and poorly trained driver next to me has some d@mn training wheels that will make those critical moments a little easier to handle.

  • avatar
    RobertRyan

    I wonder if anyone has noticed that the Ranger is built in Thailand and South Africa not in Europe? I guess a better example of a “niche” product could have been chosen.

    • 0 avatar
      Luke42

      But isn’t it built to Euro standards?

      • 0 avatar
        RobertRyan

        Exactly. “Euro Standards” are a default GLOBAL standard. Australia has Euro V emission laws, but we are not part of the EU. The fact that is built outside the EU does not mean it does not comply to EU standards. Only the US is the odd man out. Canada does comply to some EU standards.

  • avatar
    MRF 95 T-Bird

    Ford should have harmonized much of it’s product years ago. We could have ended up with the Cortina, a far more competitive small car than the Pinto turned out to be.

    • 0 avatar
      ZekeToronto

      We continued to get Cortinas in Canada for several years after the Pinto was introduced. You didn’t miss much; the MkIIIs were even more rust prone than the MkIIs, literally melted before your eyes.

      • 0 avatar
        MRF 95 T-Bird

        In the states we had some MKI’s Cortina’s as well as MKII’s imported from roughly 65-70. Through the 70′s I used to see them on the road. Mark I’s had those inverted peace sign taillights. They looked like 3/4 of a American Ford Falcon. From 71 on Mercury dealers got the German Capri.

  • avatar
    KitaIkki

    Replace large sections of the EPA, NHTSA, DOT with about a dozen German-to-English translators. Think of the savings …

  • avatar
    ydnas7

    firstly, this has nothing to do with CAFE or any European CO2 emissions reduction regulations. They would continue with little change as is. It would reduce noxious emissions testing costs though.

    Secondly USA specific safety features tend to emphasize cabin safety vs EU centric vehicle safety. Both are important.

    EU and Japanese regs often are equivalent to each other but incompatible. If Japan thinks of it first, the EU one will be half the same, but half different, so as be incompatible. Ie Japan battery standards SBA. S0101 Idling-Stop Life Cycle Testing

    • 0 avatar
      Big Al from Oz

      UNECE regulations do cover emission controls. That would have to be part of the deal.

      Current CAFE/EPA regulations are making it harder for the US manufacturers to compete, along with design regs and taxes.

      This site must be heavily NA biased as I have not heard person mention that the US manufacturers will have to improve build quality to be competitive and export vehicles, unless they are as cheap if not cheaper than Korean vehicles.

      I think there are near on 60 countries aligned to the UNECE. They are on all continents except NA.

      The size of vehicles has nothing to do with UNECE either, Australia builds UNECE compliant large rear wheel drive V8s and muscle cars, something that would go down well in the US.

      Many Asian vehicles are UNECE compliant.

      If the US takes on this challenge I think it would have to be phased in. Full size pickups are the only things keeping Detroit alive and they are one of the most protected species on the planet.

      CAFE would have to be dismantled, but the EPA is already moving in the direction of Euro VI commonality.

      • 0 avatar
        doctor olds

        US emissions requirements are by far the most difficult to comply with of any in the world. Don’t expect the zealots in the EPA bureaucracy to back down on anything ever! More now! has been their mantra since the 60′s and the current batch may be the worst ever. I dealt with these guys, sometimes face to face. “Unelected bureaucracy leads to soft despotism.” The political answer does not seem imminent either, based on the last election.

        I suppose the site is NA biased. 80% of the english language speaker live here! NA Quality today actually is very good as the market demands.

        • 0 avatar
          RobertRyan

          No they are not. Japanese standards are stricter and Euro VI is very tough. Ford’s new Transit Powerstroke 3.2 litre diesel could not be upgraded to Euro V1 standards and had to dropped from the European lineup. It does meet US Regulations though.

          • 0 avatar
            Luke42

            In my TDI days, I found that US and Euro emissions standards were both very tough, but on different things. (Particulates vs. NOx, if I remember correctly.)

            Meeting both standards at the same time is much harder than making tradeoffs to meet one or the other. Some companies do it, though: BMW, Mercedes, VW. But they may be trading of engineering in other areas to make it work.

            I haven’t traveled extensively in Europe, but my trip to the UK showed that their cities and cars are just as nice as ours and more alike than different. While their versions of the Focus and Accord might not be super-awesome mega sellers in the US, they’d fit in just fine and would suit my needs better in a lot of cases.

          • 0 avatar
            RobertRyan

            @Luke42.
            It will allow more choice and lessen the “why we cannot get that here” sort of comment.

        • 0 avatar
          Athos Nobile

          Dr Olds, explaining this kind of stuff to Europhiles is a waste of time.

          You can even put side by side the US vs EU drive cycles and they won’t understand how f#@$%& hard is to comply with the US one. And that is just by using 2 charts. One of my lecturers last year praised the American one as being “closer to reality”. He worked for an European OEM.

          I cringe at the thought that at some point we will all be forced to live under EU designed standards for everything.

          • 0 avatar
            doctor olds

            @Athos Nobile- There is such incredible ignorance it is frustrating see and impossible to address. I keep trying!

          • 0 avatar
            RobertRyan

            @Athos Nobile and @doctor olds
            “Global” standards not European. You WILL be living under them soon enough. Some of the US “Standards” leave much to be desired.They are not the “benchmark” people outside the US(that does include Canada)are using.

        • 0 avatar
          Big Al from Oz

          What about the 25% of the US’s crude oil cut going to both domestic and commercial oil heat?

          I do know NY State has moved to match the EPAs vehicles emissions standard for heating.

      • 0 avatar
        dtremit

        Why would CAFE need to be dismantled? It doesn’t regulate car design, only corporate mix. If anything, allowing UN-ECE cars would probably provide manufacturers with more high mileage models to choose from to meet CAFE.

        • 0 avatar
          Big Al from Oz

          @dtremit
          Okay, it doesn’t have to be dismantled, but then you’ll lose your industry by being uncompetitive.

          By not having CAFE the UNECE vehicles are expanding the use old technologies. Vehicles like your pickups/SUVs are reliant on CAFE to continue on building large platrormed/large engined vehicles.

          You answered your own question in your second question.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            @Big Al from Oz – You’re correct in that something like the V8 BMW M3 gets hit with a (one time) Gas Guzzler Tax while large SUVs with similar MPG get a free pass. This may slightly favor the Expedition and Tahoe etc, But large pickups pay a decent penalty at the DMV (every year) for their weight, engine size and commercial status.

            I don’t see how this makes large pickups “reliant on CAFE”. If anything CAFE encourages small trucks for their light weight and small engines, even if they get similar mpg as large pickups (and the V8 M3), depending on how they’re equipped and used.

            There would have to be a ridiculously high tax to slow down sales or large pickups and SUVs though.

            Now the EU emissions and mpg standards do kill any chances of our large pickups, SUVs even V8 Mustangs from officially selling there. Now that’s a truly protected market.

          • 0 avatar
            doctor olds

            With 30 yeare experience with the Emissions Compliance end of the business, I can assure you that US requirements are the toughest, in no small part because of the Onboard Diagnostics requirements.

            Cruze diesel, btw, requires urea injection to meet US standards. The European version does not require this expensive and less
            convenient system.

      • 0 avatar
        DenverMike

        @Big Al from Oz

        “This site must be heavily NA biased as I have not heard person mention that the US manufacturers will have to improve build quality to be competitive and export vehicles, unless they are as cheap if not cheaper than Korean vehicles.”

        Can you give a specific example?

        “If the US takes on this challenge I think it would have to be phased in. Full size pickups… are one of the most protected species on the planet.”

        Can you give a specific example?

        “Current CAFE/EPA regulations are making it harder for the US manufacturers to compete, along with design regs and taxes.”

        Can you give a specific example?

        “The size of vehicles has nothing to do with UNECE either, Australia builds UNECE compliant large rear wheel drive V8s and muscle cars, something that would go down well in the US.”

        Can you give a specific example?

        You talk in a lot of generalities and cliches, but rarely back any of it up.

        • 0 avatar
          RobertRyan

          “Now the EU emissions and mpg standards do kill any chances of our large pickups, SUVs even V8 Mustangs from officially selling there. Now that’s a truly protected market.”

          Not a problem. Get the same standards as used in the EU and in a vast number of countries globally and you can sell.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            @Robert Ryan – So if the EU bans the V8 Mustang and conceivably the F-150, so should the US???

            gas2.org/2010/04/06/turbo-diesel-mustang-for-europe-maybe-some-day/

          • 0 avatar
            RobertRyan

            @Denvermike,
            “@Robert Ryan – So if the EU bans the V8 Mustang and conceivably the F-150, so should the US???”

            If you have the same standards why would you?

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            OK, so the EU should lighten up on V8s and relax their entire tax system in regards to mpg (emissions) and engine volume?

          • 0 avatar
            RobertRyan

            @Denvermike said:
            “OK, so the EU should lighten up on V8s and relax their entire tax system in regards to mpg (emissions) and engine volume?”
            No the US should adhere to global standards simple as that.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            @RobertRyan

            “No the US should adhere to global standards simple as that.”

            OK, now we’re back where we started and talking cirles.. I’ll ask again:

            So if the EU bans the V8 Mustang and conceivably the F-150, so should the US???

          • 0 avatar
            RobertRyan

            @Denvermike,
            “So if the EU bans the V8 Mustang and conceivably the F-150, so should the US???”
            If they have the same standard why would anybody ban anything? Does not make sense.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            @RobertRyan – Why doesn’t it make sense? You said:

            “No the US should adhere to global standards simple as that.”

            So I’ll ask another way:

            How doesn’t this mean: The US should ban the V8 Mustang just like the EU did?

            gas2.org/2010/04/06/turbo-diesel-mustang-for-europe-maybe-some-day/

        • 0 avatar
          RobertRyan

          How long have you got? I can see Big Al starting a separate website to answer those.
          We have talked about this at length on the PUTC website between Big Al myself and you.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            “We have talked about this at length on the PUTC website between Big Al myself and you.”

            I know you two talk a lot, but like I said, you only speak in vague generalities that leave more questions than answers.. Unless you give specific examples or proof, what you’re saying means absolutely nothing.

          • 0 avatar
            RobertRyan

            @Denvemike, said
            “I know you two talk a lot, but like I said, you only speak in vague generalities that leave more questions than answers.. Unless you give specific examples or proof, what you’re saying means absolutely nothing”

            People can go to the PUTC site and make their own judgement if we are talking “absolutely nothing”

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            @RobertRyan – “We have talked about this at length on the PUTC website between Big Al myself and you.”

            No, you’re stating the exact same things on PUTC almost verbatim. With of course, no specific examples or proof. Got links?

          • 0 avatar
            RobertRyan

            @Denvermike
            “No, you’re stating the exact same things on PUTC almost verbatim. With of course, no specific examples or proof. Got links?”
            We came to a conclusions there with several others beside Big Al and myself, agreed too. You were the only dissenting party.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            @RobertRyan – Just because everyone else takes you on your ‘word’ or simply ignores you, you’re saying it’s OK to be vague and speak in generalities that likely wouldn’t hold water if you did come up with real examples or links?

          • 0 avatar
            RobertRyan

            @Denvermike Said
            “@RobertRyan – Just because everyone else takes you on your ‘word’ or simply ignores you, you’re saying it’s OK to be vague and speak in generalities that likely wouldn’t hold water if you did come up with real examples or links?”

            They can got to the PUTC site same subject , links ,other participants and you saying they are ALL wrong.
            http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2013/03/global-ranger-could-be-right-size-for-us.html

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            @RobertRyan – Thanks, there’s 6 long pages to read through. Can you narrow it down to or copy a specific example or link? Or anything?

            I’ll save you the trouble… You wouldn’t find anything different than what you put up here!

          • 0 avatar
            RobertRyan

            @Denvermike
            ” Thanks, there’s 6 long pages to read through. Can you narrow it down to or copy a specific example or link? Or anything?

            I’ll save you the trouble… You wouldn’t find anything different than what you put up here!”

