Both would be producing cars overseas and shipping them here. If a 35MPG Prius is a top seller, then a 65 MPG car would do extremely well, even at $1K higher price point. The manufacturing cost and shipping costs are therefore irrelevant. You identified the Diesel difference - the fuel is available in enough places here that availability of the fuel wouldn't be a factor. You can read the article and ignore the parts I bolded in my other posts (about regulation and taxes), but then you won't have any answer.
If you believe the manufacturing costs in Europe and Japan are the same, then there is no point in discussing this. You have not come close to creating an apples to apples comparison. Hell, you don't even have a fruit to a fruit comparison and I'm in no mood to compare an apple to a carp.
Read the article, it says the cost here would be ~$1K more ($1700 without incentives). Declaring Apples/Oranges doesn't make it so.
First, the two vehicles, despite the original author attempting to make them so, are not equivalent. Secondly, just because they sold for similar prices does not mean that the two companies have similar manufacturing costs or would be able to price similar margins into the vehicles. The Prius is quite the little profit maker for Toyota.
Not even close. You stated that the EPA is incapable of making regulations, and you backed it up with the example of an executive order signed by the president restricting the activities of government employees (or those receiving government aid). The two have nothing to do with each other. My only point is to correct your belief that Congress somehow acted through EPA to enact a regulation restricting the use of diesel-fuel automobiles. You have brought this to bizarro land. As to why there are no diesel fuel cars here, going solely on what I read in the article that started this mess, I will answer that deeply-held preferences of the American consumer are biased against diesel fuel automobiles, because they they that the exhaust is dirty and smells funny. Of course, I'm not an expert, and I don't want to be, nor do I intend to perform the requisite sixteen second internet search that apparently makes some people an expert on anything. However, a deeper answer probably has to do with the lobbying that occurs on both the congressional and administrative level, which has a significant effect on the regulations ultimately enacted by federal agencies. I suppose it would shock you that the oil industry has lobbyists and may be against a car that gets 65 miles per gallon. Probably the manufacturers of regular gasoline engines, as well. And the manufacurers of hybrid technology. And the producers of ethanol. And that the current administration seems to have ties to the oil industry. Of course, what do I know. Surely, you know more about the federal regulatory process than I.
Actually, I described how the EPA and other agencies worked, you said "wrong" and posted some other methodology, and what I posted shows that govt. agencies work like I wrote in the first place. You did get the "publish in the federal register" part right tho. The EPA is incapable of making regulations. If they were capable, then Clinton's EPA would have set CAFE standards where they desired, and included light trucks (or whatever) in those regulations, ban SUVs or whatever else they felt was "good" regulation (oxymoron). Instead, these things were debated and passed or defeated in congress. An argument is only an assertion if you don't provide support for it. Plus you might learn something from what you google for (I sure do). But are you suggesting the California BAN was because people are biased? Is Bias a good way to formulate policy? Don't we hire representatives to sort that stuff out? Well, there you go. You are at least talking about regulations. Prius is a nice profit maker, what Ford sells isn't (e.g. was SUVs). They're now selling a car that would be an obvious profit maker, and it sure would be nice to see people buying American cars instead of something made by a foreign company, especially overseas (think jobs). Do the oil companies care about whether they make a gallon of gas or a gallon of diesel? Doubtful. Even though a big part of your latest argument doesn't make sense to me. If the auto manufacturers or oil companies or whatever sinister anti-market force bogeyman you can conjure up are trying to stifle this kind of innovation, why are they doing it here but not overseas? Competition? Same competition is here, if you didn't have the regulations! As far as the administration goes, I seem to remember Bush complaining "we're addicted to oil" and similar warnings to congress and the people in at least his first SIX state of the union addresses, as well as proposing $billions in investment into hydrogen cell technology.
On why Europe: 1. Europe having around 50% cars using deisel, clearly already has the infrastructure (even small town stations would have deisel and gasoline) 2a. The European market tends to appreciate smaller cars than US (Even though americans will be more conservative due to price of oil). 2b. How small is this car? (some European cars are quite small comparatively) 3. As the article stated, Americans have a preconceived notion that deisel is dirty, and have a pre-conceived notion that something like a hybrid is clean due to the partial use of electricity. Although in this case the deisel is more environmentally friendly. I guess the marketing team for Ford felt it would be easier to market it in Europe, than to try to sway people's minds about deisel. Cons: European market could be considered somewhat saturated, while in America there is room for clean deisel cars, if somehow it caught on. Anyway, it seems like a good idea. It would be nice if Europe turns out to be a test market, and it is introduced into North America at a later point.
With all the green guilt going on these days, people would embrace this car, especially with gas prices being so high. People are buying the Prius in huge numbers, I'm sure we call agree on that (I own one, FWIW). People aren't buying them for the fuel economy per se, or because they're cheap - you can get a car for half the price that does 90% of the MPG. They're buying the car because it's eco friendly. That's not a hard message to get across with these clean Diesel cars. And people are far more willing to drive smaller cars... While I don't disagree with your four points, I do think that a ban on selling diesel cars in California would be a disincentive for a Ford from opening a manufacturing plant in the USA or Mexico (there are several plants in California already). Though I don't buy that overseas manufacturing is some obstacle - GM and Toyota have joined forces to build and sell cars here, and the Prius is a pretty good example of a foreign made car that sells well to the masses. Granted, not every gas station has diesel fuel, but there are enough stations that fueling these cars wouldn't be a big issue. The bottom line is I want one, or at least the opportunity to buy one, lease one, or rent them when I go on business trips...
Well you sure can rent them when you go on your business trips! Just make sure your business trips are to Europe! The ban would provide a disincentive, but I don't know how large it would be. If the others states don't have the ban on selling them, even Californians could go to a neighbouring state and buy one.
Ever lived in California? You have to smog check your car and register it at the DMV - if it's banned, they won't give you license plates. They also have a highly unconstitutional "junker" law where they confiscate peoples' property (automobiles) if they're not up to the state's snuff. California is at least 10% of the US population, you'd think it'd be 10% of the market - it's probably more since people there are generally richer (earn more). HUGELY significant to anyone wanting to sell in the USA.
Good points, I guess it is more significant than I thought it would be. But even if we say California would be 20% of the market, 80% still is a large market. (24 000 brand new isn't outrageous a price or anything, and will save money on deisel).
New York gets you another 20%, as most people don't need cars - they take the subway or buses. Same for Chicago.
Harper Promises to Cut Canada Diesel Fuel Tax in Half (Update3) By Theophilos Argitis and Greg Quinn Sept. 9 (Bloomberg) -- Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper pledged to cut fuel taxes for shipping companies if he wins the Oct. 14 election and said opposition plans to tax energy would undermine a slowing economy. The governing Conservatives would reduce the country's excise tax on aviation and diesel fuel by half, saving shippers in all modes of transport about C$600 million ($562 million) a year, Harper said today. ``At a time when Canadians are concerned about affordability and energy prices are rising, we should be doing what we can to lower prices,'' Harper, 49, told reporters today at a produce warehouse in Winnipeg, Manitoba. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601082&sid=agRKr_Uxy3xY&refer=canada.
It's ours All Ours MWAHAHAHAHAHAHA Nah seriously though the Fiesta has always been a big seller in Europe because of it's cheapness to run.
