Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

The party is over

Globe and Mail Blog Post

Latest comment posted at 12:11 PM EST 10/09/08

Read the full article

This conversation is semi-moderated What is moderation? | How do I report a comment?

  1. Jonny Quest from Canada writes: In other words Ford is not interested in being a competitor with the best diesel engineering in the world all located in Europe.

    There is a reason why the Japanese are big on electric vehicles - most of their energy is nuclear. In Europe its a different story and diesels make far more sense.

    Either way Ford loses ground as we look to importers to provide us with the best technology there is.
  2. The Last Varlet from Canada writes: There must be another reason that diesels are out of favor. I can see Ford not wishing to compete with their own new line, but by a rough calculation, wouldn't fuel savings in the first year amount to over $1,600.00 per year for an average driver? Aren't they easier to maintain? Wouldn't a car like this maintain resale value?
  3. Peter Kells from Bytown, Canada writes: I purchased a Jeep Liberty CRD (1.7 L diesel engine) two years ago and am so impressed with the performance of the diesel that I will never purchase a gas powered vehicle again. Great fuel economy, low maintenance, longer engine life (ie. double to triple that of a gas engine), lots of low end torque and with modern glow plug technology the cold weather starts are better than on my previous gas vehicles.

    Ford's attitude to diesel is just another example of why what used to be called the big three are not so big anymore.
  4. H M from Canada writes: I laugh now, at all the people with their incredibly expensive, stinking, roaring diesel trucks paying MORE per litre. Those trucks that won't start worth a damn in -40 and can't find service stations too easily up north.

    Diesel cars? Maybe. Diesel work trucks? Not really a bright move.
  5. R M from Ottawa, Canada writes:
    Forget both diesel and gasoline.

    The world needs to switch ASAP to non-internal combustion engine vehicles. Electric, solar, fuel cell, steam, and so many other options - good options - would serve us as well or better, keep our air cleaner, and if half of the engineering R&D were put into truly commercializing these technologies for mass production, we'd ALL be way better off.

    And we all know it, too.
  6. Dan Theman from Ottawa, Canada writes: Well, Mercedes sells in Europe it's C class equipped with technology similar to Fords' ecoBoost (though probably quite a bit more advanced than Fords' version), i.e. gasoline engine with advanced varying pitch turbocharger blades, very high compression and direct injection using very lean burning process. Yet Mercedes claims that the near future is all diesel. Unless Ford's ecoBoost is much more fuel efficient than we expect, diesel will still remain the king at least in Europe. In N.A. things may be different due to very tight refinment capacity for diesel fuel which may make diesel up to 15% pricier than gasoline if demand for diesel will go up.
    And one thing about diesel engine reliability: current diesels are highly stressed due to their high compression ratios and in those advanced diesels head gasket failure as well as big end bearing failures are quite common. This arn't the old understressed 3.0L 78HP diesels of the 70s that used to run forever
  7. The Natrix from Toronto, Canada writes: Consider this, everybody switches over to Diesel, what do you think will happen to diesel supply and prices?

    Is that something that is adviseable?

    Greater presence and balance is surely recommended, but it is not the end all and be all of our automotive woes.
  8. Paul Sallmen from Burnaby, BC, writes: I think it's the variety of technologies that will lead to better products for consumers. Ford may think that diesels are a dead end, but there seem to be plenty of manufacturers that disagree. It is true that stricter emission controls lead to more expensive exhaust components which can negate some of the advantages of diesels. I also tend to think that electricity is coming. But it'll depend on the battery. The price will have to come down, durability will have to be proven and recharging time will have to be decreased. If that does not happen, electrics will remain a niche vehicle. The good news is that a lot of manufacturers are working on electrics, so I suspect we will see a lot of positive changes over the next 10 years.
  9. BART . from Vancouver, Canada writes: The internal Combustion Engine is dead. Not just Diesel. Diesel may be better from a GHG perspective but not local air quality perspective.
  10. lary waldman from Qualicum Beach, Canada writes: I've had a 2003 Jetta TDI since new. The people at Ford are idiots, just take a look at the diesel's they do build. When my neighbor starts his truck, his "SUPER STROKE" shakes the whole neighborhood. Fords on their way to the toilet anyway. When I bought my Jetta, for the same money, I could have bought a Focus, with all the same junk on it. Now you can't find a Jetta like mine anywhere, to buy used. Focus', on the other hand, are coming out the rear end of Ford dealers. But what do I know, I have only been buying and selling cars since I was 16. I am now 57, and I believe my Jetta will last another 15 years. Try and even find a Focus then.

