A car buyers lament: USA gets the crappy cars!

Blame it on the EPA or perhaps the safety standards we enforce, or maybe both, but here in the US we get the crap that the rest of the civilized world doesn't want when it comes to cars.

Fuel efficient, yet powerful diesel engines? NOPE we can't get too many of those. And the handful we can get are in very limited model cars.

Want a Mercedes diesel engine, we are offered only 1 of them, same engine is available in the E350 sedan as well as a couple of the MB SUV choices. But its still only 1 engine.

VW-AUDI-Porsche offers us a total of 2 engines. The little, and very good, 2.0 TDI offered in a couple smaller VWs is also offered in the Audi A3. And the diesel powerplant offered in the VW Touareg is also powering the Audi Q7 and the Porsche Cayanne.

Turn to 4 wheel drive cars and our choices have, thankfully, been improving as of late. VW, MB, Volvo, Audi, Subaru and even Ford, GM and Chrysler are now offering standard sedans in 4 (or all) wheel drive. Sadly many of those marques tend to relegate the 4wd option to only some top end models or some standard models outfitted with top end packages, with Audi and Subaru being the noted exceptions. But want an economical 4wd sedan and the choices drop.

Turn to our luxury cars and there is no such thing as a luxury fuel efficient vehicle. Over in Europe you can get a rather large luxurious Mercedes with a modest engine. Here in the US the smallest engines they offer would be considered silly in Europe. Yes, they have high performance M-B cars in Europe, but much of what they sell are rather pedestrian in terms of performance . . . and realistically most of our driving here is rather pedestrian too. Why can't we get a modest engine with good fuel efficiency in some of these imported cars?

Yes I'm frustrated.

I'd love a Volvo S80 DIESEL with 4WD. Or a MB E350 BlueTec with 4Matic. Heck I'd take a VW CC with 4Motion and a TDI. Or little Subaru Legacy with a boxer diesel.

I'd love a small pick up truck like Ford Ranger with 4wd and a modest diesel, but if you say DIESEL and PICK UP TRUCK in the same sentence here then you are getting something large enough to fit Andre the Giant in the cab and the hauling capacity to pull your home off its foundations.

Why are 'common sense' vehicles so hard to find in the US?

I think that is just what we buy. I dont know if I would want a luxury Mercedes with a modest engine. Bet you could order one, but you would hate yourself on the interstate up in the moutains.

mak2 said:

I think that is just what we buy. I dont know if I would want a luxury Mercedes with a modest engine. Bet you could order one, but you would hate yourself on the interstate up in the moutains.

Click to expand...

Well I agree it is what we buy that is offered, and we tend to buy big powerful engines and then we can't really do much with them (legally).

But as for hating myself in the mountains on the interstate, that actually goes to my point. Very few of us in the midwest do that. Certainly there is more need for a 4wd vehicle in a snow area than in a sunny area. Certainly there is more need for a more powerful engine in a mountainous area than in a flat area. And as such there are regional favorites among all brands as utility comes into play.

That is also my point. Let us have a decent size vehicle with a decent, rather than absurdly large, engine. Let us have the options that we need/desire to operate safely and economically. I think the 'car culture' here is so tilted toward "HEMI" mentality that the car markers are afraid to bring sensible vehicles here.

mak2 said:

I dont know if I would want a luxury Mercedes with a modest engine. Bet you could order one, but you would hate yourself on the interstate up in the moutains.

Click to expand...

You think Europe and the rest of the places Mercedes sells these vehicles is flat?

Melensdad said:

...the car markers are afraid to bring sensible vehicles here.

Click to expand...

The problem has always been that their "sensible" vehicles are also complete pieces of shit. From the Pinto to the Mustang II to the K car and Chevette and hundreds of models since, there have been "cheap" cars available, but they suck donkey balls when it comes to quality.

