You may have heard that Ford is pulling the plug (so to speak) on the 2.0 liter twin-turbo EcoBlue diesel that’s available in European iterations of vehicles such as the Ranger pick-up. Which is also available – in Europe – in regular cab form.
The good news – for Europeans – is that the twin-turbo diesel will be replaced by another diesel, with one less turbo. European buyers will also be able to choose a 3.0 liter V6 diesel in models like the Everest, which is a body-on-frame small SUV that Ford doesn’t sell here, either.
Noticing a pattern?
It begs some questions that are worth answering.
Why is it that Ford can – legally – offer diesel engines in Europe but cannot – legally – offer them here, even in the exact same models (like the Ranger) that can be had over there with diesel engines? The answer is simple: The emissions regs in Europe are different than they are here. This doesn’t mean that the regs in Europe allow “dirty” engines to be sold. In some ways, the regs in Europe are stricter.
But they are different.
The differences make compliance more difficult – in the sense that complying with European and U.S. regs entails making one engine compliant with two different standards (and methods). This amounts to a doubling of compliance costs for the manufacturer (e.g., Ford).
The same as regards “safety” regs. No vehicle available for sale in Europe is unsafe – in the sense that it cannot be driven safely. A car with defective brakes is unsafe. A car without ABS brakes – just to make the point – isn’t “unsafe.” It just doesn’t have ABS. Same as regards having just one (or no) air bags rather than four (or six).
It is merely a question of not being compliant with the U.S. regs, which are different – down to minutia such as the exact location of turn and brake signals, etc. There is also – in the case of models like the Everest – the chicken tax to take into account. This is the tariff applied to vehicles such as small trucks and the small SUVs that are based upon them that passed along to would-be buyers of them, who shy away from buying because of the added cost of the tax.
The diesel denial is especially effronterous, for two reasons. The first one has already been discussed; i.e., the arbitrary differences in emissions standards and the compliance costs attending them. These compliance costs are especially effronterous because the “non-compliant” diesels are not “dirty” – and are in fact cleaner in a way that is never taken into account when it comes to “emissions.”
Diesels burn less fuel than gas engines.
That means they “emit” less gas.
The difference is not trivial. On average, a diesel engine uses 20-30 percent less fuel for a given distance traveled. This is the main reason why over-the-road trucks are usually diesel-powered. A truck that burns 20-30 percent less fuel costs less to operate. Of course it also helps that diesel engines produce more torque and tend to be longer lived as well as lower maintenance (although that is changing, on account of the regs) but the point – in this context – is that a 20-30 percent reduction in fuel burned is a huge difference when it comes to CO2 “emissions,” which are the major regulatory and political bugaboo of our time.
Now, if the regulatory apparat were truly concerned about CO2 “emissions,” it stands to reason that diesel engines would be encouraged because we are talking whole number – and double digit – reductions in CO2 “emissions” vs. the much smaller reductions in CO2 “emissions” that are realized by such clunky mechanisms as automatic stop-start (ASS) systems that work by shutting off the gas engine at every red light and even hybrid drivetrains that do the same with more elaborate tech. But diesel engines are – effectively – kept out of the U.S. new vehicle market, except for a few outliers that still offer them but probably not for much longer. The lingering handful of vehicles that do still offer them are all big trucks and SUVs. There is no longer even one new passenger car available in this country that’s available with a diesel engine.
In Europe, just about every vehicle – including most passenger cars as well as small trucks like the European-spec Ford Ranger – are available with them. The Ford Focus – a small car Ford stopped selling here – is still available in Europe and it is available with the buyer’s choice of two diesel engines.
Is Europe a continent choked by smog? Has CO2 caused Britain to be submerged into the North Sea?
If you went by what the EPA says, you’d probably think it so. And that’s why can’t have what the Europeans have.
. . .
If you like what you’ve found here please consider supporting EPautos.
We depend on you to keep the wheels turning!
Our donate button is here.
If you prefer not to use PayPal, our mailing address is:
EPautos
721 Hummingbird Lane SE
Copper Hill, VA 24079
PS: Get an EPautos magnet or sticker or coaster in return for a $25 or more one-time donation or a $10 or more monthly recurring donation. (Please be sure to tell us you want a magnet or sticker or coaster – and also, provide an address, so we know where to mail the thing!)
If you’d like a Baaaaa hat or other EPautos gear, see here!
Diesel fuel used to be substantially lower $ per gal. than gas, now it is substantially higher when EPA made fuel Manuf. take out the sulfer. So the mpg cost savings isn’t as great as it sounds. The sulfer was a lubricant as well, so tons of $ to redesign diesel fuel pumps, etc…
A few months ago the trump admin. mentioned aligning EU and US regs for car/truck engines. I would make a lot of sense IF they became less compliant, but I doubt that would happen.