            ALL of those posters were all wrong except you. They did not get it.

        • 0 avatar
          corntrollio

          I’d suggest you guys get a room, but according to your conversation, you’ve already had a room and are trying to export the discord to TTAC now. Would someone care to post the link so we can decide for ourselves instead of seeing a bunch of passive-aggressive posturing?

          • 0 avatar
            RobertRyan

            @controllio there are about 4 participants on PUTC. It got heated, it came down to a 3 against one in the end. Why bring that same subject up again on TTAC? Correct. I could post the same questions and answers from PUTC, but that detract from the much wider discussion here.

          • 0 avatar
            RobertRyan

            @corntrillo Link as requested.
            http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2013/03/global-ranger-could-be-right-size-for-us.html

          • 0 avatar
            RobertRyan

            The Site has been hacked, comments have disappeared on in Big Al’s case multiple posted. Got an email from site manager, saying they have a problem and looking at doing something about it.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            @RobertRyan – Actually, we’re were only discussing global vs full-size trucks on PUTC (as it was the topic)and harmonization was only brought up by Big Al, but was ignored by everyone.

          • 0 avatar
            RobertRyan

            @Denvermike,
            “harmonization” or “why we cannot have these vehicles here?” has been a major theme.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            @RobertRyan,
            ““harmonization” or “why we cannot have these vehicles here?” has been a major theme.”

            Not specifically. Just on the noncompetitive nature of US mid-size and marketing/sales/value/hauling related topics. This is why you can’t give a specific harmonization quote.

            You’re always vague anyways and never give true examples. And I’ve always either ignored or let it go, but never really called (either of) you out on it… until now..

  • avatar
    shaker

    There’s probably an issue with replacement parts – “niche” vehicles with differing lights, safety systems, etc. means a smorgasbord of parts that would be too expensive to stock, thus, long waits and high prices for repairs – the insurance companies would exact a toll for this, to be sure, making a supposedly “inexpensive” Euro (Ford Ka?) much less affordable.

  • avatar
    Good ole dayz

    Isn’t it those silly EU pedestrian regulations that have spawned the ugly bulging hoods and largemouth-bass grille openings, which manufacturers appear to be applying across their entire product lines? The front ends of vehicles are now pretty much hard to distinguish from manufacturer to manufacturer.

    That, plus the Bangle inspired elevated trunk lids and sheet metal lines down the side, and the “urban” high belt-line / small greenhouse — which manufacturers have also adopted in a lemming-like fashion — has resulted in vehicles that are unattractive, and with decreased visibility far less safe from an active safety standpoint.

    Between the above, plus four more years of Obama guaranteeing a slow growth (at best) or declining (more likely) economy, I’m holding on to my older vehicle that I can actually see out of, rather than acquiring a car payment to purchase anything new.

    • 0 avatar
      corntrollio

      “That, plus the Bangle inspired elevated trunk lids and sheet metal lines down the side, and the “urban” high belt-line / small greenhouse — which manufacturers have also adopted in a lemming-like fashion — has resulted in vehicles that are unattractive, and with decreased visibility far less safe from an active safety standpoint.”

      This always seems like such a bogus “get off my lawn” complaint to me. There were plenty of older cars that had terrible visibility that is much worse than any car sold today. I’ve never had any trouble seeing out of a high belt-line modern vehicle that I’ve driven with these supposed small and narrow rear windshields and supposedly tiny windows. It always sounds like a stylistic preference trying to be rooted in a functional preference, but failing miserably.

      • 0 avatar
        CJinSD

        The six inch wide A-pillars of some cars today are ever so much more effective for seeing the road around than the obstructionary two inch wide pillars of the past. Those things were always in the way! It was the same with those darn rectilinear rear side windows! C-pillars were so small that they made me cross-eyed every time I tried to check my blind spot! I’m so glad hatchbacks now have tight French curves tracing their rear and side windows, making the c-pillars look like spindles totes doesn’t cost any visibility! And descending rooflines? If you can’t see through a little sheet metal, you should hang it up, gramps! Maybe that’s why they’re missing out on the inner beauty of Bangle Butts, coffin noses, Christmas lights, flame surfacing, and drooping rooflines. They can’t see past steel, aluminum, fiberglass, or plastic. Sad, really.

  • avatar
    Lorenzo

    I FORBID IT!
    Any agreement will involve compromise, and that means giving in to Brussels regulators. Just think of the crackpot standards, fines and other gobbledegook that will show up as “mandates”. There will probably be a super-bureaucracy to maintain and “enhance” the rules, probably sited in Europe, and we’ll be in the same position as the British, tied up by rules made elsewhere.

    Mulally doesn’t know what he’s putting us into with this proposal. Europe is on the cusp of a monetary, demographic, economic, and social-welfare implosion. It’s never a good time to hug someone about to drop into the abyss.

    • 0 avatar
      RobertRyan

      @Lorenzo,
      Those standards go beyond Europe and are part of a global landscape. Mullaly cannot ignore them.

      • 0 avatar
        Lorenzo

        The EU standards go beyond Europe because other countries have adopted whatever standards the EU regulators impose. Mulally is looking at uniform standards for his global business, I’m complaining about yielding power to an unelected, unaccountable EU bureaucracy through a free trade agreement. Ask the British how much influence their businesses and consumer groups have over European Union rule makers, and compare it to the pressure that equivalent American groups can bring to bear on the EPA, Transportation Department, and NHTSA. We have a democratic feedback loop, the Europeans have a group of rule making bodies directly accountable to no one, not even the European Parliament. THAT’S my point, and the danger of coming under that group of rule makers overrides the benefits of uniform vehicle standards.

        • 0 avatar
          RobertRyan

          @Lorenzo,
          The Problem is not how “democratic” the various US bodies are(There is a fair bit of argument about that)but their decisions which make them the odd man out. Mullaly from the point of reducing costs would like uniform rules(In fact we all would) but US regulations are so far from the norm, it is going to take some serious revisions to bring them into line with Global Standards. If Ford/ GM is not interested in selling Globally fine, keep the Status quo

          • 0 avatar
            doctor olds

            @RobertRyan- US vehicle regulations have led the world. I think they may be too stingent, but you should not bet on America lowering its standards. Just has tended to occur over the decades, the rest of the world is gradually catching up.

            The only “emissions” issue that any US car has in Europe is “CO2″, which is only another way to measure fuel economy. Any US control system can rather easily meet any standard for the three real emissions constituents, HC, CO & NOX, anywhere else in the world.

            GM and Ford sell plenty of vehicles all over the world already. You may want to consider that the powertrain in the beloved Commodore is purely NA engineered.

          • 0 avatar
            RobertRyan

            @doctor olds
            Led so much they are not acceptable anywhere else. A US sourced Diesel is a “dirty” diesel in Australia, to the point you cannot SELL( not to be confused with with limited import) of US regulation diesels here.We are still Euro V by the way.
            The US lags well behind the rest of world in many Automotive disciplines, it needs to catch up.
            Yes the Commodore (which is your new Chevrolet SS) has a US GM engine. Prior to that a locally designed Holden V8, which was going to upgraded to something better the then Gen 111. GM NA thought otherwise and we got the Chevrolet V8.
            @Doctor Olds 90% of the profits of Ford and GM come from the sales of Pickups in North America. Ford(especially) and GM are not that profitable outside NA.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            @RobertRyan – An EU or global sourced diesel is “dirty” in the US. See how that works? See I can play that game too… Actually both are clean diesels, but just a different way to calculate diesel emissions. I believe it’s particulate matters vs NOx in the EU.

          • 0 avatar
            RobertRyan

            “Actually both are clean diesels, but just a different way to calculate diesel emissions. I believe it’s particulate matters vs NOx in the EU.”

            Correct both are very clean but as far regulations go they are “dirty”

          • 0 avatar
            doctor olds

            Mr Ryan, you don’t have any idea of most of what you are talking about!

            Our large pickups are not sold outside of NA because most people outside NA simply can’t afford the fuel costs. We have much higher PPP income levels along with lower gas prices than any other developed country. That’s why we have ‘em and you don’t. We used to have much bigger cars as well, but CAFE killed them.

            Every Aussie I know (and there are a fair number!) loves our trucks and wishes they could get them at home. I met a bloke a few years ago in Sydney with a RHD converted GMC Sierra. He raved about how it only cost $95,000 and would run circles around the $110,000 plus Toyota for pulling his boat trailer. No problems meeting your emissions standards either btw. You may want to bear in mind that the Australian economy is smaller than that of the state of Texas. Your country pretty much allows in what is certified for sale in other major markets.

            It has been reported that 60% of Ford’s global profit comes from F150 sales in NA. GM’s profit contribution from full size trucks is somewhat smaller, but the segment remains very profitable. Toyota and Nissan are largely failures in this segment in the US market, the most competitive in the world. That is not because of any sort of protectionism, but simply failure to compete.

            I don’t want to knock the great folks at Holden, but the engine you cite was dropped years ago in favor of the far better LS series, now to be superceded by the LT series, which are among the very best engines in the world.

          • 0 avatar
            RobertRyan

            @doctor olds
            You jumped the gun, I was not going to say that. Fuel prices is one factor, fitness for the purpose is another major problem.
            US Pickups are very much a ‘niche” product that this thread covers. They have some fans here, but you will find more fans of historic British sportscars. But like the Corvette they are not going to create major in roads into Overseas markets for Ford and GM. Chrysler has a much better handle on the situation with Jeep.
            Other reports put that at 90% much more than 60%. Currently GM and Ford have ,loss leaders outside the NA market.
            The Holden engine was dropped BECAUSE GM NA denied the funding to go ahead with an upgrade. I knew personally one of the engineers involved.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            @doctor olds – The Mustang’s 5.0 V8 doesn’t come close to meeting the EU’s tough new emissions standards, but that has more to do with MPG and engine size than actual tailpipe emissions. Even European OEMs are struggling to come up with V8s that can meet the new Euro 5 (or 6?) emissions standards. The Corvette is ‘grandfathered in’ along with the rest European V8s and V10s. This is why European V8s and V10 are growing old on the ‘vine’.

            The next generation ‘global’ Mustang will keep the 5.0 V8 for North America ‘only’, as far as I know, but this is another reason true harmonization would be difficult.

            The 2014 Corvette has a very similar 6.2 V8 as the current Corvette so GM could argue (to EU officials), it’s still ‘grandfathered’

            gas2.org/2010/04/06/turbo-diesel-mustang-for-europe-maybe-some-day/

          • 0 avatar
            RobertRyan

            @Denvermike,
            The V8 is being dropped for the US as well.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            @Robert Ryan,

            “The V8 is being dropped for the US as well.”

            Don’t even joke about that… Got links?

            If that was true, the Mustang line would die soon after. The reason you buy a V6 or lesser Mustang is because of the GT’s bad boy, throbbing and snarling V8 status.

          • 0 avatar
            RobertRyan

            @Denvermike,
            This first link makes mention of the Mustang retaining the Coyote 5 Litre V8. Another story said it would drop it to bring it inline with the “One Ford” concept.. I agree with you, if it turns out to be true, absolutely ridiculous. Shame Mullay shame
            http://www.leftlanenews.com/2015-mustang-to-get-24-liter-ecoboost-be-launched-on-april-17-2014.html

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            @RobertRyan – Even if Ford themselves, announced an end to the Coyote, Boss 302 and supercharged 5.8, I wouldn’t trust it. Ford announced in ’87 that the Mustang was going FWD turbo 4 and V6 with the 1989MY. They turn around that ‘decision’ and the ‘concept’ became the Probe.

            What it did do is get Mustang fans enraged while creating a wild buying frenzy. Most ’88 Mustangs soldout while in the production pipeline. I’m pretty sure the whole thing was a hoax.

  • avatar
    Big Al from Oz

    @DenverMike
    The proof you need is to look at the Australian vehicle market.

    AUSTRALIA IS UNECE COMPLIANT!!!!!

    We export muscle cars to the US and we have muscle cars made here that you would dream of owning.

    We have your pickups as well including HDs etc.

    A revered muscle car in the UK is a HSV Holden Commodore.

