Ford Kills 19-Foot Gas-Guzzler Excursion
by Michael Graham Richard, Gatineau, Canada on 10. 2.05
The last Excursion land-boat was made at Ford's Louisville plant on Friday September 30th, 2005 (two days ago). Ford says that stopping production of the beast (at 9200 lbs/4170 kilograms standard gross weight, it probably had its own gravity field, and you could drown someone in the 44 gallons/166 liters fuel tank) was a business decision: In 2000, they sold 50,000 Excursions, and since then, sales have stalled. The sales of Ford's three biggest SUVs (Excursion, Expedition and Explorer) have fallen by more than 24% in the first three months of 2005 alone (and gas costs a lot more now than it did in early 2005, so without the summer discounts, it would have been a lot worse). Unfortunately, Ford isn't converting the Louisville plant to the production of small fuel-efficient vehicles; it will instead make Ford Super-Duty trucks (at least more utilitarian than big SUVs, but still). We can expect to see more stories about SUV mammoths bitting the dust in the near future. Finally.
::Ford halts production of gigantic Excursion SUV, Thanks to reader Kavi Turnbull for the tip.
they could probably make a sale if they reimagineered the SUV to mean "Survival Utility Vehicle"; seeing as how SUVs did well enough in the mess of Katrina, with some enhancements, like solar roofs, waterproofing, standard powerjacks (lockable on the outside), etc.; it could actually be useful in such conditions, and as such, worth the premium.
No, what you need in a predictable natural catastrophe is a working government and a good plan.
It's insane to drive such a wasteful monster 364 days a year for many years just in case someday you need it to wade through flooded streets.
Getting a good government these days is well... an iffy prospect. The best plans are almost always one's own.
Such a 'wasteful monster' would drive me (and many) to -finally- take ride bus/bike instead...both problems solved. :) OR start a business that actually made use of such presumeably real utility.
Sam,
Yes, and what about everybody who can't afford such a monster? There's a reason why it's important to fight for a good government; these things don't just appear on their own while the whole population is watching reality shows.. But anyway, lets not get into that.
Also, you can take the bus/ride a bike without having to own a gas-guzzler :D
I cannot ride a bike to work (low paying night job, freeway only, 30 miles), and the bus costs more ('89 camry 33 mpg, $3 a gallon for dino-crap, vs. >$5 for bus fare; do the math).
It's much easier to fight for good government when said government is as small as can be. That said, I am still in favor of increasing cheaper options (cheaper trains, buses, bike paths etc) via government influence.
As to everyone who can't afford such monster (like me), you should still have an emergency plan. For those who -can- afford such a monster, if you've got that kind of money you should demand and SUV which is actually helpful in such emergency situations...sadly many SUVs are not so useful.
p.s. sorry my bad it's $3.95 for bus fare here...still not good enough. Even running Biodiesel would be marginally cheaper.
The debate about SUVs is not this simple. For my personal daily commuter, I drive a VW Jetta TDI. Hurray me. On the other hand, I'm the father of three and the family pet is a german shepherd. Needless to say, that amount of life does not fit into my Jetta, particularly when I'm driving kids and their friends around.
The reality is we need large vehicles, we just need them with a high degree of fuel efficiency. My Ford F250 Diesel gets about 17-18 mpg and I burn Biodiesel. There's no reason this vehicle could not be reengineered with a more efficient engine, such as a the TDI's.
Oh, I still am not willing to discount the safety issue. I spend a good bit of time in rural areas and have seen accidents on two-lane highways. For safety's sake, the bigger the better. Just close your eyes and think about this match-up: Excursion vs. Prius. SO, like I said, there's still a place for large vehicles, we just need Detroit to put fuel efficiency into the equation!
If you want safety and need to carry a lot of people while getting decent fuel economy, a minivan or station wagon is your answer.
As for the SUV safety myth, I'd recommend that you read "High and Mighty: The Dangerous Rise of the SUV" by Bradsher. Road fatalities and injuries have actually stopped declining since SUVs have become popular (after years of things getting better; lets just say that these huge things roll over, have long braking distances, are not nimble enough to avoid accidents, that their weight is a disadvantage when you hit a fixed object, that they cut visibility to those behind, blind those in front, that when they get old and are in bad mechanical shape (failing brakes, etc) and get cheap enough so that young drivers can afford them, we'll be in trouble, etc, ...)
Agree with MGR; -if- I did get an SUV, it would be smaller than most, like a Jeep Liberty, smaller Series Defender, or a RAV4. ...I think I will be waiting a while.