I just think the auto market is a place free enterprise and market forces work very well. Why would "they" the EPA or whoever not allow a small engine in a luxury car. I hate to jinx myself, but I have not bought a junk car in years, back before the safety standards and EPA I owned new cars (mid70's) that I would not leave home iwthout my toolbox in the trunk. I also dont miss the exhaust fumes while stuck in traffic. Change is not always bad. Relax.

The car companies market what sells here. Bluntly stated, there is not enough of a buying public to market these "sane" vehicles.

People want the monster diesel truck. Not a good efficiency minded small or mid sized truck. Bigger is better here in the good 'ol USA. (You may also note that the larger trucks with bigger engines get better mileage than the little trucks do...)

Same with the luxury cars. Who would want a big car that doesn't have the biggest most ridiculously over powered engine??

(The Sprinter van is the only exception to this moronic policy that I can find...)

Having spent everal years in Europe, I can definitively state that their 'modest' engines can propel vehicles to speeds we would consider insane. Typically, low end VW's cruise at eighty in Germany. Different engine, different 'pollution controls' differnces in the drive train. all contribute to make european vehicles, faster, more fuel efficient, and better handling than American vehicles.
the smaller diesels in europe are quite capable of handling mountain terrain, snow conditions, and even off road conditions, depending on the platform.

This is your dream car:

2011 Toyota Sienna 4 banger

Car companies sell what the people want it really doesn't matter much about most other things. I've owned them all and now drive a KIA van and a Ford Mustang. It really doesn't matter much to me since even $5 a gallon gas won't hurt me since we only drive a few miles a month any more. As for diesel no thanks since I've owned two.

Low compression engines(mandated) catalytic converters(mandated), myriad ant-pollution devices(mandated) all take performance and fuel mileage from American built, or built for America cars.

From personal experience, Benz Diesel engined cars in Europe are not anemic.

joec said:

As for diesel no thanks since I've owned two.

Click to expand...

Just curious but which ones?

waybomb said:

From personal experience, Benz Diesel engined cars in Europe are not anemic.

Click to expand...

Yup, ditto Audi, ditto British Leyland.

mak2 said:

I just think the auto market is a place free enterprise and market forces work very well. Why would "they" the EPA or whoever not allow a small engine in a luxury car. . . I also dont miss the exhaust fumes while stuck in traffic. Change is not always bad. Relax.

Click to expand...

Not quite sure I understand your point.

The EPA measures pollution by the gallon, rather than by the mile. If you measure pollution from the majority of European diesel engines by the gallon they slightly exceed the EPA requirements, but they are generally 30++% more efficient than gas engines to in real life driving they can put out about 25% LESS pollution than a gas engine. But since our EPA takes a bassakwards way of measuring pollution we can't get those engines here without loading them down with scrubbers, urea injection, etc. My little VW Jetta is pushing 40mpg in daily driving and is considered an ultra low emission vehicle, but a Jetta just 2 years old could achieve nearly 50 miles per gallon in similar daily driving. That engine, however, is no longer 'clean' enough to comply with the 50 state mandates, yet it still is considered a low emissions vehicle.

The EPA is, by using an illogical testing method, forcing the diesel engines to have all sorts of add on components that jack up their costs, making many uncompetitive or barely competitive. Still, they remain roughly 30% more efficient than gas burning engines and actually produce less emissions over the same number of miles driven.

Oh, and I am relaxed. Why the concern?

I owned a Jeep Cherokee and Volvo 265 Mel.

What year models were they, Joe?

Melensdad said:

Just curious but which ones?


Yup, ditto Audi, ditto British Leyland.



Not quite sure I understand your point.

The EPA measures pollution by the gallon, rather than by the mile. If you measure pollution from the majority of European diesel engines by the gallon they slightly exceed the EPA requirements, but they are generally 30++% more efficient than gas engines to in real life driving they can put out about 25% LESS pollution than a gas engine. But since our EPA takes a bassakwards way of measuring pollution we can't get those engines here without loading them down with scrubbers, urea injection, etc. My little VW Jetta is pushing 40mpg in daily driving and is considered an ultra low emission vehicle, but a Jetta just 2 years old could achieve nearly 50 miles per gallon in similar daily driving. That engine, however, is no longer 'clean' enough to comply with the 50 state mandates, yet it still is considered a low emissions vehicle.