    What more proof do you need?

    I’m sorry to the other contributors on TTAC, but this guy is a troll.

    @Robert Ryan
    In the future just ignore him.

    He is quite disingenuous and he never provide any proof.

    When checking proof you need validity and currency for a start which he never provides.

    • 0 avatar
      DenverMike

      @Big Al from Oz,
      “A revered muscle car in the UK is a HSV Holden Commodore.”

      OK, now we have an example. Basically a Pontiac GPX or Chevrolet SS. But would it sell in the US?

      Then you said this:

      “This site must be heavily NA biased as I have not heard person mention that the US manufacturers will have to improve build quality to be competitive and export vehicles, unless they are as cheap if not cheaper than Korean vehicles.”

      Examples?

      Then you went on to say:

      “If the US takes on this challenge I think it would have to be phased in. Full size pickups… are one of the most protected species on the planet.”

      See you throw a lot of vague comments that mean absolutely nothing without examples as if we’re supposed to take your word on it just because it comes from you.

  • avatar
    RobertRyan

    @Denvermike
    “why we cannot have these vehicles here” that is a quote repeated on PUTC.

    • 0 avatar
      DenverMike

      @RobertRyan:

      ““why we cannot have these vehicles here” that is a quote repeated on PUTC.”

      OK, that’s a quote from Americans wanting more mid-size than what we have. Then words like “trade barriers”, “chicken tax”, “protectionism” etc spring up, and never specific examples, just vague generalities.

      There’s never the realization that we’ve had global trucks before. Been there, done that and a large part of the market was domestic compact and mid-size trucks before we moved on.

  • avatar
    Big Al from Oz

    Ramifications

    Chevrolet LUV: imported from 1978–1987 in chassis-cab configuration (less truck bed) to circumvent the Chicken Tax

    U.S. bound Ford Transit Connect: pieces of its interior are shredded to circumvent the Chicken Tax
    The tariff directly affected any country (such as Japan) seeking to bring light trucks into the U.S. and effectively “squeezed smaller Asian truck companies out of the American pickup market.”[15] Over the intervening years, Detroit lobbied to protect the light-truck tariff,[14] thereby reducing pressure on Detroit to introduce vehicles that polluted less and that offered increased fuel economy.[14]

    • 0 avatar
      DenverMike

      You talk like the chicken tax loopholes had tremendous ramifications on import trucks. The LUV dates back to ’72, but soon came the mini-truck craze and no one was complaining about a chicken tax then. These foreign trucks also avoided paying the 2.5% tariff on import cars so you can figure it being a ‘wash’, once the dust settled.

      Mini-trucks sales started dying off so OEM started increasing their size to hopefully capture full-size buyers, but it never worked out.

      Even if pressure was taken off of D3 OEMs from importing or building their own mini and mid-size trucks, if there was a strong market or demand for them, you’re damn right, they would have kept right on updating and evolving them.

      You can blame bureaucrats and lobbyists all you want, but we moved on, found something better, bought it and took the R&D money with us.

      And foreign OEMs like Mazda, Mitsu and Isuzu didn’t have full-size anythings to focus or shift their resources on. Same with VW and Subaru with their compact trucks.

      • 0 avatar
        Big Al from Oz

        @DenverMike
        Here is an article from the NY times regarding the barriers that have made full size pickups and SUVs protected species.

        Read it!

        I have shown you facts, were is yours. Don’t respond unless you have documented proof otherwise.

        http://www.nytimes.com/1997/11/30/business/license-pollute-special-report-light-trucks-increase-profits-but-foul-air-more.html?sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all

        • 0 avatar
          DenverMike

          @Big Al from Oz – Stop proving my point for me!!!
          “Full size pickups and SUV are protected species.”

          I said the same thing above:

          “The V8 BMW M3 gets hit with a Gas Guzzler Tax while large SUVs with similar mpg get a free pass.”

          The article went on and on about the mid-size Dodge Durango and how it’s given a free pass compared to the more fuel efficient mid-size cars it replaces. OK fine, we all ready knew this.

          You could also say the 4Runner, Pathfinder, BMW X-series, and other mid & full-size SUVs from Nissan, Toyota, Land Rover, Honda, Infiniti, Lexus, Audi, Porsche and others also get a free pass. Mini vans also get a free pass. Yes, yes.

          Foreign and domestic mini-trucks also got a free pass since day one. That didn’t help mini-trucks sustain their invasion/craze of the ’80s though. Most of those buyers then moved on to the SUV craze of the ’90s. This includes the once wildly popular Mitsubishi, Isuzu, Suzuki and Geo SUVs.

          By the ’00s, mini trucks were now mid-size and struggling. They still get a free pass, but sales and profits are down to almost nothing while bottom feeders, cheapskates and fleets are loving the base-stripper regular cabs a bit too much.

          Law makers encouraged all of this, but again, thanks for proving my point.

          • 0 avatar
            doctor olds

            Full size trucks are not in any way protected. Any maker can sell them here with the same rules for all.
            They may be prohibited and/or made less desirable by regulations elsewhere, but the reason they are not generally offered outside of NA is that they are too thirsty for consumer preferences with typically much higher fuel prices.

            Truck CAFE requirements have been lower, tracked separately from Cars, but the NYT’s article is a distortion. CO2 emissions are little more than a fuel economomy regulation. All other emissions requirements, HC, CO, NOX are identical for trucks and cars. There is no luxury tax on larger work trucks, because they are not luxury products!

            As a matter of real fact, the US congress allowed a “German” exemption to give more time to BMW and MB with their inability to meet the CAFE. This exemption is not available to Cadillac, Lincoln, Lexus… because their makers have fuller product lines on the small end.

  • avatar
    Big Al from Oz

    @DenverMule
    That’s called protectionism.

    Finally you’re learning.

    • 0 avatar
      DenverMike

      @Big Al from Oz – Yes, trucks are “protected” from passenger car sanctions and taxes like Gas Guzzler, but this bares no distinction between import or domestic trucks, mid size or full.

    • 0 avatar
      DenverMike

      Remember, the US never banned the 17 mpg average BMW M3, but the EU completely banned the 21 mpg average And much cleaner tail pipe emissions, Mustang GT.

      gas2.org/2010/04/06/turbo-diesel-mustang-for-europe-maybe-some-day/

      • 0 avatar
        niky

        Whachu smoking Willis? The Mustang isn’t banned in the EU at all. Ford just refuses to develop a right-hand version for overseas sale and to “Europeanizeate” the tail lamps. Gotta have the three reds in the back, you know.

        They WILL sell the Mustang in Europe, but only by following Chrysler’s example with the 300C and… gasp… selling it with engines Europeans want.

        Nobody gets a free pass. To meet stricter emissions regulations, the BMW M3 is losing the V8, too.

        http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/bmw/3-series/34407/bmw-m3-get-turbo-power

        Good thing the M3 is exempt, eh?

        • 0 avatar
          DenverMike

          The EU will still have pig V8 Luxury and Exotic cars, but read my lips.. No Mustang “GT”. The 5.0 V8 got Banned. No ifs ands or butts.

          So what’s the point of cheesy, wheezy, limp wristed Mustangs and 300Cs? Or F-150s? You might as well get a Golf GTI, Focus RS or Hilux. That’s Protectionism.

          • 0 avatar
            niky

            Provide proof. All you’ve done so far is point to an article stating that Ford itself doesn’t want to sell the Mustang over there until the next generation.

            Europe got V8 Mustangs in the past. In fact, the German “T5″ is much sought after in the US due to its unusual badging.

            You can legally import and sell Ford Mustangs in the European Union. There are many companies who do so. Ford does not. Simply because they don’t want to go to the trouble of “Europeanizing” it.

            Ranting that it is “banned” in Europe without even checking out why it isn’t being sold is ludicrous.

        • 0 avatar
          RobertRyan

          @Niky Exactly , Ford needed to develop a RHD model and tailites. I believe the new Mustang will have a 2.3 Ecoboost engine for the US and European markets and will have RHD/LHD

          • 0 avatar
            Big Al from Oz

            @niky and Robert Ryan
            I have been explaining to him for the past year of so about the protectionist US vehicle market, especially SUVs and light commercials.

            He has yet to provide proof to support his distorted views on how the US really is.

            By the sounds of it he could be a politician:)

        • 0 avatar
          doctor olds

          @niky- The vast bulk of the EU is left hand drive anyway.
          Chevrolet has no regulatory problem selling Corvettes in EU. If Mustang is not sold there, it is likely because Ford can not see the business case, probably because of relatively poor fuel efficiency,not because it is difficult to meet EU regulations.

          • 0 avatar
            RobertRyan

            @doctor olds Correct for LHD markets, even there the Corvette sells in tiny numbers. More a flag waving exercise than anything else. Correct about the Mustang and fuel economy. The Global Mustang(if it eventuates) which will include the US version will be powered by a 2.3 litre Ecoboost, much more acceptable to the Europeans.

          • 0 avatar
            doctor olds

            Yes, Corvette volumes are small outside America. At least part of the problem in Europe is that “Cadillac-Corvette” eggs were all in one basket for EU distribution with a company called Kroymans. When they went bankrupt, GM lost the distribution channel and are in the process of building a new one. I was supporting your argument as Denver Mike is wrong to say Mustang is banned. It is just not offered, but could be offered even with the V8.

          • 0 avatar
            RobertRyan

            @doctor olds Correct, the Mustang was not banned.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            @doctor olds – I’ll just leave you this link as I went into greater detail above.

            http://gas2.org/2010/04/06/turbo-diesel-mustang-for-europe-maybe-some-day/

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            @RobertRyan & doctor old – I didn’t say the Mustang was banned from the EU, just the V8, 5.0 Mustang GT

          • 0 avatar
            RobertRyan

            @doctor olds and @Denvermike
            Very strange article as European laws do not prevent you having V8 Imports from the US or Australia.
            http://www.vauxhall.co.uk/microsite/vxr/vxr8/index.html

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            @RobertRyan,

            “Very strange article as European laws do not prevent you having V8 Imports from the US or Australia.”

            Aren’t you talking about ‘grey market’ used?

          • 0 avatar
            RobertRyan

            @Denvermike,
            Nothing “Grey Market” at all, they put on Vauxhall badges in the Holden HSV factory and ship it to the UK. 6.2 litre Chevrolet V8 and all.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            @RobertRyan – When you said Euro laws allow US V8s I thought you meant the grey market F-150s and Mustang GTs.

          • 0 avatar
            Athos Nobile

            Dr. Olds, fuel efficiency is 1/2 of your story there. Europe taxes cars based on fuel type, displacement, power, CO2 emissions or whatever mix of the 4 fills better their coffers. And that’s before you factor in the “adequate” fuel prices.

            A car with a 5 litre engine is something only the wealthy can afford. Common people has to do with cars with engines smaller than 2 litres.

          • 0 avatar
            RobertRyan

            @Athos Noble said:
            “Dr. Olds, fuel efficiency is 1/2 of your story there. Europe TAXES cars based on fuel type, displacement, power, CO2 emissions or whatever mix of the 4 fills better their coffers. And that’s before you factor in the “adequate” fuel prices.

            What has the European Tax system got to with fuel efficiency and pollution regulations?

  • avatar
    korvetkeith

    Oh yeah, daddy needs a TVR.

  • avatar
    Big Al from Oz

    @niky and Robert Ryan
    Actually he might be socialist politician or a union boss.

  • avatar
    Big Al from Oz

    @Doctor Olds
    I do think you are living in the past. And maybe your data and information isn’t quite accurate. The US has harsher NOx, but is lax on the CO2 in comparison to the Euro standards of the past.

    Actually these two standards (US/Euro) and the Japanese standards around the world will be pretty much aligned by 2020, hence a driver behind Ford’s discussion about adopting UNECE standards.

    Also the cost of vehicle design will be reduced, also a larger globalised market will be produced. The US can make money out of this if they can provide a quality product, like the Germans, Japanese, Koreans etc. They compete in a true competitive market for share in other countries.

    The Germans are pushing for this as well. That’s both sides of the fence.

