Chevy has its Cobalt XFE, VW its special Polo Bluemotion edition. And now Ford has joined the party, at least in Europe with a special edition Focus called ECOnetic. Manufacturers are getting this down to a bit of a formula and that's a very good thing. Better bumpers, more flush wheel covers, lower resistance tires, and in this case "lower viscosity transmission fluid" all contribute to the mileage and CO2 improvements. The benefit? Fifty-five American miles per gallon on the combined cycle (though their testing methods are considerably more forgiving than American fuel economy standards) and low enough CO2 emissions that the car will be exempt from London's congestion charge. The secret, of course, is that Ford's Focus 1.6 diesel already qualifies for exemption, but don't tell the advertising guys. Still, this is unfortunate news that perhaps the market can adapt to more intense fuel and emissions standards, albeit with limited run special edition versions of existing cars. And no, for the last time, we can't have the Euro Focus in America for a few more years because Ford hates each and every one of us.
Find Reviews by Make:
Read all comments
One of the trends of the past 15 years has been ever wider tires on workaday cars. Guess what folks, wider tires have higher rolling resistance and higher aerodynamic losses than do narrower ones. They are also bloody expensive to replace! Tires for a 2006 Honda Accord (215/50-17) cost more than do replacement 1988 BMW M3 tires (size 205/55-15). Hence this line in the Auto Express article: “… while narrow 195/65R15 tyres help to reduce rolling resistance.” 20 years ago a car in the Focus class would have been riding on something like 165/80R15 or 185/70R15 tires.
The fuel costs and CAFE regulations have put an end to this wider tire trend and put it into reverse. The tire companies are not going to like it as the “high performance” versions traditionally sell for a higher price, and wear out faster.
“Special Economical Trim” — isn’t that what tripped up Elliot Spitzer?
“The natural effort of every individual to better his own condition
is so powerful a principle, that it alone, and without any assistance,
not only capable of carrying on the society to wealth and prosperity,
but of surmounting a hundred impertinent obstructions with which the
folly of human laws too often incumbers its operations”
–Adam Smith
in “Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations”
Everyone says Diesel won’t sell in America, when in fact nobody** has even TRIED it in over 25 years. I bet Ford would sell a hell of a lot of cars if the EPA sticker on the window said 55MPG… no matter what pump you selected your fuel from.
** Except VW, who can’t keep TDIs on the lots.
–chuck
http://chuck.goolsbee.org
jthorner
195/65R15
10 years ago, that was the most common tire size on passenger vehicles. IIRC, Accord, Camry, Maxima, Passat…they all came with that size, give or take a little based on trimline.
But here they’re touting it like some sort of retro compromise. I’ll take a 195 on good rubber over a 215 on mediocre stuff.
jthorner:
While I agree with you that there has been a definite tire “inflation” over the last 20 years or so, I would imagine that much of that isn’t so much due to people wanting their cars to look cool, but by the sheer fact that cars nowadays weigh so much. This too of course has an impact on milage. But for safety’s sake I wouldn’t want some 185/70R13’s that were found on our old Subaru GL on a modern small car that weighs several hundred kilos more.
@ virages
I agree. The safety regulations were implemented during the era of cheap gas. Who cares if your mid-sized car weighed 4,000 lbs? As long as it got a 3 star side impact rating, who cared?
The federal government needs to reassess the need for added safety weight with the need for increased fuel economy.
On the other side of the coin, wider tires are safer and give a smoother ride. They provide more gripping surface. So back in the days of cheap gas, why not?
20 years ago, compact cars had 13 or 14 inch wheels. The Integra had 195/65R14! And that’s really all it needed, but the all-season performance tires in that size evaporated quickly in the late 90s.
I still think these types of models are cool, similiar to the Honda Civic HX that was once made before the hybrids came along. Make it light, give it a lean-burn technology with taller highway gears, special alloys, a few options over the base DX, and sell it at an LX price.
If I had a long commute or did alot of long-distance driving, a vehicle like this would intrigue me moreso. We have sport models of cars, we have comfort models of cars, why not go back to efficient models of cars.
I doubt that wide tires have higher rolling resistance than narrow ones do. The difference is in wind resistance. (However, tire treads and wheel shapes are getting made aerodynamic).
Tire air pressure is a factor in fuel economy. And everybody should know that keeping your tires pumped up to full spec can save a few percent on your fuel bill.
All things being equal, a grippier tire will offer lower fuel economy. However, all things are not equal and there are some fine low-resistance tires on the market that have a good grip/economy compromise.
Wide tires are not safer per se. They offer more grip in bends, but that is something few people need. A larger footprint is beneficial for braking but most standard widths are quite OK nowadays and the additional benefit of a wide tire in braking is negligable.