The EPA is, by using an illogical testing method, forcing the diesel engines to have all sorts of add on components that jack up their costs, making many uncompetitive or barely competitive. Still, they remain roughly 30% more efficient than gas burning engines and actually produce less emissions over the same number of miles driven.

Oh, and I am relaxed. Why the concern?

Click to expand...

Thanks for the education about importing cars. I really did not know exactly how the EPA approved imports. Guess I havent tried to import a Mercedes lately. I did not mean relax in a bad way.

It is illegal to import unchanged any engine from Europe younger than 1979. They all have to be retrofitted to meet US emissions standards.
I actually do believe there is a market for good, decent diesel engines in the US, but since we don't have, and will probably never get, one, it's a moot point.

Joe, as for the Volvo 265, that was probably 25-30 years ago that that engine was offered??? Diesels have evolved. Most people who have driven or ridden in my Jetta have no idea its a diesel.

I don't know anything about the Chrysler diesel engines in the Cherokee. But given that you had a diesel in an SUV then I suspect it was a diesel installed for power/torque/towing rather than for economy and cruising. Basically I'm guessing it was a truck engine rather than one of the modern car engines. I can understand why you might not want a diesel based on driving a truck engine, they are generally louder and rougher. . . but those are very different than the new breed of car engines that have come out since about 1995.

loboloco said:

I actually do believe there is a market for good, decent diesel engines in the US, but since we don't have, and will probably never get, one, it's a moot point.

Click to expand...

Agreed.

But if you look at VW, the little diesel engine is actually chosen by almost half of the people who buy the Jetta model. Over 60% of the Jetta Sportwagons sold in the US have the 2.0 TDI diesel engine. Something under 40% of the Jetta sedan buyers choose the 2.0 TDI diesel. And the Jetta diesel is actually credited for reviving the VW brand sales here in the USA. The same engine is also available in at least 1 other small VW model.

Mercedes Benz offers their Blue-Tec diesel in 4 models and they sell at a premium. MB cars with diesel engines have an almost cult-like following in the US with higher than normal resale values and owners who hang onto them for decades.

Av8r3400 said:

What year models were they, Joe?

Click to expand...

The Jeep if I remember correctly was about 85 and bought it used. I think its engine was a Renault but not sure. I didn't keep it very long as it was a little lacking in power. I did buy the Jeep here in the US which the original owner had brought here from Europe.

The Volvo I bought overseas well used in 79 and not sure what year exactly it was but would guess early 70's. I was in Africa for about a month and needed a car. I left it when I came back to the US.

I've also rented a number of diesel powered vehicles when overseas including trucks. The only thing I've seen here with diesel is the Ford Trucks which I ridden in but never owned. I've also been in a few later models through out the years by other makers such as Mercedes.

(Joe please don't take this as a knock against you.)

So many people, unfortunately, judge modern diesels by the late 70's diesels they last drove, like the 5.7 GM engine (converted Oldsmobile gas motor!), the early 6.2 GM and 6.9 Ford diesel truck motors. No power, smoke and stink.

It is so unfair to the modern diesel motors. Please try one sometime.

I won't own a gas motor any more.

Actually Av I don't base it on what I owned but what I have ridden in and listening to their owners. The Ford truck (with in 4 years) I mentioned said it would be the last diesel he ever buys due to the price of fuel and mileage. He pulls a pretty large travel trailer behind it (5th wheel type). He was very unhappy with it as well as maintenance costs for it since he financed it. I'm not a fan of diesel unless it comes to trains, tractor trailer rigs and other such vehicles. I don't see its practicality for personal vehicles. Diesil fuel cost more than gas last I looked with about the same mileage. It sure isn't clean by any stretch to say the least.

joec said:

The Ford truck (with in 4 years) I mentioned said it would be the last diesel he ever buys due to the price of fuel and mileage. He pulls a pretty large travel trailer behind it (5th wheel type).