    And while I’m at it do you prefer imperial, American or metric measurements?

    Also US diesel isn’t cleaner, you don’t have the refining capability to provide lower sulphur diesel. Mazda can’t run their Sky Active diesel on US fuel, its to dirty. Yourself being an automotive powertrain engineer should have known this.

    @Athos Noble
    Europhile? Are you an old British Empire subject who rejects the continent? Come on. If the US wants to be part of the global economy it better join in. It’s economy is to small in comparison to the wider world now.

    The UNECE regulations are GLOBAL. If the US wants it can go it alone and continue on its downward spiral. Even Canada likes the UNECE idea.

    • 0 avatar
      doctor olds

      @Denver Mike- I did read your link. The “emissions” they mention are CO2, which again, is just fuel economy. There is nothing like a ban, as Mr. Ryan points out, Small block V8s from GM are legally sold there.

      • 0 avatar
        DenverMike

        @doctor old – GM V8s are ‘grandfathered’ in as well as current European V8s. European OEMs are struggling to come up with V8s that meet ridiculously tough ‘Euro V’ emissions standards and why their current V8s are growing old on the vine. This is also why the new BMW M3 will be a boosted V6.

        The Mustang’s 5.0 V8 didn’t even come close meeting the Euro V standard and is effectively banned, even if in not so many words.

        • 0 avatar
          RobertRyan

          @Denvermike
          It is Euro VI not Euro V and diesels not Petrol (gas )engines have the problem.
          The Turbo 6 will be quicker than the V8
          http://www.caradvice.com.au/191904/bmw-m3-twin-turbo-six-cylinder-engine-revealed/

          http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/bmw/3-series/34407/bmw-m3-get-turbo-power
          “Replacing the much-loved 4.0-litre V8, it will be the first turbo to grace the M3. This will help to improve overall FUEL CONSUMPTION and reduce emissions, even on high-performance BMWs.”

          The Holden HSV rebadeged as a Vauxhall had no problems meeting emission requirements with its 6.2 litre engine. neither does FORD with the 5 litre Coyote V8.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            @RobertRyan – The M3′s high revving 4.0 got the same MPG as 4X4 crew cab 5.0 F-150s. Probably with similar tailpipe emissions, but it had to die regardless of what anyone says.

            I believe the old GM 6.2 is grandfathered in and the Coyote 5.0 is too new and falls under the Euro 6 guidelines.

          • 0 avatar
            RobertRyan

            @Denvermike,
            The 4 Litre V8 died primarily because of consumption, not the 3 Litre Turbo
            Have you a website for the 150 versus M3 Turbo and 4 Litre V8 5 Litre 150 consumption?
            No the 6.2 is not grandfathered in as it is a current new Chevrolet V8(ie used in Cheverolet SS) as against the 6 litre V8.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            @RobertRyan – The 6.2 isn’t nearly as new as the Coyote 5.0, but the 4.0 V8 M3 is known to get 14 city and 19 hwy MPG. The loaded 5.0 F-150 gets the same. This info should be everywhere, but I’ll provide links if necessary.

          • 0 avatar
            RobertRyan

            @Denvermike
            Yes links would be good ,for the M3 Turbo, 4 Lite V8(if any) and of course the 5 Litre V8 in the F150.
            Seeing tbe 6.2 is being used like to see links to grandfathering.

            I know the 5 Litre Coyote is replacing the 5.4 engine here as it cannot meet Euro V.
            http://www.tornadosportscars.com/Drivetrain/Drivetrain.html
            “Also available as an option is the very latest Ford Coyote V8 engine which features Euro 5 emissions.”.

            http://fpv.com.au/gt_showroom/gt
            ” Boss 5.0 litre, supercharged DOHC 32 valve all-aluminium V8 engine
            Maximum power (DIN) – 335kW @ 5750rpm Maximum torque (DIN) – 570Nm @ 2200-5500rpm
            Bi-modal twin pipe quad outlet active exhaust system
            Brembo 4-piston brake calipers (front) with single-piston brake caliper (rear)
            Sports cloth seats with GT logo embroidery
            Premium 5-spoke 19″ alloy wheels with machined face and Dark Argent accents
            Reverse camera with reverse sensing system
            Interior Command Centre (ICC) with advanced 8” colour touch screen and Bluetooth, USB & iPod connectivity
            Sports projector headlamps”

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            I see what you mean by the FPV 5.0, but there’s been lots of talk both ways and never has a European Mustang “GT” been mentioned.

            The 4.0 V8 M3 had lots of hp because of its 8,000 rpm redline, but was down on torque. It made up for that with 4.10 rearend gears, but it showed at the pump.

            mustangsdaily.com/blog/2012/09/07/2015-mustang-to-be-offered-in-right-hand-drive-europeans-version-wont-get-the-5-0l-v8/

            edmunds.com/car-news/2015-ford-mustang-to-get-four-cylinder-engine-but-for-europe-only.html

            autos.yahoo.com/ford-truck/f-150-supercrew-4×4/2013/

            autos.yahoo.com/bmw/m3/2012/

            Edit: I forgot to mention the 4.0 V8 M3 did get slapped with the Gas Guzzler Tax.

          • 0 avatar
            Athos Nobile

            @RR

            Euro6 will hit harder the diesel, but don’t be mistaken, because BOTH petrol and diesel are affected.

            BMW’s move to a turbo 6 is more C02 or fuel economy related than emissions. They’re basically “downsizing” to achieve lower Co2 levels.

        • 0 avatar
          doctor olds

          Mr Ryan- In your country, with a smaller economy than the state of Texas, you accept certification of other developed economies. The US has been the leader in vehicle standards and is likely to continue to be a leader for a long time to come. Everyone else is just catching up.

          Just curious if you can name one standard that is not the benchmark?

          • 0 avatar
            RobertRyan

            @doctor olds The US is not a Leader it has fallen way behind. A Global Standard is WAY Bigger than the State of Texas, it covers virtually ALL developed economies

          • 0 avatar
            niky

            The rest of the world is following behind Europe for the adoption of standards for diesel. Furthermore, with the establishment of CNCAP, ANCAP and the new Asian NCAP testing procedures, EURONCAP is now the standard for crash safety as well.

            About the only US standard that’s better than what’s out in Europe is EPA… but that’s a personal preference, because the new fuel economy testing in Europe has many severe flaws (even worse than the EPA’s), and the EPA has a more rational system of testing hybrid vehicles.

  • avatar
    doctor olds

    @Big Al- My knowledge is up to date, and was founded on being part of the compliance and certification staff at GM Powertrain, a Global organization, for a long time and keeping up with current events and with people inside the business.

    Please understand- CO2 emissions are just another way of looking at fuel economy, nothing more. The CO2 emitted by a car is no different than the C02 you exhale and is a direct product of burning hydrocarbon fuel in a motor vehicle. There is nothing magical about reducing CO2.

    You are right that the fuel company lobbies in America are much stronger than the automakers and European fuel standards have been higher. Not sure that is still true as we move to low sulphur fuel, but it has been an issue to carmakers here that they don’t have in EU.

    I am not personally against harmonization, but am painfully aware of what the bureaucrats are like. They truly just want More Now!

    You should reassess you opinion that America is on a such downward spiral, a fallacious interpretation of the simple fact that the rest of the world, especially China, has been developing from a very low level. Our economy is far larger than any other country and rivals the whole EU despite their 60% larger population. It would be unwise to bet against the USA, where the majority of technological development is still happening.

    • 0 avatar
      RobertRyan

      @doctor olds. Big Al goes to the US regularly as he was born there and family live there. I have seen the US decline in my travels in the last couple of years.It needs to desperately look at itself and like a business take stock of where it is going. Forward is not the direction it is going at the moment. Unfortunately it appears there is a a “malaise” that is preventing this. Hopefully that will change.

    • 0 avatar
      Big Al from Oz

      @doctor olds
      I understand the CO2 emissions is related to mpgs. This brings me back to my original comment that the US has a protected market.

      The CAFE modelling is a trade barrier, the UNECE model uses vehicle weight to determine the permisable level of pollutants. This doesn’t require the use of ‘new’ systems and technology which equals extra cost to the consumer, it utilises existing technologies.

      Also, if you are heavily involved in powertrains you will also know that your (US) EPA has more stringent controls and an unfair method to measure pollutants of diesels. By using horespower and if you get right into your EPA site you will also see expected diesel improvements are up to 50% a year harsher than gasoline.

      The work that can be achieved by a 200hp diesel vs a 200hp gasoline engine is quite wide, yet the diesel is disadvantaged by using the same measure as a gas engine, which performs at a lower level of efficiency. Maybe a 1.5 turbo diesel would be equivalent to a 2 litre naturally aspirated gas engine.

      Also, the CAFE modelling (footprint method) is forcing companies to build costly platforms by the unnecessary use of more ‘exotic’ materials and costly systems that will reduce the reliability of vehicles, ie , cd improvements through suspension controls, shutter on pickup etc.

      Where does this type of modelling leave the global pickup which is designed based on the UNECE model of vehicle weight. This doesn’t include chicken tax, design regs etc.

      What you have now is a system encouraging large inefficient vehicles pumping out lots more CO2 and NOx (the NOx levels are due to larger engines). I’m not saying stop larger vehicles as we have them in Australia, but we also have lots of smaller vehicles including commercials that are as capable in performing work as the vehicles in the US.

      From what I can see the UAW, Detroit, government and other interested parties supported the current regime of controls. Now a change is needed to ensure the continuation of your vehicle industry.

      Remember the US isn’t unique like lots of people try to convey, its like most other OECD economies with the extremely similar infrastructure. Join us and become competitive.

      The longer you wait the more it will costs your consumers, which cost your country.

      As for your economy – you have been going sideways. Your average standard of living is below what you guys had in 1992. I hope this new ‘energy boom’ of shale oil and gas improves your country as it will help ours. But don’t splurge and waste this energy this time round as I think this will be your last chance to set up your countries future.

      • 0 avatar
        doctor olds

        @RobertRyan and Big Al- I agree that America has not been on the right path, especially with the current administration, and that our regulations are expensive and difficult to meet. That is not a trade barrier,however, since the same rules apply to every competitor. Anyone can sell here, IF they are good enough to meet our stringent standards. Don’t misunderstand, I wish they were not so stringent. I could write a book on how they hurt the American makers severely in the early years while giving a free pass to the Japanese, in particular.

        Regulators have been trying to label CO2, a gas each of us exhale, as a dangerous pollutant. Setting aside that technological absurdity, reducing CO2 is a main reason for huge CAFE increase in the next few years. Diesels actually have an advantage, whether considerging CO2 emissions, which are lower for a diesel, or fuel economy, where diesels are both more thermodynamically efficient and have higher energy density fuel.

        CAFE, in fact, supports diesels, but difficult “real” emissions standards do not.
        HC, CO and NOX (“real”) emissions standards are the same for every vehicle regardless of type or origin. They are measured in grams per mile and favor no maker or type. It is true that smaller engines don’t need to be as clean in parts per million. Diesels additionally must meet particulate emission standands. Today that requires particulate traps and urea injection for the bulk of diesels being sold here. Not sure about the Germans, but GM chose to add this technology to the Cruze diesel. It is not required in EU due to their easier standards.
        A final thought I should add- comparing BMW M3 and fullsize trucks is comparing apples and oranges. It is logical that trucks intended to have working capability to carry loads and tow have had a different CAFE standard than passenger cars. The new footprint based approach continues to support the different usage of trucks compared to cars.

        • 0 avatar
          DenverMike

          @Big Al & Robert Ryan – The part you’re conveniently choosing not to hear is regardless of what US bureaucrats and lawmakers set in place, it’s an equal playing field for all OEMs, foreign or domestic.

          Full-size pickups and SUVs may be “protected species” vs passenger cars or base mid-size pickups/suvs, BUT not only are these widely used commercially and expected to have a big foot print and drink more fuel..

          …Again, it’s an EQUAL and wide open market for all OEMs, both foreign and domestic. What part of this confuses you?