One problem with even small SUVs is that, almost by definition, they are not very aerodynamic. The faster you go, the more that has an impact on fuel economy...
the only reason I might want ot go -fast- in an SUV is if a lion/rhino/whatever is chasing me in the African bush (or similar situation) otherwise granny-slow is good by me.
Have a look at this picture:
Here.
By "fast" I meant speed-limit highway speeds and up.
When it comes to the ownership of an SUV, several arguments can be made either way, but MGR brought up an irrefutable point which everyone needs to know.
SUVs are most definitely not safe. A simple perusal of the internet via news, government and transportation safety sites will quickly prove that.
Also, Scott - the picture you painted of an "Excursion vs. Prius" is extremely misleading. As we all are aware, accidents can happen numerous different ways. Not everything is a head-on collision.
As for the potential use of SUVs and their unique "qualities", instead of asking yourself if you would put it to good use and make the most of its off-roading or large size, ask yourself if the majority of those who own one do. Even living in Oregon, where hills, mud and rugged lands are abound, for some reason 90% of the SUVs I see on the road when I commute only have one person in them.
The Prius is not an unsafe car by any stretch of the imagination; 5 star crash ratings, can be had with side airbags, electronic stability control, etc.
Another problem of SUVs that I forgot to mention is that you are a lot more likely to back up into someone (especially kids) or something.
Great points all.
I understand the safety issues presented, however I think the data would bear out that the SUV accident issues noted would fall squarely on the shoulders of the mid-range models such as the Explorer. In any event, the most frequent accident in my area is car/deer; in these cases, the height/weight advantage are clear!
To reiterate, however, the main point I was making is that an Excursion-sized vehicle need not be an Excursion as currently engineered. For starters, it simply need not weigh so much. This is a profit issue, not an engineering one.
More important, consider that the engines put into an Excursion PRESUME towing. Most people that own these vehicles don't tow (unlike most F250 owners I know who do). If you were to take the towing capacity -- boat, camper, machinery, etc. -- out of the spec's for the vehicle, you'd already have minivan like gas mileage. Incidently, you could also change gear ratios, a key design variable that can increase fuel economy even further.
Can't remember who made the comment re: speed, but when all is said and done, that's the critical design flaw in the current Excursion: no aerodynamics.
The reality is, in my truck (which has pretty much the same front end) I can increase fuel economy by 3-4MPG by driving 55mph rather than 70mph. I could also add 1-2MPG or so if I used a tourneau/bed cover when not hauling things. In that case, my Truck -- a Diesel in burn B20 -- would get 23-24 MPG, the same as a Dodge Grand Caravan.
Scott, about your " SUVS are more safe thing " :
You do not have the right to make yourself feel safer by driving a car with 2.4 tonne of engine aimed directly at another driver's head.
BTW, found the data on large SUVs. Fatalities in single-vehicle accidents involving large SUVs, due largely to the roll-over issue. Fatalities are lower in large SUVs in multi-vehicle accidents, largely because the other vehicles involved are lower and weigh less.
A great multi-vehicle fatality issue is the fact that large SUVs and super duty pick-ups have bumpers above the frame bracing of most passenger cars. Another design issue perhaps worth debate.
When all is said and done, the greatest impact on driving safety is driver behavior. SUVs can be operated safely; unforunately, they are more subject to abuse by drivers that treat them like Porsches.
"Fatalities in single-vehicle accidents involving large SUVs, due largely to the roll-over issue. Fatalities are lower in large SUVs in multi-vehicle accidents, largely because the other vehicles involved are lower and weigh less."
What I would be curious to know is how many of these accidents would have been avoided if no SUVs were involved (cf. my comments about SUVs having longer braking distances because of weight, being less nimble, blinding, cutting vision, etc, and add to that the false sense of security that height and 4 wheel drive gives..).
I was disgusted to read the comment about "Excursion vs. Prius".
I feel bad when I read or hear comments about how people want a large vehicle to survive a collision crash. Instead of being concerned with the people involved (in all vehicles), the person cares more about themselves than those in the other vehicle.
If it's utility for hauling family, I agree with MGR that one should consider a minivan or station wagon.
Some people use oversized SUV's for a reason. I for one use my large V8 SUV to haul horses and saddles. I can't do that with a hybrid.
-Tyre
"Aren't the gallons upon gallons of highly potent battery acid far more enviromentally damaging; than a lifetime of driving in my high powered sports car?" -me
"Some people use oversized SUV's for a reason. I for one use my large V8 SUV to haul horses and saddles. I can't do that with a hybrid."
You are in a small minority, and we weren't talking about you but the 99.5% of other big SUV owners who are suburbanite commuters who will never go off-road or tow anything. They are in fact driving alone in their vehicle most of the time.