Click to expand...

What's he going to get? Gas?

I have no idea Dave maybe propane or natural gas perhaps hydrogen.

joec said:

Actually Av I don't base it on what I owned but what I have ridden in and listening to their owners. The Ford truck (with in 4 years) I mentioned said it would be the last diesel he ever buys due to the price of fuel and mileage. He pulls a pretty large travel trailer behind it (5th wheel type). He was very unhappy with it as well as maintenance costs for it since he financed it. I'm not a fan of diesel unless it comes to trains, tractor trailer rigs and other such vehicles. I don't see its practicality for personal vehicles. Diesil fuel cost more than gas last I looked with about the same mileage. It sure isn't clean by any stretch to say the least.

Click to expand...

The 6.0 Ford diesel was actually a far worse motor than the early 6.9's. The 6.9 didn't make any power but it at least ran... The late model Fords probably aren't the best to judge by.

Diesel is more expensive than gas, but as Bob has stated, diesel engines get 30%+ better mileage due to their much higher efficiency (fuel burn) and the fact that the fuel has a higher BTU content.

joec said:

I have no idea Dave maybe propane or natural gas perhaps hydrogen.

Click to expand...

Maybe one of those new hybrid HD pickups.

Sorry guys I can only base my opinion on what I owned early 80's and what I gather from those that have them now that I know. Needless to say diesel engines is not in my future.

Now I voiced a simple opinion based I what I had owned with several her cross examining me on those vehicles. Now you get an idea of why I don't post in the debate section any more. I suggest if you want me to go away simply ask me too as I'm tired of having to prove ever opinion I have regardless of what it is on be it a car, politics or a stinking holster. Christ guys I tell you what simply tell me and I dump this site in a minute.

joec said:

Sorry guys I can only base my opinion on what I owned early 80's and what I gather from those that have them now that I know. Needless to say diesel engines is not in my future.

Now I voiced a simple opinion based I what I had owned with several her cross examining me on those vehicles. Now you get an idea of why I don't post in the debate section any more. I suggest if you want me to go away simply ask me too as I'm tired of having to prove ever opinion I have regardless of what it is on be it a car, politics or a stinking holster. Christ guys I tell you what simply tell me and I dump this site in a minute.

Click to expand...

Well Joe, Larry specifically said he wasn't knocking you, he was also just presenting his opinion as well as some easily verifiable facts. As for myself, I was just interested in what alternatives your friend had found that would perform better than his current truck for the usage type that he has.

edit: I don't even have my Debate forum turned on....

As I said Dave I have no idea what he will go to next since he has another year to pay on the current Ford he has.

Now as for your information if I posted it was Thursday and someone read it on Friday they would call me a lire on this forum in the debate forum when I clearly stated it was my opinion. Point is I'm a little thin skinned at this point since I said I owned two diesel cars with two of the member here questioning what I owned. I told them what I owned, when and where with no response back however that alone at this point gets my flags raised as it is typical of everything I say. No problem with you Dave just beginning to get on my nerves is all.

Av8r3400 said:

I won't own a gas motor any more.

Click to expand...

Ditto. 300 hp, 600 ftlbs of torque, and average 19MPG on a truck the size of mine has spoiled me too.

Bulldog1401 said:

Ditto. 300 hp, 600 ftlbs of torque, and average 19MPG on a truck the size of mine has spoiled me too.

Click to expand...

My 90 Mustang GT puts out 400 HP with 375 ftlbs of torque on 19 mgp now and no spring chicken. I might add if you line the two up in a quarter mile the Mustang will clean your clock and a 2 mile road race you would be even more embarrassed.