          • 0 avatar
            Big Al from Oz

            @DenverMike
            Read what I just wrote to DocOlds.

            You are saying its all and fair on selected vehicles and only within the US.

            The US isn’t the globe, it used to be very influential in the global markets, but no where as nears as much now. It will change and you guys living in the past will wake up one morning and say, geez, what has happened.

            I just hope your business leaders have a differing view of the world.

            The US doesn’t have enough weight behind it to continue on as it has been.

            The US will end up like the Europe of old.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            @Big Al from Oz – Ford just wants the shortest route to increased global sales. Remember every global brand that wants to be In the US is already here. No OEM or model has been “barred” although some should have. I’m not saying it’s picnic getting in, but domestics face the same “barriers”

            But then all OEMs that want to be here, already are, and Ford just wants to be everywhere they are. Ford is Ford, but how are global brand or specific models “barred”?

            We’ve gave you real examples on how you and RR are completely wrong with all your vague accusations of some mystical “protectionism” and “barriers” with out ever backing any of them up…

            Now let’s hear some REAL world examples… Make. Model. Year. Pay up or quit.

        • 0 avatar
          Big Al from Oz

          @DocOlds
          If there are no barriers, then why is Ford wanting to change? And I bet Fiat/Chrysler would support Ford.

          Level playing field? Only within the US and with certain favoured vehicles is what you just wrote.

          Come on, whats this article about? Global trade, something the US really needs to get itself back onto its feet.

          Differing regulations and controls equate to a trade barrier?

          CAFE in fact supports diesel? Now I can see why your manufacturers nearly went broke, especially GM.

          You must be a ring in for one of the large corporations.

          I have been encountering them for the last few weeks.

          Go watch Fox and Friends that not unbiased either or is it MSNBC :)

          • 0 avatar
            Big Al from Oz

            @DocOlds
            I went out and just made a coffee and it dawned on me.

            YOU ARE CURRENTLY WORKING AT GM!

            Why else would you say there are no barriers? When you state its all equal ONLY within the US ON selected vehicles.

            What’s the big difference between GM and Ford and Fiat/Chrysler?

            Ford and Fiat are better aligned to conform to the UNECE vehicle harmonisation regulations.

            GM isn’t.

          • 0 avatar
            doctor olds

            @Big Al- I have written often that I retired from GM in 2008, so it should be no secret. What I write is always based on my long experience and data as opposed to the word on a blog or from a journalist somewhere. I can’t begin to count the number of times through the years that I knew exactly what the truth was, sometimes even authored the press release, and found it distorted and misrepresented by media.

            You should think about this fact. Setting aside Japan’s essentially closed market where all import brands add up to single digit market share, GM is very much larger everywhere else in the world, 60% bigger than Ford globally and 4 times as big as Chrysler!

            GM is much more capable and successful globally than Ford plus Chrysler-Fiat.
            These are facts not opinion. Besides, you love GM’s division in Australia. Why hate the parent?

            You are like many other, building a house of cards from articles such as this one. Why do you assume GM wouldn’t want global standards, too?
            The only reason I can imagine is that you really have no idea what reality is.

          • 0 avatar
            RobertRyan

            @Denvermike,
            http://enr.construction.com/opinions/editorials/2009/0603-PromoteInnovation.asp
            “Protectionist tariffs can be harmful in the long run, as the recent bankruptcies demonstrate. They stifle innovation and induce wasteful business practices, both among the protected and those on the outside. This tariff no longer has anything to do with chickens; it is just a bad egg. It would be nice to build these products in the U.S. but until the market rules in their favor, they SHOULD BE ALLOWED IN DUTY FREE

            http://politicalirony.com/2010/06/20/repeal-the-chicken-tax/
            So what happened in 2003 was that VW came out with a new model of their camper van, the Transporter T5, to replace the Transporter T4 (which was called the Eurovan in the US). For reasons I haven’t been able to figure out, the T5 was classified as a LIGHT TRUCK, and thus subject to the chicken tax! Consequently, VW never even tried to sell them in the US. By the way, just to add insult to injury, the T5 campervan (in Europe) is sold under the names “California Beach” and just “The California”

            To make this even crazier THE TAX on light trucks DOESN’T EVEN BENEFIT THE AUTOMOBILE INDUSTRY ANYMORE. For example, Ford makes its Transit light trucks in Turkey. In order to avoid the chicken tax, Ford has them built with rear windows, rear seats, rear seat-belts, and everything else needed to get them classified as passenger vehicles. Then, after the vehicles arrive in the US, they are taken to a warehouse near Baltimore and are converted back into light trucks by throwing away the rear interiors, even taking out the rear windows and replacing them with panels. In fact, it isn’t even possible to buy one of those vehicles with rear seats and windows in the US — they are all converted into light trucks. The process COSTS FORD HUNDREDS OF DOLLARS, but saves them thousands of dollars by avoiding the tariff

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            @RobertRyan,

            “Protectionist tariffs can be harmful in the long run…”,

            Do you consider the 2.5% tariff import cars pay “protectionist”? Or “harmful”? What do you consider the blanket 5% tariff Australia imposes on all its import vehicles?

            “…they SHOULD BE ALLOWED IN DUTY FREE”

            Why aren’t you screaming the same thing about import cars?

            What makes you think the Chicken Tax’s loopholes are any more expensive (to accomplish) than 2.5%?

            As far as we know, import truck OEMs were as happy as clams paying zero tariffs and “DUTY FREE” except for whatever local formalities during the ’80s mini-truck invasion/craze.

            “So what happened in 2003 was that VW came out with a new model of their camper van, the Transporter T5..”

            Nothing was stopping VW from importing the T4 or T5. They likely could not make a strong enough business case. The minivan (and mini cargo van) market had already started dying in the US. Wasn’t VW busy planning the Touareg back then? Wasn’t/isn’t the SUV market a stronger business model in the US?

            “THE TAX on light trucks DOESN’T EVEN BENEFIT THE AUTOMOBILE INDUSTRY ANYMORE.”

            No one here is disputing that.

            “Ford makes its Transit (passenger vans, then they’re) converted back into light trucks… COSTS FORD HUNDREDS OF DOLLARS..”

            OK, base price of the Transit, $22,425… 2.5%..
            $561 is what Ford would be paying without the Chicken Tax so any reasonable person would consider it a ‘wash’. I don’t hear any OEMs complaining. Just you two.

            Let’s ask Mercedes, Hino, UD, or Fuso how upset they are about selling trucks in the US as fast as they can build them…

    • 0 avatar
      RobertRyan

      @doctor olds
      “Please understand- CO2 emissions are just another way of looking at fuel economy, nothing more. The CO2 emitted by a car is no different than the C02 you exhale and is a direct product of burning hydrocarbon fuel in a motor vehicle. There is nothing magical about reducing CO2″

      Completely got it wrong there . CO2 emissions can kill you, especially the concentations you can get in cities. CO is dangerous, but Co2 in high concentrations is as lethal.

      • 0 avatar
        CJinSD

        You had me going. I thought you were serious until this post. Nice run.

        • 0 avatar
          RobertRyan

          I am serious. It is also called “Sick Building Syndrome” poor ventilation causes it
          “Higher CO2 concentrations are associated with occupant health, comfort and performance degradation. ASHRAE Standard 62.1–2007 ventilation rates may result in indoor levels up to 2,100 ppm above ambient outdoor conditions. Thus if the outdoor ambient is 400 ppm, indoor levels may reach 2,500 ppm with ventilation rates that meet this industry consensus standard. Levels in poorly ventilated spaces can be found even higher than this (range of 3,000 or 4,000).

          Not going to kill you as quickly as CO, but as he percentage levels rise can cause bouts of Asthma and other breathing disorders that can kill you.
          On the other hand high CO2 Levels used to kill Miners in the 1800′s

          • 0 avatar
            doctor olds

            CJ in SD- He can’t help it. He grew up in a real nanny state!

            CO2 is no more dangerous than any other gas that can displace oxygen in an enclosed space and suffocate you. You exhale it every breath.

            CO is very dangerous to health and kills people Dr. Kevorkian used it. It has been regulated to very low levels in exhaust for many, many years.

            Vehicle CO2 levels are not a health hazard anywhere and are only considered dangerous now by the US EPA because of the notion of anthropogenic, human caused, global warming due to increasing C02 concentrations in the atmosphere. It has long been recognized as a pure product of complete combustion directly and necessarily resulting form the use of any carbon based fuel. It is not harmful and is required by plants to live.

          • 0 avatar
            RobertRyan

            @doctor olds your reply is so wrong in virtually every aspect.
            C02 is the gas that kills you in a fire, not the fire. It kills you in Mines so called “Black Damp” Co2 displaces Oxygen in the human body causing asphyxiation.It is not “harmless”
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackdamp.
            The buildup in the system causes “sick building syndrome” higher concentrations can be lethal. People with severe breathing problems can be severally affected.
            ” It has been regulated to very low levels in exhaust for many, many years.”
            No it certainly has not and that is a major problem with the US pollution regulations.

          • 0 avatar
            CJinSD

            The Wikipedia article linked to on blackdamp actually calls nitrogen and CO2 non-breathable gases. I’ve got some bad news for you. Nitrogen makes up 78% of our air by volume. Good luck not breathing it. Good luck not breathing CO2 as well, which is also present in sufficient concentration to sustain all plant life on the planet. Just don’t try holding your breath to avoid it, since we’re each apparently serious poison gas factories, so maybe you should run away each time you exhale.

          • 0 avatar
            RobertRyan

            CJin SD
            ” Nitrogen makes up 78% of our air by volume. Good luck not breathing it. Good luck not breathing CO2 as well, which is also present in sufficient concentration to sustain all plant life on the.

            Yes that is true but increase the concentration of CO2 and you have Asphyxia,
            Not good for you.
            “Blackdamp (also known as stythe or choke damp) is an asphyxiant,, reducing the available oxygen content of air to a level incapable of sustaining human or animal life. It is not a single gas but a mixture of unbreathable gases left after oxygen is removed from the air and typically consists of nitrogen, carbon dioxide and water vapour.

            http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=adHhKg6z2fXY
            Carbon Dioxide as other side effects.

            “Ozone production in urban areas will also rise because of increased carbon dioxide, Jacobson wrote. Ozone is known to cause respiratory and cardiovascular illnesses, according to a statement released by Stanford.

            “It is a very corrosive gas; it erodes rubber and statues,” Jacobson said in a statement. “It cracks tires. So you can imagine what it does to your lungs in high enough concentrations.”

            This “harmless gas” recently wiped out a whole town.
            http://www.neatorama.com/2007/05/21/the-strangest-disaster-of-the-20th-century/
            It appears as I have mentioned before a component in the increase in Asthma “Sick Building Syndrome’
            in this case increased urban traffic.
            http://www.environmentalhealthnews.org/ehs/newscience/2012/10/2012-1127-near-road-air-pollution-childhood-asthma/
            Traffic on roads has significantly increased in the United States during the past 20 years. In many cities, vehicle emissions have become one of the dominant sources of air pollutants, including carbon monoxide, CARBON DIOXIDE, volatile organic compounds, hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxides and particulate matter (PM)

  • avatar
    RobertRyan

    @Denvermike,
    We have an expression here “You cannot be a little bit pregnant. You are pregnant or not pregnant”. In the case of the 2015 Mustang once you start offering downsized Ecoboost motors, then the whole pretense of the Mustang as a “Performance coupe” goes out the window. Can you imagine a Camaro, Jaguar, Ferrari’s with 2 litre engines? Neither can I. The “Global Mustang” looks like it is going to take on the Toyota/Subaru Sportscar and other similar small capacity”sporting coupes” out there

    • 0 avatar
      DenverMike

      @RobertRyan – At this point, nothing has been decided either with harmonization or Mustang engine choices, at least for North America. Yeah, there’s no doubt a V8 Mustang will not be headed to Europe, but nothing else is carved in stone.

      • 0 avatar
        RobertRyan

        @Denvermike,
        Will Mullaly doing something really stupid and get rid of the V8? Well he has annoyed others over other “great” decisions of his, contrary to protests/wishes of others. As you say we wait and see.