    Lary Waldman
  11. Tim Rutkevich from Canada writes: Just came back from canoe trip to Algonquin park. Fully loaded Diesel Jeep Grand Cherokee with canoe on top was sipping 10.5 L/100km. This is with the huge increase in air drag. In a way it is good that Ford will not push diesels. Last time GM tried, they killed diesel marked in North America. As for those who say that there are no diesel in North, what you don't have highway trucks?
  12. Wanda Fyooka from Vancouver, Canada writes: So exactly why are 90% of the vehicles in Europe diesel? Their gas (and diesel) prices are way more than they are in North America. I own a Jeep Libery 2006 and it's a great little car! Tows a trailer and still gets @25 miles per US gallon - I love how Chrysler discontinued the jeep diesel except on the Grand Cherokee - the car I bought for 30K now sells for 60k, Hey Free Enterprise, right? This is why government needs to step in, market laissez-faire only works for the corporations, not the consumer.
  13. Stewart Sinclair from Toronto, Canada writes: I have had a Jetta '04 1.9 L. TDI since 06. Have driven from to Vancouver and back 2 and half times so far. I have got 68 miles to the gallon on some highway runs. No problem with cold weather starts so far though I haven't had a chance to try it a minus 30 or 40 degrees.

    Wouldn't have anything but a diesel now. Mine uses and obsolete Bosch type, metering helix fuel injection pump and it passes Ontario drive clean just fine. At 3000 RPM it does 140 km. At 3700 it does 170 km and the engine red lines at 4700. It is rated at 100 hp. The new '09 Jetta uses the more advanced "Common Rail" injection system. The TDI model has 2.0 L. engine and is rated at 140 HP, yet it gets better mileage than mine does on the average. It also meets the newer, stricter Ontario drive clean requirements.

    One more thing needs to be remembered. The Le Mans 24hr sports car endurance race has been taken buy Audie (owned by Volkswagen) and Peugeot running the "common rail" injection system diesels for the last 2 years. Last time the two companies took the top 4 positions. There is a reason why over half the cars I saw in Central Europe are diesel.

    The question mark does not hang over the future of automotive diesel but over the future of Ford Motor Co.
  14. C M from Canada writes: This is the same company that has just persuaded the Canadian Govt to buy 750 jobs high-paying and low-skilled in Windsor to build 'fuel efficient' V8 engines by investing $80M.

    My guess is that this is a statement to try to sway public opinion because Ford is so far behind the drag curve they will be going under sometime soon.

    European engineers under orders from Detroit.
  15. dfsf dfsd from Waterloo, Canada writes: Mini Cooper D in UK
    Fuel consumption mpg - Manual (combined)¹ 72.4 mpg
    http://www.mini.co.uk/html/modelrange/minicooperd/techSpec.html

    Dodge Journey 2.0 CRD SE Diesel (man) in UK
    EC Combined 43.5 (6.5) mpg (l/100 km)
    http://www.dodge.co.uk/09    journey/models.html
  16. Get 2 Work from Canada writes: C M from Canada writes "Ford has just persuaded the Canadian Govt to buy 750 jobs high-paying and low-skilled in Windsor to build 'fuel efficient' V8 engines by investing $80M."

    Not true C M!

    A new R&D centre is part of the total 3/4 billion $ investment. In addition, all types of engines will be assembled here. Everything from 4 cyl to V8's. Hybrids to Gas.

    These are not low skilled jobs, unless you consider engineers, and tradesmen (electricians, millrights, machine builders, etc. un-skilled).
  17. H.F. Wolff from Cambridge, Canada writes: The price of Diesel fuel is a complete rip-off at current prices when compared to the price of gasoline.

    In the 1930's the cost of producing Diesel fuel was 40% of the cost of producing gasoline from the same feed stock.

    Agreed that today's production cost of Diesel fuel is relatively higher because of more stringent requirements such as extra low sulfur content. But the same price as gasoline or even more in some areas?? That wouldn't be price gouging now, would it?

    The only way to combat this nonsense is with all-electric cars and photo voltaic cell array recharging. As soon as a significant number car owners pursue this alternative the price of fuel will drop to a level where all fueling costs are comparable.