True and correct, Chris. But that same sulfur which makes your injection system happier does lead to actual, real air pollution, as in sulfur dioxide/acid rain. But diesel should still be cheaper than gas, there is so much more of it in a barrel of crude oil, it comes out earlier in the refining process. An awful lot of that diesel price is greedy government fuel taxes.
I’ve heard before how we export diesel to Europe, and they export gasoline to us. Guess it all works out. Can’t help but think that is what drives up the price of diesel for us though. Seems like it was around 2003 or so when I first noticed the price of diesel going above gasoline.
Unfortunately, the EPA (Enemies of the People of America) , get their marching order from the same tribe running our (((federal government/reserve))).
So, yea, diesel went above gas in 2003, per the (((agenda))) and has stayed there, on purpose. It’s the death of a thousand cuts strategy to undermine the economy.
Prepare accordingly….YMMV….
I want that white regular cab long bed Ford Ranger, this crew cab fad can’t die fast enough.
Amen, SCW!
That regular cab rig has a useful bed. The crew cabs we’re allowed to have have these ridiculous 4-5 foot beds that are fine for carrying a dog around and not much else.
That’s because any contractor that has business sense keeps his 35 y.o. Ford F-150 with the long bed, eschewing $75K for a bunch of “bells and whistles” that don’t make him MONEY.
Do the diesels sold in the EU have to use DEF?
A friend who has a recent Mercedes diesel vehicle has to contend with a DEF tank taking the place of the spare tire in the trunk.
“Is Europe a continent choked by smog? Has CO2 caused Britain to be submerged into the North Sea?”
Apparently, the world doesn’t exist beyond US borders.
You actually can have a European Diesel car/truck if you’re careful and willing to go through the effort and time to do so.
Yep son-in-law rolls a German exMIL G-wagon 5 cylinder diesel. All legally imported titled and licensed. What fun! Soft top, removable 2 door.
I remember when diesels were touted as a cure for what was ailing the auto industry in the 70s and 80s, particularly expense, excessive fuel consumption, pollution, and unreliability. Diesels were simpler and thus cheaper to build, operate and maintain, were inherently more efficient and thus used less fuel, and also burned fuel more efficiently, which lowered emissions from incompletely burned fuel, and used a cheaper fuel. Yes, there was the disaster that was the Oldsmobile Diesel. (Arguably, that was what led Olds’ journey to an early grave.) But there were the wildly successful diesels from Mercedes, VW, and Cummins. And there might be more if not for Uncle’s reindeer games.
Todays takeaway:
CO² Bugaboo
The regulatory apparat is only interested in rigging markets and limiting competition.
I can’t make it right in my brain that while there are countless countries in the world that pollute various things at various levels, somehow US CAFE and emissions regs will somehow stop global warming or whatever the next climate crisis is.
No problem with efforts to eliminate smog or airborne lead, but beyond that are we under the impression that we are going to save the world with more costly restrictions and options that get 50 mpg? That would be an extension of the “indispensable nation” theory that without the US, the entire world would fall into chaos, and we alone are the saviors of humanity. Hubris.
USA: “If we don’t do it, no one will!”
Everyone else: “Have you ever stopped to consider that might be because you’re stupid?”
USA: “Never! CHAAAAARGE!!!!”
Correction: “No way, dude. CHAAAAARGE!!!”
They could sell small diesels in the U.S. Stellaris offered their 3.0L in a few Ram and Jeep models.
It’s not that the EPA disallows them, although the problem is a government compliance. For a manufacturer to offer an engine it must undergo EPA compliance testing.
The issue is the market doesn’t want them in great enough numbers to justify the expense of doing that plus the ongoing production and stocking of models with it.
Americans did not like the underpowered diesels offered in the 70s and 80s. That was strike one. Then when diesel came back the rolling coal knuckleheads continued to ruin it’s reputation. Strike two.
Do honestly think if OEMs stuck with them, such as VW, they could have built back a market. VW got punished for competing with EVs, but that was more a political problem than regulation and compliance technically. That was strike three in the U.S.
I would have loved the option to get a small diesel in a small truck like a 1KZ Hilux back in the day.
If all these regulations were actually about saving the environment wouldn’t they require you to hold onto your car for at least 10 years before you bought a new one? Instead the regulations require an overly complex car that will be uneconomical to repair in less than 10 years and in a junkyard.
GovCo does not want you to own a reliable and fuel efficient vehicle. Rather they want you to buy, buy, buy to keep the economy going. But sadly all they will let us buy now is crap.
This why people in the know keep driving what they have already paid for and avoid buying the poorly conceived newer cars.
Woe is me.
Want a diesel? Go buy a diesel. There is no shortage of used diesels (both cars and trucks) out there in the market.