  • avatar
    RobertRyan

    @Denvermike,
    You will never hear of a Mustang GT. The Falcon FPV has that. A Lot heavier than a Mustang A Falcon long wheelbase is almost as big as the old US Police Cruisers and was being looked at as a RWD Lincoln.. The FPV cars have been exported in dribs and drabs to the UK, but High Australian Dollar makes that tough. Current engine is the Coyote V8, but a slightly modified engine the “Miami” is installed. FPV has the Supercarged version.

    “Ford currently has no plans to bring its rowdy Aussie cousins here; they would need to be cheaper, so the exchange rates alone rule it out. It’s a shame; the Aussie muscle car is just what we could do with right now; simple, exuberant, distinctive and fun”
    http://www.carmagazine.co.uk/Drives/Search-Results/First-drives/Ford-FPV-Falcon-GT-2012-CAR-review/

    this does not make me feel so good.

    Automotive News reports that Ford executives have confirmed the adoption of EcoBoost engines for the next generation Mustang. Ford has committed to making EcoBoost available to 90 percent of its nameplates by 2013, and adding in the Mustang will take that figure CLOSER to 100 PERCENT”
    II. http://www.dailytech.com/Next+Generation+Mustang+to+Adopt+EcoBoost+for+Efficiency+Ditch+Solid+Rear+Axle+/article25527.htm

    OR THIS
    “When the 2015 Ford Mustang hits American dealerships, it’ll be offered with a 2.3-liter, turbocharged four-cylinder engine as an option – and chances are, that won’t be the base model engine. The American automaker has shown throughout its lineup that its EcoBoost engines are a PREMIUM UPGRADE and will continue to do so with its sports car.”
    http://www.autoguide.com/auto-news/2013/03/2015-ford-mustang-4-cylinder-turbo-confirmed-for-u-s.html

    As far as the Mustang not getting a V8 in Europe(maybe the US as well), . I agrre with @doctor olds ..fuel economy a BIG ISSUE in Europe, especially with taxes ‘fuel inefficient” engines,

  • avatar
    DenverMike

    @RobertRyan – Lots of good point, but I’d laugh my A$$ off if Europe got a 5.0 V8 Mustang and all we got in the North America were a bunch of wheezy 4 cylinders. Then I’d cry. Just make it FWD to finish it off.. I wish they’d let it die with some frackin’ dignity and put a bullet in it now…

    Btw, if you chop off the “http://www.” from your links, your comment posted won’t get the right side chopped off. You can still paste it without it.

    • 0 avatar
      doctor olds

      @DenverMike- You are taking a short comment some journalist wrote to mean the 5.0L can not be sold in EU. That is flatly not true. Ford has a very good engine and very capable control system engineers. They have to be very good to operate here and they are doing OK.

      Ford doesn’t bring the 5.0 car there because they don’t think it makes a good business case. They can’t make any money on it, in other words.

      • 0 avatar
        DenverMike

        @doctor olds,

        “Ford doesn’t bring the 5.0 car (to Europe) because they don’t think it makes a good business case. They can’t make any money on it, in other words.”

        If the 5.0 V8 Mustang doesn’t make it to Europe, I’m sure that wasn’t Ford’s call.

        Ford doesn’t have to make money off the 5.0 and other Boss 302 or GT500 Mustangs, but these get people interested in cheesy turbo and base Mustangs. The Mustang will be otherwise known as the car that USED to have BALLz, but now is castrated. The Ford Gelding, is what it’ll be known as..

  • avatar
    Big Al from Oz

    @DocOlds
    If GM, Ford, Fiat/Chrysler don’t want UNECE standards. Why do they exist?

    What is the money earners for these guys now and in the past? SUVs and pickups. Hence, all of these regulation that are US centric. The selected vehicles that you say aren’t on a level playing field.

    GM is larger, maybe in vehicle numbers, but how does GMs future look compared to VW or Toyota or even Ford? Let alone Hyundai/Kia. What will the future Chinese manufacturers produce that will be competitive.

    GM outside of China/US (even the US isn’t as good as they are making out) is languishing. And in China what other companies are making big inroads? How will GM react when China turns to the UNECE model? Outside of Africa China exports vehicles mainly to UNECE countries for this and political reasons China will turn to the UNECE model.

    I remember reading an interesting article about when GM’s CEO, Chairman and board approached Ford’s equivalent in 2008? GM wanted Ford to buy out their debt and amalgamate. But GM wanted control of the new company. Why? Because it produced more vehicles. I’m glad Ford didn’t agree to GM’s terms. This will happen in the future, but I can forsee Ford controlling GM. As much as the rivalary is between Ford and GM, GM will only sell to a NA company not like Chrysler.

    I work for a large organisation and I can see institutional cultural problems. GM’s institutional culture need’s to change to exist. Ford’s culture appears to be ahead at the moment. From what I can see GM will take another decade to be where Ford’s at. But it might be to late. Look at AMC and Chrysler in the 60s and 70s.

    As multinational corporations go, the US vehicle manufacturers haven’t kept pace with other global companies. That’s why you ‘import’ so much UNECE vehicle technology. This has been created by the protected environment they operate in. This produced inefficiencies, that are now ingrained and while the changes occur they have to recieve handouts, like during the financial global crisis.

    The US has operated under it’s own regs for so long now the changes will cost money. Unless you directly import all UNECE vehicle technology. It’s a shame because the US has the potential to be the most innovative vehicle manufacturer in the world. But this is what happens in a protected environment. If the protectionism didn’t exist the US would export more vehicles than the Germans/Asians combined.

    Loyalty? I’m not loyal to any brand. I want to see GMH export to earn us more money and create jobs. Just like I want Ford Australia or Toyota Australia export more. This creates competition and advances the motor vehicle industry.

    Loyalty is like watching your friend get into a fight, do you ‘egg’ him on? Is it disloyal to stop him from fighting? No, you want him to do what is correct. Which might not be what he wants.

    I’m glad to see that you have loyalty to GM, but don’t be blinded by it. GM is more reliant on China than most any other manufacturer, putting most of your eggs in one basket isn’t the best model.

    But the Chinese will produce regulations to protect GM, not.

    • 0 avatar
      doctor olds

      @bigAl- If you would read what I write, you would have the benefit of real insight into the car business rather than the sideline chatterers you seem to believe.
      #1- I wrote that all three makers would love a global standard, particularly if it is less stringent than today. How do you turn that into “they don’t want global standards?” The carmakers don’t set the standards, government bureaucrats do, and if you really want to understand the business, know that CAFE has been very damaging to US makers. That is quite the opposite of what you seem to believe.The truck market is hard to compete in because GM and Ford simply build better products. Toyota and Nissan are distant backmarkers in the segment, not because of regulation, but product.
      #2- GM’s future looks very bright. I have pointed out several times that Warren Buffett sees so much value in the company he tripled his investment in it. You may think you are smarter than him, but he sure has made a lot more money!
      #3- GM has been first or second place in every one of their regions except Europe, where they are 4th. No other carmaker can say that. Toyota is #1 only in Japan. They are #3 in America an far down the list in Europe. GM is doing well in the BRIC countries, in aggregate, partially due to their huge success in China.
      #4- Ford is really not doing that well. They fell to 5th place globally and have lost market share here. They are profitable, but absolutely dependent on their F150 sales. GM is much less dependent on trucks alone and is gaining share in the car segment. GM will regain truck share with new product. GM small car sales are up 43%, for example.
      #5- GM made $7Billion in NA last year. China helped the net LOSS in income outside of America be small, after Europe lost $1.7B. China is important, but it is not where the money is. For one reason, the US market is much richer in terms of model mix, and GM as all foreign companies, splits the income with Chinese partners.
      #6- If you can learn anything, it should be that the US makers have as much or more capability to meet any regulation anywhere. GM in particular and Ford to a degree are global powerhouses, not the inept operations implied by your writing. They both sell cars in every market of the world right now, and GM was only surpassed by Toyota in sales volume last year after beating them for #1 in 2011. Chevrolet had its biggest sales year in history last year, too. This evidence stands in stark contrast to what you sem to believe, most of which is incorrect.
      #6- Your statement that the US makers could export if they were not protected is simply illogical. They already sell in every market in the world, and their business model has long been to produce where they are selling. The top volume foreign based brands actually build most of their NA product right here.

      I am loyal, but not blinded by it. Trust me, I know what I am talking about and not from reading on the internet, but from a nearly 40 year career myself, after growing up as the son of an Oldsmobile product engineer. I have been aware of and into the car business so long, I remember when the United States made 75% of the world’s cars, 60% of the total right in Michigan. I worked for a premium division that sold more cars in a smaller market than any maker does today. (Almost as many as all of GM, today.) In fairness, cars accounted for 85% of the market back then and Olds only sold cars Trucks today hold about 1/2 of the market.

      I understand what it took to achieve Oldsmobile’s unrivalled success, I know the reasons for the problems that occurred through the years, I know the “culture” is large, diverse and has changed very much through the years along with the organizational structure. Dismiss me, if you want, or realize that I actually am expressing the facts and can give you insight.

      Lastly, it bears emphasizing there is no protectionism here other than high standards and fierce competition. CAFE certainly has never helped the domestic makers and played a substantial role in the decline in GM’s share. From an Oldsmobile perspective, I would say that the US congress with the advent of CAFE essentially banned everything we were selling with great success and forced us to spend billions todesign cars to satisfy regulators, to produce products our customers did not want.

      • 0 avatar
        RobertRyan

        @doctor olds. A Global Standard it already exists, no point saying “it does not suit us” other countries have the same problem. Still it is a global standard.
        GM is in far better shape than Ford. GM will fall to 3rd place Globally probably sometime this year. Ford is 7th and I do not how much distance it has between itself and Honda.
        Ford and GM are struggling outside NA. Both have problems in South America, HUGE Problems in Europe.Both have subsidiaries that build to the Global Standards, they have too to survive. NA Products do not meet those Global standards.
        “high standards and fierce competition” Must be another country your referring too. I saw SOME Competition(Less than is here) and some pretty subpar Automotive products when I have visited the US. Admittedly the quality has improved when I first went there in 2001

        • 0 avatar
          Hummer

          The problem true is in part of bad US automotive standards, but just as bad are the global standards, look at Europe, unless your fine with your gov’t telling you everything to do in your life, then your going to have a hard time convincing the rest of the world that europe has a product that works for everyone. I surely can’t see myself driving some of the things europeans do.
          Alfa Romea(sp) can’t even do good in it’s own country how is that worse then Ford an GM doing excellent in their own country and decent outside of it.
          Even Fiat is relying on it’s newly acquired American side then it’s pre existing self, because they don’t produce products that work everywhere, as much as some would like to see fiat succeed, it just isn’t(yet) happening in NA, I’ve seen the paperwork of the largest fiat dealer on the east coast, it doesn’t do the brand any good. Whereas Chrysler is doing well for itself.

          • 0 avatar
            Big Al from Oz

            @Hummer
            UNECE stands for UN, I’m not a big proponent of the UN when it comes to politcal matters.

            This organisation started with the EEC in the 50s. But like a company that goes multinational that’s what occurred here to create the UNECE harmonisation regulations.

            Europe doesn’t control them anymore, it has input.

            Countries like Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore, Australia and dozens more are all part of it.

            Did you know Thailand has the second largest pickup market in the world?

            How about Korea, how successful are their manufacturers compared to US manufacturers. They might not produce the quantities as GM, but they seem to be performing much better.

            Japan’s has a large market as well and Japan has some vehicle manufacturers that are performing better than the US ones.

            The Germans makers are overall doing quite well in a region that is economically challenged.

            Don’t brand the UNECE as European, it used to be. This is the part the media hasn’t covered well enough yet.

          • 0 avatar
            RobertRyan

            @Hummer do not confuse a STANDARD with PERFORMANCE or PRODUCT. You may build your house using feet and inches but it does not mean it is going to be better built than someone using millimeters and centimetres.

        • 0 avatar
          Big Al from Oz

          @DocOlds
          That’s the way I’m crystal balling it.