Wide tires have a definite disadvantage in the rain. Hydroplaning is certainly more of a problem for wide tires.
I guess I don’t understand how a wider tire does not have a higher rolling resistance? I agree about the aerodynamics of a wider tire being an issue…but the contact patch is still larger than a narrower tire.
@TEXN3: The rolling resistance is mostly in the flexing of the sidewalls, as the tire rolls. That creates heat, and whenever you create heat, you spend energy.
Keep in mind that this vehicle goes 0-60 in about 13 seconds. The U.S. Focus and most of its cohorts get there in 8.5-9.0 and that is considered a bit slow.
Can you imagine the ripping that the Econetic Focus would get in the U.S. for being a dog to 60? Nevermind that no one actually needs to get to 60 in under 8 seconds ever, but it would get the reputation as slow and probably unsafe (because it is slow).
When it came time to pony up the cash, no one on this board would step up for it. Diesels have a lot of challenges, especially here in the states with emissions and such. With diesel prices what they are, no, I don’t believe that diesels will ever be as popular as in Europe, not even close. Hybrids and turbo’ed gas engines are probably the name of the game in the medium term (5-10 years).
0-60 timing is absurd when driving in the city…it’s not very common to have stop lights and 60mph speed zones (maybe 55mph on accessible highways). Still, you can only accelerate as fast as the driver (not the car) in front of you. I don’t live in Cal where they have metered freeway entrances but you’re usually moving along when you accelerate onto the interstate.
Give me a good passing gear and some nice mid-range power, that’s all I care about.
@TEXN3,
If I am not mistaken, the contact patch on wide or thin tires should be exactly the same. The only difference is on wide tires it is (obviously) wider, while on thin tires it is longer.
Chuck
No one wants to be the $2billion dollar Guinea pig and develop a mass market post 2007 Diesel that can meet the US emission standards. The bar gets raised once again in 2010.
Most every OEM in the world wants to be the 2nd to market once someone else has taken on the risk of proving the market.
My Liberty KJ Diesel was something of a marketing trail balloon. The cost to modify the diesel for domestic consumption was minimal. I suspect that the marketers at DamilerChrysler choose the KJ as it mostly appealed to Women in the cute’ute segment. Not many women choose the diesel, but a bunch of guys like me showed up and got a bargain on a $23-28k Diesel 4X4.
The VW TDIs are some what of a cult/niche thing, sort of like how Subaru covers the AWD 5sp Wagon Niche.
@TEXN3:
You really are right. Every car now comes with 15″ wheels at the bare minimum. Even cheapo commuter cars.
As for Honda’s forgotten HX, keep in mind also that it was one of the first modern production cars to feature a continuously variable transmission. Very much ahead of its time.
My 88 528e came shod with 195 70 14 wheels. Most of my fellow E 28-ers have opted for wider, lower profile tires. The bigger wider tires help grip better on smooth, dry roads. On uneven roads, they deliver a harsher ride. Pot holes often bend the wheels. So much so that most used wheels require straightening to run true. The heavier weight punishes the bushings in the suspension. They were engineered for the smaller, cushier 14s. Unless you’re ‘Bahn storming, the 14s are perfectly fine , if not better in real world conditions.
Today’s tires are a significant part of the overall performance that you get from a modern car. I have put modern performance rubber on some pretty basic older cars. The difference is like night and day. Even my station car gets premium performace tires now. There is an increase in impact harshness and noise, but the trade off is so worth it. The killer is the short tread life. Really good tires are dead at 30K miles or less. This comes as a shock to those who are used to 60k out of tires on their Buick, yet their new Avalon is ready for a fresh set of Michelins at 28K. There’s a real shock at the tire store, too. Premium tires have premium prices. This has led to many a car to be shod with “compromise” rubber. So, if you are purchasing a used car, don’t just look at how much tread is left, but check as to what was installed. Put so called “passenger” tires on a car that came with “ultra high performance” rubber and you will be amazed at how the car’s ride/handling traits have deteriorated.
A good source of tire information can be had at the Tire Rack.
(though their testing methods are considerably more forgiving than American fuel economy standards)
Can anyone elaborate on how so; just curious on the differences between the two…
The 1st gen Audi A8 rode on 15″ tires. That’s right. A 300 HP, All-wheel drive sedan that weighed over 3700 lbs. rode on 15″ tires without a sweat.
Heck, a 1990’s Volvo wagon can ride on 15″ tires and can provide a ride quality that is very comparable to today’s vehicles.
In the meantime, we have entry level cars like the Dodge Caliber that ride on 17″ tires and can be had with 19″ ones if you prefer. It’s the equivalent of putting larger hoofs on a fat pig.