    Bring on those lithium-iron-phosphate cell batteries!

    H.F. Wolff
  18. Mike L. from Canada writes: We own two VWs, a diesel 2005 Passat and a gasoline 2007 Passat.

    The diesel is slightly more fuel efficient than the gas one. But thanks to the very high cost of diesel, which equals or exceeds premium unleaded around here, the operating costs for fuel are not that different. This past summer in fact, the cost for fuel for both was almost bang on 10 cents a kilometer. Diesel has come down a bit now, so I figure the diesel Passat is about 7% cheaper to fuel at the moment. All things equal, the diesel averages about 6.5 L/100 km in the summer, and the gas Passat, 7.0. Based on these numbers I wouldn't be likely to get another diesel; the 2.0T gas engine is far more pleasant to drive.

    That's an apples-to-apples comparison. Before that we had a 2004 Jetta TDI wagon that was totaled. That car was truly efficient, well under 5.0 L/100 km on the highway, and I once squeezed 1308 km out of a single tank of careful driving. However the engine was rated at 100 hp and 177 lb-ft of torque, compared to our Passat's 134 hp and a stump-pulling 247 lb-ft of torque from 1900 rpm... and after it was totaled, that model was no longer available (as a wagon).

    The interesting thing though, is that VW has come out with the 1.4TSI engine for the Golf in Europe, with 122 hp, 150 lb-ft of torque from 1800 rpm, and 5.2 L/100 km on the highway, the same as a 2006 Jetta TDI (last year available) that had slightly higher torque but slightly less horsepower. So Ford may have a point.

    Gas engines are getting close. The real issue is that a 1.4 L, 122 hp engine is more than ample for most folks, but we N. Americans have been marketed into believing we need very high horsepower, and so VW's base engine for the Golf/Jetta over here is a 5-cyl, 170 hp gas engine that has mediocre fuel consumption. I'd much rather the same car with the European 1.4TSI. After all the second car ever I owned, a Honda Accord, got by with 83 hp...
  19. little bear from Canada writes: There is an ourfit here in Vancouver called Westport Innovations that has new technology that virtually eliminates emmisions produces more power than standard diesels and can use most any fuel and the prime one is natural gas.

    This outfit has contracts now with the largest diesel mfg in Europe and China as well as Cummins diesels.

    There apparently are 3500 busses now using their tech in China and a lot more coming.

    I am told that it can be used in cars and is also currently in Kenworth trucks in Cal and other places.

    Ford has never thought outside of the box and they are not about to start.

    Don't ask me how the tech works but just that it does.

    Check it for yourself.
  20. Jesu Pifco from Canada writes: Zipping over the mountain passes in southern BC, my '03 VW 1.9 L TDI Wagon is sipping the diesel at 4.6 L /100km, 61mpg. It's never short of power and I have to check speed on the flat. Even with the premium on diesel these days, it still doesn't hurt. I'm retired now, so by the time I wear out the TDI I may not be able to renew my driver's license!
  21. Paul Meyer from Montrose BC, Canada writes: Just so you know, the reason the smart cars changed from diesel to gas for the 2008 models was because the 2006 and earlier versions (0.8 litre diesel) can't meet the 2008 emissions standards. This from a car that burns 3.8 L/100 km on the highway.

    Mercedes-pretty bright company- is working like heck to try to create a very small version of the "blu-tec" (spelling?) diesel similar to what's in the big honkin' Dodge trucks. But it's expected the extra cost of the vehicles is going to mean you have to drive a huge amount in a year to actually save money. So much for the urban commuter types.

    Even when diesel was much cheaper than gas, the guys I know with pickup trucks only bought diesels if they were going to do at least 50-80 thousand km per year. With prices the same for fuel, it's going to take a looong time to get back that 6-7 thousand dollar premium.

    The only guys I know who still buy diesels are those who have access to "off-road" fuel which has no road taxes on it. They run it in their highway trucks knowing that the chances of getting caught are basically zero. For the 90% of folks in the city who can't get such fuel, I think Ford is right.
  22. John Stewart from Eden, Ontario, Canada writes: So, Ford is right and the rest of the world is wrong?

    I'll bet on Mercedes and VW and Cummins engineers before I bet on Ford.

    Gasoline engines are also going to be more expensive as emission controls are tightened for them as well.

    Increased costs for diesel engines are partially recouped in higher resale values.