Let’s face it, diesels have never been popular with the domestic car market. Reasons for this are complex. I own a diesel but I despise the smell of the stuff. I despise having to deal with the oil slick that surrounds the pumps because . . . Well because . . . It doesn’t evaporate and the motoring public can’t seem to pump it into their vehicles without spilling it everywhere. Diesel now costs 20-25% more than gas so there goes the efficiency advantage as far as cost to operate goes. Again the higher cost of diesel fuel is related to regulation.
Even if new diesel cars were being offered in Murica’, the next complaint made would be that the price is too high. Others would complain endlessly about diesel emissions after treatment (EGR, DPF’s, SCR, etc.).
Rather than lamenting that which can’t be changed (different reg’s between US and Europe) perhaps time spent educating about how to buy and maintain used vehicles would be helpful?
Maybe it’s just my take, but we can keep bitchin’ or we can take action within the real world constraints we have, to get what we want and need. To hell with depending on politics or the OEMs. Neither will ever do the “right” thing.
Diesel is more expensive, once again, due to federal regulation much more so than due to its inherent properties.
One of those regulations was pushed for by VW, because their TDI mill couldn’t run on high sulphur fuel. So they lobbied for ULSD to be the standard, which required additional refining. That’s all done now. The other reason why it is more expensive than it should be is because of states figuring out that if you sell less diesel fuel than gasoline you’ll get less road tax per user. So they jack up the tax on diesel.
But the real killer was DEF. Especially when it was first introduced it was a deal-breaker for many. Especially because Audi was selling diesels as a luxury performance option, and at least initially required drivers to go to the dealer to refill (and have the computer reset, like an oil life meter). Eventually the stuff was made available at gas stations but it was still another thing to deal with. And it was known to stain anything it touches including paint, skin and clothing. Some “luxury!”
And regulations are absolutely changeable. Or, for those with balls, ignore-able. Laws too, for that matter, especially stupid one’s, which is most of them.
Right about changing the regs, had some hope the Orange Dildo would rein in the EPA and all there “emissions” BS but he’s too busy trying to make himself king of the world to bother with that mundane stuff people elected him to fix.
Absolutely agree, but would add that there are really only about 10 laws, and god gave em to us (there were actually 15 if you believe Mel Brooks…). The rest are rules made by selfish short sighted men, and can be ignored judiciously.
I used to have a bumper stick that read: Speed Limit: 670,616,629 M.P.H.
(Speed of light, y’all)
Man’s laws are silly. Follow God’s laws cause you should, and physics cause you gotta, and you’re golden.
Thinking about quantum entanglement the other day… It’s possible that we are living in a simulation, but one based in a real physical world (not computerized). Maybe we as humans have been “split”, and our entangled selves are in an isolation tank somewhere else in the universe controlling the every thought and action of our doppelganger here in this world? What if the earthbound doppelganger is destroyed, does the “real” me live on?
In the idealized cycles used by mechanical engineers, gasoline engines run on the Otto cycle, while compression ignition engines run on the Diesel cycle. The latter is more efficient primarily because of higher compression ratio, and other factors too:
‘Spark ignition engines are controlled by a throttle valve, which controls the amount of mixture admitted to the cylinders. The throttle valve achieves this by imposing a variable intake pumping loss upon the cycle, which means that they have a fundamentally handicapped thermal efficiency other than when running wide open throttle (WOT).
‘Compression Ignition (CI) engines are controlled by varying the quantity of fuel injected into the cylinders. They have no throttle valve, and so they are not handicapped at part load because they always run WOT.
‘Because most motor vehicles are not driven flat out most of the time, CI engines therefore tend to achieve superior average specific fuel consumption in service. Of course, as others have pointed out, the higher heating value of their fuel, and ability to tolerate higher compression ratio also help.’
https://tinyurl.com/yw9pfd44
Efficiency is beautiful. But the US christ-forsaken fedgov from hell, under the degenerate party of Lincoln, hates efficiency. R-party reprobates are straight out of ‘Harrison Bergeron’:
‘In the year
20812026, the United States Constitution dictates that all Americans are fully equal and not allowed to be smarter, better-looking, or more physically able than anyone else. Diana Moon Glampers, the NHTSA Handicapper General, and her agents enforce the equality laws by forcing citizens to wear “handicaps” such as ugly masks for those who are too beautiful, earpiece radios for the intelligent that broadcast irritating noises meant to disrupt thoughts, and heavy weights for the strong or athletic.’ — WikipediaAnd so it is for engines: more efficient diesels must be punished for their antiegalitarian impudence. How dare they? :angry face:
“The throttle valve achieves this by imposing a variable intake pumping loss upon the cycle, which means that they have a fundamentally handicapped thermal efficiency other than when running wide open throttle (WOT)”
I’m using this line next time I get pulled over for excessive acceleration.