          Vehicle production numbers don’t necessarily equate to success.

          How big was VW and Toyota in the 70s, that’s when they started setting themselves up to be where they are now by building to a global market.

          Most US manufacturers back then built to suit local markets ie, Opel, GMH, Vauxhall etc. Ford did the same but kept the Ford name. Chrysler couldn’t succeed outside of the US, until Fiat came on board.

          I think Ford is in better shape. I do see Fiat/Chrysler eventually becoming a better player. Better shape isn’t vehicle numbers.

          Warren Buffet bought cheap, he plays for short – medium term investments. He will talk up a company to improve shares just to improve his wealth. He won’t lose either.

        • 0 avatar
          doctor olds

          @BigAL- You are certainly right that volume is irrelevant if the company is losing money!

          Yes, our full size truck market is very tough. Toyota and Nissan build here, (no tariff) and capture only a small slice of the segment, Their combined sales are lower than GM’s second truck brand, GMC. GM makes a lot of money on these trucks btw.

          Honda was 8th in 2011, barely ahead of Renault and 2 million behind Ford. I use that year, because Wikipedia has a nice breakdown of production by every major carmaker in the world for 2011. 2012 numbers are different, no doubt.

          • 0 avatar
            RobertRyan

            @doctor olds It is also has a very traditional fan base who only buy GM, Ford and Chrysler products. Tough if your an Asian outsider. Still Toyota finds it a very profitable business selling more and more of the class leading, but pretty outdated Tacoma.

      • 0 avatar
        Hummer

        I agree with your distaste of CAFE, among one of the worst things to happen to America, a good example is the safety of the vehicles that has gone down.

        But I will be damned if I let you get away with this statement

        “GM’s future looks very bright. I have pointed out several times that Warren Buffett sees so much value in the company he tripled his investment in it.”

        There are always bad political reasons for what this slime does, This man has no place being used as an example, for anything to support any cause, unless it is negligent in nature. He is a disgusting example of why we are in the problems we are in, and a big proponent of everything most of us are against.
        /end rant

      • 0 avatar
        28-Cars-Later

        “know that CAFE has been very damaging to US makers”

        +1000, End CAFE, it has definitely contributed to the decline in the American auto industry, and goes against every principle of a “free market” . I’ll march on Washington for it, after all doesn’t grass roots social protest impress community organizers?

  • avatar
    Big Al from Oz

    @DenverMike
    Why don’t you prove me wrong. You always ask for proof but never provide any.

    Myself and from what it appears Robert Ryan have produce documents and links.

    Why don’t you come up with something? Is there nothing?

    Produce something that isn’t from a union.

    • 0 avatar
      DenverMike

      @Big Al from Oz – I’ve said it over and over and so have many others that don’t happen ignore both of you… You’re saying the mythical and illusive “Trade Barriers” and “Protectionism” exists, but fail to give any proof or anything that makes logical sense.

      Still, you believe it’s up to us to prove you wrong? How crazy is that?

      If I said Big Foot really exists and then demanded to see your proof that it doesn’t, you’d call me all sorts of crazy, no?

      Still we’ve proved to the both of you that except for the few hundred dollars in tariffs or whatever formalities import trucks face, it’s a wide open and free market that’s completely an even playing field for all OEMs from anywhere. Yes trucks are protected, but only from passenger vehicles including domestics.

      We can point to a hundred million imports that have sold here and you can not even come up with one specific car or truck that backs up your ridiculous claims?

  • avatar
    doctor olds

    @DenverMike- Upon review, I have to side with BigAl and Robert Ryan wrt the Chicken tax. I humbly admit I was ignorant that it was still in place. A 25% tariff does protect domestically produced trucks from imports.

    You are correct though in asserting that comparing trucks with a lower CAFE average requirement, to a car, the BMW M3 is nonsensical. There are no barriers to cars other than the goodness to meet the standards and compete.

    The Chicken Tax effectively prevents importation of light trucks unless tricks are used. Look at the wiki article for details about Transit Connect.

    BigAL and Robert Ryan, I apparently didn’t communicate well that I support global standards, and repeal of the chicken tax, now that you enlightened me to it. While we are at it, let’s repeal CAFE and you might see some very nice big cars from America again! I should add, our trucks are not sheltered weaklings. They are very good vehicles and Toyota Nissan sees that in their competition.

    There was a time when the domestics could only make money on trucks and large cars, but had to build loss making small vehicles here to enable them to meet separate import and domestic fleet CAFE averages. Today, the costs are down so far, even the Chevy Sonic, the only domestically produced small car is profitable. It is a new world in that regard and sound reason to have optimism for their future.
    btw-other than speedometers, our vehicles have been metric since the 70′s. Most cars can swith between the systems with the push of a button.

    • 0 avatar
      Big Al from Oz

      @DocOlds
      It’s been a pleasure debating you. You do have knowledge of the industry.

      One thing though, seriously dig into the EPA site and look at the difference between gasoline and diesel engines in regards to pollution. You’ll be surprised.

      If the US adopts the UNECE you will not lose you big pickups and muscle cars, look at us, we sell them to you.

      The UNECE will make it cheaper to produce vehicles like the Chev Colorado that are getting a ‘make over’ at the momnent.

      I think its quite sad that an already designed vehicle has to be redesigned for another market. Someone is paying for that waste.

    • 0 avatar
      DenverMike

      @doctor olds – I have to agree with Big Al and it’s been a pleasure debating with you. I also agree you have knowledge of the industry. The fact that you were ignorant to the existence Chicken tax only proves how irrelevant it really is. I don’t think anyone knew it existed until the mini-trucks and then mid-size trucks markets became a skeleton of what they once were.

      Then fans of mid-size pickups started looking for excuses and called full-size “protected” when all the while the Ranger, S10, Dakota, Frontier and Tacoma have also been supposedly “protected”. Did something change that ( almost all at once) encouraged Mitsu, Mazda, VW, Subaru and Isuzu compact & mini-trucks to come to America then it was taken away?

      There’s reason the Transit gets those “tricks” done to it. For one, it escapes any tariff, and 2nd, IT’S WORTH IT! And it has a business case that works. That right there is the difference between a successful import truck and one that excuses are made for.

      Don’t forget all the wildly successful import medium duty truck lines. Do you hear any of them complaining about any chickens?

      I agree that CAFE is what started the whole mini-truck craze, but it skyrocketed on its own and crashed on its own.

      I also agree CAFE needs to die along with the Chicken Tax. CARB needs to die also. Seriously though! And don’t get me started on the that damn Sierra Club..

      • 0 avatar
        DenverMike

        @doctor olds – I’ll ask you the question Big Al & Robert Ryan have been dodging for a while:

        “We can point to a hundred million imports that have sold here and you can not even come up with one specific car or truck that backs up your ridiculous claims?”

        Start by listing any and all trucks that have been negatively affect by the Chicken tax. Then we’ll move on to cars.

        • 0 avatar
          niky

          I could name a whole bunch of said vehicles sold in Mexico and elsewhere but not in the US… the only compact left on the market is the Nissan Navara. US market realities, the desire of customers for bigger trucks, entrenched customer loyalties and… yes… the Chicken Tax… mean that everyone else has either dropped that product line in favor of a US-made pick-up (Toyota and the Tacoma) or are simply no longer bothering to bring their global products stateside (Triton, Ranger, Hilux, Amarok, etcetera). New Trailblazer? Sorry, not for you .

          • 0 avatar
            RobertRyan

            @Nicky,
            Thanks, nice summing up.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            @Niky – I don’t know how to break this to you, so I’ll just come out and say it. The Navara is a re-badged Nissan Frontier.

            It’s GM’s decision to bring the global Colorado to the US for CAFE reasons, but also favors the Equinox, particularly with the CAFE friendly four-banger over the global Trailblazer. So it seems CAFE cuts both ways. But of course you know, the global Trailblazer is not a ‘truck’ so would be Chicken tax exempt.

            There’s also a case for trucks like the global Ranger, Mitsu Triton and VW Amarok not having good business cases in the US even after spending just a few hundred dollars on Chicken tax tricks/loopholes (which likely still cost the same or less than the 2.5% tariff all import cars pay anyway).

            Other than the US market’s insatiable thirst for base-stripper regular cabs and preference for mid-grade full-size pickups over similar, hard loaded mid-size… the Amarok, Triton and Ranger would cannibalize more profitable VW, Mitsu and Ford products in the US. The Hilux would be redundant.

          • 0 avatar
            RobertRyan

            @Nicky,

            Chevrolet think they are on a winner with the Colorado.Good article sums up strategies of the Manufacturers and the current situation.
            http://www.autoguide.com/auto-news/2012/09/where-did-the-compact-pickups-go.html
            “GM has stated that the international Holden Colorado and Chevrolet Colorado, will be the base of the North American model. This method of releasing the vehicle in international markets first was used in the global release of the Cruze, Spark and Sonic. It all sounds similar to Fords ‘One-Ford’ strategy, but in regards to the compact pickup, GM is actually following through.

            “Obviously,” said Tom Wilkinson, from Chevrolet’s Communications team. “There are customers who don’t need the full capability of a full-size truck, and are attracted to a truck that is a little smaller and has better fuel economy.”

            Wilkinson added that he “can’t speak for our competitors,BUT WE LIKE OUR STRATEGY

            Also mention Chicken Tax and how it affects the market. Summing up article.
            “So, will the current market segment leader turn around and stop making the Tacoma, like Ford did with the Ranger? It doesn’t look like it. A new model of the Tacoma is expected to come out in 2014 and feature new engine technology and an updated style. Nissan will also be debuting a new version of the Frontier in the next year or so. That means the compact pickup battle will be on in 2014, but without Ford taking on Chevy, Nissan and Toyota, it just won’t be the same.

          • 0 avatar
            RobertRyan

            Nicky as well the Wall Street Journal 2 days ago had an article on the return of the Small Pickup Truck.
            http://live.wsj.com/video/a-second-look-at-pickup-trucks-2013-03-11-161152412/9784364A-5FC4-46CA-A3A4-2CCFAE034617.html#!9784364A-5FC4-46CA-A3A4-2CCFAE034617

          • 0 avatar
            niky

            The question is what trucks were hurt by it, which is how I answered. The business case for international trucks doesn’t make any sense in the US because the market grew up around the Chicken Tax and the CAFE loopholes, which pushed customers into bigger, cheaper trucks.

            This is not to say that it has hurt the US industry in the past. The Tacoma only exists because of the Chicken Tax. So did the US-market only previous Ranger, which diverged well from the global Ranger.

            What the Chicken Tax hurts is the ability of domestic manufacturers to produce a pick-up that can be sold elsewhere in the world. This artificial divide between the US Market and the global pick-up market means American “domestic”pick-ups are basically unsellable overseas. Global compacts with 1.2+++ ton capacities and 3 ton towing capacities mated to tiny 2.5 liter (or less) engines is the norm out here. The only really American pick-up that fit that bill was the Ranger, but the US Ranger diverged from the global Ranger, and has now been sacrificed so that Ford can keep their “Best-seller” status with the F150, instead of introducing a truck that’s lighter and more fuel efficient than the F150 yet larger and worlds better than any Ranger that came before it.

            -

            As for loopholes? Well… while you can bolt extra passenger seats in the back of a Transit, unless you’re bolting those seats to the bed of the Ranger, I don’t see how you can do the same there.

            Really, it’s Detroit’s loss. No US-made pick-up can be sold overseas in any kind of volume nowadays. Simply because of the divergence in classes. Sure, part of that is due to unique market conditions in the US, but those conditions were fostered by regulations that favored certain classes over others without letting market forces simply battle it out. That’s the same thing that happened with CAFE and SUVs. These distortions are why America’s global models are made in factories in Thailand and Korea instead of in North America. Might not hurt the companies who own those factories, but it sure as hell hurts the working man in Detroit.