    Very small commuter cars may go electric. The very small cars just don't have enough room and "target selling price" space to get very clean internal combustion engines.

    On the other hand, electrics are not good for larger vehicles and long driving ranges, eg a Passat.
  23. Bob Seven from Edmonton, Canada writes: live in alberta baby! Trucks (diesel especially) are needed in the oil patch.....I would like to see an electric vehicle go down some cut lines! Diesel fuel is readily available all over canada, there is no issue with finding it.

    I have a friend with a Grand Cherokee diesel (he is a big fan of the grand cherokee to begin with ) and says is the the best of both worlds! Fuel economy is better than with gas (althoug there is a bit of a price premium right now) and you get the big SUV that you need. I am considering a diesel grand cherokee to replace my Avalanche....
  24. Dave S from Canada writes: Interesting to read the comment about the Jeep Grand Cherokee with the Diesel and the canoe on the roof using 10.5 l/100km... I thought it would have been much better than that...

    I made the same trip this summer with my 6 year old Ford Explorer loaded up with gear and a canoe as well. My truck has the 4.6 litre V8 vs. the 3.0 6 cyl. in the new jeep. I averaged around 13.5 litres/100km so not much worse than the jeep, considering the much larger (and older) engine... Factor in the higher cost of diesel plus the huge price jump to buy the diesel truck over a gas one and I'm not sure the diesel is the best choice. I was actually considering getting the diesel jeep as my next vehicle...

    I would have expected around the same fuel economy from a 3.0 6 cyl. engine in the jeep or any truck if it was running gas. It's just a smaller engine than in any comparable vehicles, be they gas or diesel. It may be a bit more efficient in terms of fuel consumption but I think it would be tough to prove economic efficiency given substantially higher initial vehicle purchase and fuel costs.

    It's not like Ford doesn't sell tons of diesel vehicles in Europe like everyone else and they don't know how to build diesel engines... I think you can choose from two different diesels in the Focus alone for example... This commentary just feels like any other import vs. domestic, we're so dumb and they're so smart argument... So many people are too quick to jump on anything coming out of domestic manufacturers as proof that they don't know how to build cars while granting huge leeway to anything imported. Just look at all the gas guzzlers Toyota builds and how little criticism they're getting in the other forum for cutting a whole shift out of the Woodstock plant that hasn't even opened.