"Aren't the gallons upon gallons of highly potent battery acid far more enviromentally damaging; than a lifetime of driving in my high powered sports car?"
No they aren't, far from it. Batteries from hybrids are recyclable. They are NOT lead-acid batteries. They keep tons of oil from being burnt and smog-forming emissions from going into the air. They are one of the very rare car components that is actually beneficial, and if I were you I'd be more concerned about the batteries from non-hybrid cars, or about moonroofs, or whatever, before being concerned about hybrid car batteries.
Please Joseph, don't assume I'm naive.
Did I ever say that changing things was easy? But it is possible to change them. If you don't believe that, it is you who's naive.
It's not about making everybody care deeply, or removing laziness from society. It's about getting simple policies that make sense, like airbags and seatbelts and catalytic converters and unleaded gasoline, etc.
Right now the US government is pretty much the worse it ever was on the environment, but a lot of goods things are being done elsewhere, and the neocons won't be in power forever. Thinking that it's impossible to change things is self-fulfilling.
mgr,
I believe you posted that in the wrong thread.
Some people use oversized SUV's for a reason. I for one use my large V8 SUV to haul horses and saddles. I can't do that with a hybrid.
-Tyre
"Aren't the gallons upon gallons of highly potent battery acid far more enviromentally damaging; than a lifetime of driving in my high powered sports car?" -me
We do have large hybrids now. The Highlander will tow 3500lbs., and the Silverado will tow 7700lbs.
And I think you're overestimating the amount of battery acid present in a hybrid. The Prius' battery pack weighs about 120lbs. Even if we assume that the *entire* battery consists of nothing but acid (no metal electrodes, etc...) that's only about 17 gallons. A realistic estimate is probably less than half of that, after we remove the weight of the casing, wires, and electrodes.
Throw in the fact that the battery is fully recycled by Toyota-- including the acid, case, wires, electrodes, etc... and that they'll pay you $200 to do it-- I don't think very much of the acid is going to end up "in the wild". With the exception of the few cars totalled so badly that a battery pack located in the center of the car is crushed, the batteries will all be stripped, rebuilt, and put into new hybrids.
I really don't understand why ordinary people think they need a SUV. A regular car is bad enough. Personally I am car-free and very happy with it. I have my two feet, I have a bike, and I have a monthly bus/subway pass. I also made the decision not to live in the suburbs. If I ever decide I need a car on an occasional basis, I will join a car-sharing program.
Patrick
You do not have the right to make yourself feel safer by driving a car with 2.4 tonne of engine aimed directly at another driver's head.
This is not the way to convince people to give up their SUV's. Ranting that some one "does not have the right" to purchase an item sold the world over is only a good way to make yourself, and the idea you are attempting to forward, look as if you are an extremist. I have brought more people to my side of an idea through thoughtful arguments and some give and take.
Scott has every right to purchase anything that is not deemed illegal by his local, state or federal government. We just hopes that he makes a choice with more than just himself in mind.One down, and about fifty to go!
Now we have to get rid of Dodge extended cab 4wd pickups with V-10's and bigh Hemis, and so as not to leave out the imports, all V-12 BMW's, Mercedes, Maybachs, and maybe VW Phaetons as well. Perhaps we could pay a bounty to anyone delivering any of the above to the nearest car crusher?
yazheirx,
Your right, that did come off to harsh, however...
I think you honestly don't have the right to, no matter what the government says is legal. If you are 27 times more likely to kill the occupants of a normal car, I think it's simply wrong.
We can all be concerned with the environment without getting too caught up in the politics of things. The reality is Ford's decision is an economic one; that decision was fueled by the thousands of individual economic decisions of consumers who vote with their pocketbooks.
These vehicles are not selling any more because of the cost of gas. Plain and simple. It is now far more likely that people will make the decision to buy such a vehicle only when their full functionality is needed. The market functions apply and that's the way it should be.
For those that decide it's safer in a large vehicle than a small one, well they pay for it. As to the mis-fitting of various vehicles on the road, I think it's meritorious to consider a safety regulation that mandates equivolent bumper heights. As to equivolent weights, I'm not quite sure how to accomplish this while still making a range of cars affordable, but perhaps someone aught to investigate such a policy.
Until that time, I hope that Detroit catches the curve and starts to build high-functioning power plants for their vehicles, whatever size.
As to the battery discussion, since it was raised: the issue for me, again, goes back to economics. I bought my VW TDI because the total cost of ownership was **a lot** lower than a Prius. For starters, the Jetta TDI cost $22K, while the Prius, similarly equipped, cost $33K. For that price difference, I could buy a whole lotta carbon offset certificates or even install a solar system on my roof!