          • 0 avatar
            RobertRyan

            @Nicky
            “What the Chicken Tax hurts is the ability of domestic manufacturers to produce a pick-up that can be sold elsewhere in the world. This artificial divide between the US Market and the global pick-up market means AMERICAN “DOMESTIC PICKUPS ARE UNSELLABLE OVERSEAS.
            I have been saying this for ages. The UAW/US Governments has a very narrow view of success. The more they push for a protective enviromnent the worse in the long run it will become.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            @Niky – All you’re talking about is lost sales. Now that doesn’t necessarily mean lost profits for an OEM, especially if they already sell cars in the US that would be cannibalized by all the base trucks that would sell off the same lot. Mexico’s cars are grossly decontented compared to well equipped US.

            The global Ranger loses out on US sales, but Ford would lose more by having to part with too many base stripper global Rangers to cheapskates on the retail level to fleet buyers like Orkin plus the US gov. And would of course, would cannibalize the F-150.

            Ford’s communications/blogger, Mike Levine stated 23% of displaced Ranger buyers stepped up to F-150s. This means likely half of Ranger sales were just there to cannibalize the F-150.

            Here’s trucks that grew around and got around the Chicken tax: The Mitsu D50 Arrow & Mity Max, Mazda Courier & B-series, Isuzu LUV & P’up, VW trucklet, Subaru Brat & Baja. What changed that made these trucks so wildly popular and very profitable at one time in the US then made them extinct species? CAFE might have varied a touch, but nothing so drastic. And besides that, whatever advantages were given to full-size pickups should have affected domestic compact and mid-size trucks just the same and foreign.

            Don’t forget international trucks like Hino, Mercedes, UD and Fuso that are still going strong in the US despite Chicken tax loophole/tricks and domestic competition.

            The Tacoma is theoretically protected by the Chicken tax, but sales are pretty weak considering it’s the last surviving mid-size. The Frontier is still holding on, but suffers from lack of a regular cab. I mean suffers sales-wise. And since the Tundra and Titan 1/2 tons are also theoretically protected by the Chicken tax and CAFE, why aren’t sales booming?

            Edit: also the Frontier was the only truck in the US, mid or full-size, that did not increase sales after the Ranger died.

            Speaking of the US Ranger being diverged from the global one, you forgot there was a crew cab with a 5′ bed that very closely resembled the global Ranger. It was badged as the Explorer Sport Trac, but was built off the extended Ranger frame. No one cared and it was a complete sales flop. It had an available V8 option too.

            You wouldn’t bolt seats to a Ranger (bed), but it’s called a ‘complete knockdown kit’ (or CKD) like what Mahindra was getting ready to use. Various parts are shipped separate to the truck in bulk containers to be assembled locally.

            US half tons also have 1.5+++ ton payload, but tow close to 6 tons. That’s with a bed, not gross without bed, meaning bare cab-n-chassis trucks.

            Yeah the Chicken tax does more harm to US OEMs than good. Diverged or not, US trucks can not really be accepted anywhere there isn’t a free trade agreement (or FTA like Canada, Mexico, Australia) simply because the Chicken tax sounds so outrageous, though it really isn’t. This includes US medium and heavy duty trucks.

            When certain classes are favoured, encouraging a market change, no distinctions are made as far as foreign or domestic. And mid-size trucks get a free pass vs cars because fully loaded mid-size can and do get similar MPG to full-size pickups. Our relatively low fuel prices shapes the market more than anything.

          • 0 avatar
            niky

            I can agree that market forces play a huge part, as in Doc Olds’ post below… perhaps, even without a Chicken Tax, the market divide would still be there. But since the 70′s, US and global car markets have been converging. It’s in trucks that they aren’t, and yeah, sucks.

            With just 23% going to F150, Ford is still leaving a lot on the table. While I do understand the business decision behind dropping the Ranger, perhaps a 2.0T Ranger would not cannibalize V6 sales so badly.

            Oh well.

          • 0 avatar
            doctor olds

            @niky- the convergence is forced by CAFE.

            Note that Toyota and VW both had to design cars specifically for NA, Camry and Passat, that are larger than consumers call for elsewhere.

            If Americans had the interest in fuel economy of other countries, they might want smaller cars, but with today’s fuel prices they still go for large, powerful vehicles in huge numbers.
            One example of how CAFE restricts GM now:
            the Buick Regal is only available with a 4 cylinder here. A wonderful AWD V6 package is being sold in Europe and can be virtually taken off the shelf and delivered here but for CAFE considerations.
            Expect more makers to move to smaller engines in America with the roll out of latest CAFE escalation.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            @Niky – Not all sales are ‘good sales’ so what Ford is turning it’s back on could be mostly cheapskate customers like Orkin, the US gov and commuters looking for a cheap A to B car. Remember that with rebates, base stripper were cheaper than Corollas, Sentras and the like. Also remember ‘urban sprawl’ in the US is like no other place on earth. This means most likely mid-size base trucks are the lowest common denominator of all vehicles on the open market except for subcompacts. OEMs aren’t disclosing the take rate of mid-size, regular cab stripper vs more upscale or loaded. One indication of this is that the (no regular cab) Frontier actually saw a ‘decrease’ in sales following the death of the US Ranger while ALL other lines of trucks including the Titan and Turdra saw a decent sales increase in the same period.

            There is no doubt the US car/truck/vehicle market is like no other and the very existence of the Titan and Tundra prove this. Where else are they sold by such “global” OEMs like Toyota and Nissan?

            The bottom line is cheap fuel in the US. That’s a HUGE difference that would shape any market. Never mind less tightly packed communities with wider roads and available parking spaces. This would keeps any country seeking bigger as better.

            In the end, CAFE can lead us to water… CAFE may have killed the land yacht of cars and traditional “Family Truckster” station wagons, but the need and desire hasn’t be extinguished, not by a long shot.

            And let’s not even discuss the style or fashion of upscale full-size pickups. What we do know is 30% or F-150s are ‘premium’ Lariat and above. Shia Labeouf made headlines when he flipped his Lariat F-150 one night in Hollywood out with friends. And mid-size trucks are not really part of the “American Dream” to own your own farm, ranch or business. Mid-size would be what your workers drive.

            So the above is a US ‘thing’… so is it better to know it and adjust accordingly, or deny it and fail?

  • avatar
    RobertRyan

    @doctor olds
    “BigAL and Robert Ryan, I apparently didn’t communicate well that I support global standards, and repeal of the chicken tax, now that you enlightened me to it. While we are at it, let’s repeal CAFE and you might see some very nice big cars from America again! I should add, our trucks are not sheltered weaklings. They are very good vehicles and Toyota Nissan sees that in their competition”

    Now we are talking!!!!! That is the “shove” the US industry needs to become competitive again at a global level.

    • 0 avatar
      doctor olds

      @RobertRyan- I don’t see these standards as having anything to day with US industry competitiveness. General Motors already generates well over half of their sales from outside NA.

      I focus on GM details,because I am familiar with details, but the problems that caused the financial depletion of the US makers are gone now, with the lifting of the UAW retiree health care cost and elimination of the the jobs bank. In addition, the new contract and second tier wage rates enable profitable assembly of even the subcompact Chevy Sonic here. Previously, small cars had to be built here for CAFE, despite large losses.

      Prior to the 2007 Labor agreement, GM’s additional labor costs the offshore competitors didn’t have to bear were on the order of $10B a year:
      UAW retiree health care = $7,0B,
      Jobs bank = $0.8B
      Small Car Group losses = $2.5B (1.6 million cars @ $1,600 loss ea.)

      Similar costs for these three areas existed for Ford and Chrysler as well, though quite a lot smaller than GM’s bill. This was because GM once employed 800,000 people, including 360,000 at Delphi. Their contract kept GM liable for them even though the business was spun off.

      Rick Wagoner made the statement in a quarterly business review sometime in 2008: “We can run the business better than our competitors, but not $10B a year better.” I expect some shots at Wagoner from this group, but he was right to point out that $10B is a huge nut to crack before breaking even!

      These labor agreement changes, as I frequently write, are the biggest reason for the profitability of all three US makers today. GM is especially well positioned compared to Ford because of the shedding of liabilities in bankruptcy, like it or not.

      Sales rankings and market share are for bragging rights, volume generates income. GM has more volume here than anyone else, and is running most plants near peak output, making a lot of money!

      • 0 avatar
        RobertRyan

        @doctor olds
        As I pointed out to someone else on this thread. Standards have nothing to do with Quality, Competitiveness or any other aspect. They are a Standard nothing more.
        It is correct to say GM has 50% of its sales outside NA, but closer to 80% not 60% of the profits are generated in NA. The collapse of the European market (Neutral in South America)has shifted profit maximization to NA.
        http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2013/01/23/gm-and-ford-draw-battle-lines.aspx

        “Here’s why they’ll be battling to be top dog in truck sales. Adam Jonas, an analyst at Morgan Stanley, said that Ford’s F-series, the best-selling model in America for over 30 years, accounts for an estimated 90% of Ford’s profit globally. FOR GM THE STORY IS SIMILAR as the Silverado and Sierra equal roughly 60% of GM’s profit globally. “

  • avatar
    doctor olds

    As part of the California Emissions law (which is followed by maybe a dozen states or so), the CARB actually requires manufacturers to report all warranty claims on emission related components through their useful life, which is 10 years or 150,000 miles. The standard requires reporting if claims exceed 1% and recall action if they exceeed 4%. This is a direct quality related standard. The safety standards,likewise, are a performance standard that does assess the goodness of the vehicle to survive and protect customers in all sorts of crash scenarios. Vehicles have to be engineered very well to meet these standards.

    • 0 avatar
      RobertRyan

      @doctor olds. True like all standards do, but it does not guarantee a well built vehicle or a problem free one.

      • 0 avatar
        doctor olds

        @RobertRyan- No, the carmaker has to do that, but the reporting of actual repair rates and the risk of being forced to conduct an expensive recall are factors that have driven quality, reliability and durability improvements to a particularly high level in America. Data from vehicles built around the world show this to be true, as I wrote earlier. I am not aware of any other country that has such lengthy tracking requirements and recall authority based on warranty repair rates.

  • avatar
    RobertRyan

    @doctor olds
    No, Standards do not mean the design of the car or aesthetics can be acceptable. No doubt the Pontiac Aztek and I believe the Ford Edesl were reliable cars but aesthetically disasters. No Standard is going to protect you from that or is a Standard going to protect you from the wrong vehicle being produced at the wrong time. Only management can do that.

    • 0 avatar
      doctor olds

      @RobertRyan- The car business is complex. I know it very well from the plant floor to the showroom floor, from the service department to executive suites in global headquarters. No doubt, management is always responsible for everything. I was engaged in assisting the management of GM for many years as an engineer and am well aware of most of the problems GM had, what caused them, and how they were addressed. I understand you read a lot about the business, I lived on the front lines fighting the battles for many years.

      There are forces more powerful than management- a monopoly union, government, and the macro economy among them.

      A lot of commenters here don’t seem to appreciate that our pickup trucks and large SUVs are still what Americans want. They would be buying larger cars, if they were not killed by CAFE.

      The only reason our pickups are “unsuitable” for other markets is the very reason they are beloved here: they are big vehicles. The size and the lower fuel efficiency that comes with it, are not affordable most other places. Thus it was for our cars in the past. They were never exported in large numbers because they were too large and too thirsty.

      Americans prove they don’t care much about fuel efficiency by their choice to buy “trucks” in increasing numbers coincident with the advent of CAFE in the ’70s when the market began moving from 15% trucks to more than 50% trucks where it remains today.

      • 0 avatar
        RobertRyan

        @doctor olds
        Lack of fuel efficiency: too large to park in some small places yes. What is a real killer for people outside NA, even when fuel efficiency is not such a big deal as in Australia is there TINY Payloads and to a lesser extent lack of Off Road ability.


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Subscribe without commenting

Recent Comments

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Authors

  • Brendan McAleer, Canada
  • Marcelo De Vasconcellos, Brazil
  • Matthias Gasnier, Australia
  • J & J Sutherland, Canada
  • Tycho de Feyter, China
  • W. Christian 'Mental' Ward, Abu Dhabi
  • Mark Stevenson, Canada
  • Faisal Ali Khan, India