    Maybe Ford has it right here about the diesels, or maybe they don't. time will tell... I enjoyed the comparisons from the guy with the two Passats though. That was a good comparison.
  25. Franklin Lomax from Alexandria, United States writes: editorialstaff net notes: continued As the marketplace produces more efficient batteries, with higher capacity, and electric brakes to generate electricity by slowing trucks going downhill, instead of our noisy Jake-Brakes, drivers could eliminate more of their liquid fuel use, and still power the grid with bio-fuels when at home on the farm. These distributed power producers would enable the Plug In mini-cars Detroit will certainly force on the rest of us, to be charged up without causing brownouts. Heavy farm tractors should also be plug in and out, with tax incentives for all electric/bio-fuel farming, and home made bio fuel charging of the grid, at peak use hours. This enables millions of small electricity producers, making total off grid farms, vacation homes, roadside businesses, and other enterprises not slaved to monopoly utilities, nor local jurisdictions. Sort of all American freedom, everywhere. Think about it, we could pull together a university team, with a defunct union town, and closed truck or SUV plant, and build a world beating light, medium or heavy truck, with fork lift batteries interchangeable with a home/farm or business power pod, allowing the owner to sell to the grid when enough bio-fuel, solar, local hydro power, or non monopoly windmill generation is working, and to charge his working vehicles when the non-peak electrical rates were lowest. Detroit is giving up on the thing we do best, at just the time when America could own the world truck and small electricity producer markets. Sound familiar?
  26. Franklin Lomax from Alexandria, United States writes: editorialstaff net notes: continued Nine million Class 8 trucks with 3.5 to perhaps 6 mpg, and up to a hundred million workers, farmers, and service persons driving 2 to 5 ton SUV, Toter Truck, Van, Pickup, RV and service/transport vehicles, think Fed-EX, UPS, and their multiple competitors with fuel consumption from 6 to 12 mpg represent potential savings of more than the 50 to 60 percent of our fuel imports that Grove estimates could be saved, by Plug In & Out diesel vehicles, with their generators driving electric wheel/gearbox mounted motors, in just his estimated 80 million light to medium truck market. With the ability to charge to the grid, and from it, the highest fuel users could game the peak hour grid price differentials, instead of gaming the failed driver hour and speed controls that they now ignore, in order to make a living, and try to see their family once or twice a month. With a generator, profit center, and cash or energy bonus rates for charging the grid during the utilities peak use rate hours, workers could properly sleep the required minimum hours between their driving stints, saving lives, and fuel, with their schedules adjusted to charge their batteries from the grid at off peak rates. They could then run their existing technology battery capacity without liquid fuels, increasing from the present 2 to 4 hours, as the batteries improve, and then pull in to recharge from the grid, or to run their engines at economic speeds, on bio-diesel, while resting more, during peak hours, to charge to the grid and recharge their own batteries again. They would be still earning peak hour rates, while they sleep their usual naps during peak road usage times. Those fuel conservation bonus rates earnings could be put into their 401E retirement account, tax free, exchanged for more energy, during off peak charging, or sold for cash, to help pay their costs, for a heavy hybrid using off the shelf technology, now.
  27. Franklin Lomax from Alexandria, United States writes: editorialstaff net notes: continuedGrove's article reminds us that some 80 million drivers use a multi-ton SUV, RV, Toter Truck, Pickup, or other trailer towing, Crew cab, or sleeper vehicle, daily in their work. His estimate, of 12 to 16 MPG may well be a bit high, particularly when the newest of Detroit's light diesels fall into low end of this range, 12 MPG, unloaded. My 2000 Excursion carries a ton of tools, chains, trailer hitches, and such, and gets 17.53 miles per gallon of diesel, after 230K miles, as Detroit obeys silly government edicts, and drives down fuel efficiency with required smog gear, while trying to stuff micro hybrids down the throats of working people who must use large trucks, SUVs, toter trucks, and crew-cabs. If the car manufacturers used the incredible costs they incurred reaching environmental extremist smog goals in buying the surviving lungs of the planet, endangered rain forests in third world countries world wide who simply cannot afford to protect their forests, and building truck plants there to employ the workers destroying our planet's lungs, the efficacy of the marketplace would work for human survival, and the survival of the worlds economy as well. Instead, my city charged me $1180 dollars tax penalty on my four ton excursion, to punish me for using it as I try to get my family out of the metro area, to a little farm, where, now, and later, I will have to have at least this size vehicle, and one or more larger ones, to continue living productively and conserving the land I love. Instead, our government, our extremists, and Detroit are slavishly punishing truck and SUV owners, hopelessly trying to force up to 100 million of us into micro cars, to save/replace billions of gallons of liquid transport fuels, when the folks using the most of it, simply cannot be forced into driving Honda or Mini-Cooper fuel sippers.
  28. Franklin Lomax from Alexandria, United States writes: editorialstaff net notes: continued. We need to see far fewer articles touting micro cars as the solution to energy conservation, and far more pointed reasonably to the largest lake of liquid transport fuels available to be conserved, safely, with existing technology vehicles, built in the factories idled by Detroit, and their foreign competitors, as they rush, madly, to do all the wrong things, as fast and as hard as possible, spurred on by wrong footed government subsidy programs designed to garner political contributions, and hardly likely to conserve our liquid fuels. For instance, Andy Grove's: Our Electric Future, Science & Technology, July/Aug, points toward the nature and extent to which Detroit could open it's boiler plated design teams to new ideas, and take over the market, worldwide, for all sizes of trucks, and emergency generators, while eliminating the carbon footprint associated with most of the millions of portable generators now needed in the world. Stuffing a thousand fifty dollar laptop batteries into an already overstuffed Honda, to increase it's world beating fuel efficiency by Plug In charging, from a grid that is overloaded in America, powered by coal, and worse, world-wide, while it puts the vehicle out of the consumer's price range, and at greatly increased risk in accidents due to advanced battery chemicals, and ever less steel to protect the occupants is an odd way to approach saving most of the petroleum we import. There are not enough millionaires to buy them, and the increase in fuel conservation will be insignificant, when compared to the liquid fuel savings available at negative costs, by using the market to provide useful light, medium and heavy vehicles that are true diesel electric hybrids, able to use bio-fuels, and necessary to a hundred million or more US customers who can, because they must, afford them
  29. Franklin Lomax from Alexandria, United States writes: editorialstaff net notes: Dragging my 40 ton International 9370 Car Hauler to Florida, from LA, for the 120th time, I watched the truck owner's worst nightmare. A tiny car, sans top, was crushed up under a Class 8 truck, leaving one lane to get by the disaster. With it's top gone, and sealed off by the frame of the 40 foot trailer, it was hard to imagine any way for anyone to help the family in the decapitated, compacted sedan, or even to determine if the victims were also decapitated, or not, in the next few hours. That scenario haunts me, half a million miles later, every time I see a family in a micro death trap. It is perfectly acceptable for an expendable, rich, old sport to risk the last few years of his life in a sports car, or on a similarly overpriced, and unsafe, motorcycle. OTOH, if you imagine I will ever put my grandchildren into a mini-cooper, et al, depriving them of the laws of physic's insurance inherent in four tons of well designed and constructed steel, and sacrificing the added safety of positioning above the impact zone for most accidents, then perhaps you could improve your safety, if you witnessed, as I have, an adult female's body flying about in a high speed accident, on a Conn. thruway, as her tiny sedan ping-ponged off the car she hit, crossing the medium at high speed, backwards with the driver's body, at first, forced up against the car roof above the windshield. She then hit a car in the far right lane of our side, reversing instantly, recrossing the medium at even higher speed, with her body straightening out, above the heads of her helpless family, after crumpling into the upper section of the rear window, and then straightening out again, as her fly-weight fuel sipper spun wildly back into traffic in her original lanes of high speed traffic. My 5 ton 20 year old RV ran on, safely as I lost sight of the carnage in process. These images will never leave me, nor allow me to consider exposing my family to any fly weight vehicle. Cont'd
  30. m k from Ottawa, Canada writes: Ford models in Europe are available in Diesel!

    The Ford DLD engine is a group of compact straight-4 Diesel engines developed jointly by Ford Motor Company and the PSA Group (Peugeot/Citroën).

    What exactly is Harmann saying? Certainly not that Diesel technology is dead for it would not explain its popularity in Europe and North America. VW's new line of diesels is proof that R&D in the Diesel fueled vehicle is as strong as ever and that they are extremely competitive with hybrid technology, often surpassing these in their overall ability to drive clean, perform, and have engines that have long lives.
  31. Hogtowner . from Toronto, Canada writes: I just got back from a 2 week trip to England, where we did 1000 miles in a 2.0L turbo diesel Skoda station wagon (equivalent in size to a Taurus wagon).

    I averaged 45 miles per gallon (about 6.2L per 100 km) during the trip, a mixture of windy country lanes, city driving and 90 mph on the motorways. The car had plenty of tourque and ran very smoothly. As a point of comparison I drive an 08 Toyota Matrix, and get 7.5L per 100 km (about 37mpg) driving mostly highway speeds (70mph not 90). If VW had had a Jetta diesel wagon available for sale in late 2007 I would have bought one in a heartbeat.
  32. Jonny Quest from Canada writes: Hogtowner . from Toronto, Canada writes: I just got back from a 2 week trip to England, where we did 1000 miles in a 2.0L turbo diesel Skoda station wagon (equivalent in size to a Taurus wagon).

    would love to see Skodas here again - this time just as good as VW and probably cheaper - ditto Peugeot and Renault.
  33. Alex D from Ottawa, Canada writes: I think this is my second time in a week that I note Mike L's observations. Good Passat comparison. Mind you, I would gladly sacrifice reduced fuel efficiency for the Audi/VW 2.0 FSI engine. It's arguably one of the finest engines available on the domestic market today. It's such a pleasure to drive in the A4 and Passat, and in the GTI - wow! Stupid grin plastered on my face.
    Incredible though the marketing pressure to dissuade consumers from diesel. Given most manufacturers offer at least 3 different diesel powerplants to European consumers, I find the outright hostility leaves me scratching my head.
    Still, if Ford moves to low displacement turbo engines, I'll welcome that move because it's my favourite engine type. The value for power to fuel consumption was even more apparent when fuel spiked to 1.50 for premium a few months ago.

Join the Conversation, Leave a Comment

This conversation is semi-moderated What is moderation? | How do I report a comment?

You must be logged-in to submit a comment — login now!

Not registered with globeandmail.com? Register now. It is quick and free.

close

Alert us about this comment

Please let us know if this reader’s comment breaks the editor's rules and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.

Do not use this to complain about comments that don’t break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.

Back to top