Beyond the initial cost, you have to consider resale. The TDI, a proven efficient vehicle, will hold more than a third of its value even after 150,000 miles. The market for the Prius is too new to tell, but from what I've read, the useful half-life of the car's battery system could be as little as five years -- for an average driver, that's about 75,000 miles. The replacement cost of the full system, according to the dealer I visited, is about $10K! That's 13 cents a mile in system degradation.
Currently, the Prius battery systems are under warranty for 10 years, but this does not cover relative performance, only that it "works". As such, to maintain the type of performance in the Prius over time, you might have to replace the battery system after five years at your own expense.
Even if the batteries hold, the relatively little bit you save on fuel over the life of the vehicle (43mpg vs. 60mpg), does not off-set the thousands of dollars of added cost of the vehicle combined with more rapid depreciation. In addition, it does not open new alternative fuel markets that less dependence on mineral-based petroleum from foreign markets.
Don't get me wrong: I love the Prius and am glad it's taking over American roads. However, it's certainly far from perfect, still out of economic reach for most Americans and is generally ill-suited for rural environments. Like the Europeans, in addition to hybrids, we should continue to make strides in Diesel technology and the creation of a valid, competitive bio-diesel market in the US.
"The market for the Prius is too new to tell, but from what I've read, the useful half-life of the car's battery system could be as little as five years -- for an average driver, that's about 75,000 miles. The replacement cost of the full system, according to the dealer I visited, is about $10K! That's 13 cents a mile in system degradation."
From what you've read? Could you tell me about your sources, please, because the information I found all around (and I've written about on Treehugger - it's easy to find) is vastly different.
The Prius' battery should last the life of the vehicle easily (that's for Honda, Toyota and Ford hybrid batteries), which is 15-20 years. The Prius has been around in Japan since 1997 and it is not "new" anymore. A few Prius taxi drivers have put around 300,000 kilometers on their cars (one of them in Vancouver) without any problems or apparent degradation of the battery. etc.
So I'm curious about your sources.
I will have to do some digging for additional data, but for starters the "life of vehicle" is considered 160,000 miles by the DOE and DOT. This is the extent of testing that's been done on these vehicles and this also matches the warranty provisions for these cars. I don't doubt your data about Taxi drivers, nor do I challenge your general knowledge on the subject. I'm far from an expert. What I do know is that consumers are not likely to stand in line to purchase a 10 year old Prius!
User forums suggest that Honda has had much greater battery system issues than Toyota. I looked into buying an Insight a while ago and read post after post about battery system issues. This is anecdotal, but definitely steered me away from Honda Hybrids a few years ago.
As to the Prius, the Gen I Prius was not as good as Gen II (makes sense). Testing of the Gen I showed that "end-of-life" fuel economy while using systems such as AC degraded from 69MPG new to 40mpg at 160,000. I don't know if the results for the Gen II are any better, but the same data shows that, on average, the Prius loses about .2MPG per quarter in fuel efficiency. Not alot, but still a downward trend of about 1mpg/year.
This data does not suggest these vehicles are bad in any way. My point was about consumer economics, and my belief is that manufacturers' warranties are doing a lot to get people to buy these cars. It will be interesting to see how the resale on these vehicles holds over time. (BTW, given the improvement in the Gen II over Gen I, it's very likely that depreciation will be even faster because people will know that.)
I am for these vehicles and am a fan! I am just for a choice of alternatives. What would really be cool is a biodiesel/electric hybrid, but I'm not sure that diesel would allow for the engine to constantly shut off and on...
Thanks for nuancing your post, Scott. I don't have time to answer to everything right now, but I can shed some light on this:
"User forums suggest that Honda has had much greater battery system issues than Toyota. I looked into buying an Insight a while ago and read post after post about battery system issues. This is anecdotal, but definitely steered me away from Honda Hybrids a few years ago."
The reason is because the Insight was sold as a manual, and that way you could drive it so that batteries were almost completely drained; very bad for longetivity. This can't happen with the Prius, batteries are almost at least half charged.
"while the Prius, similarly equipped, cost $33K"
33 thousand US dollars? In the US?
Where exactly does it cost $33K for a Prius?
I just checked out the price from the dealer I visted and the model in question was $27,000, not $33,000. However, there's been a lot of gaming and price gouging at dealers despite the sticker price. See this post for an example:
http://priuschat.com/forums/archive/o_t/t_8586/great-experience-in-northern-va.html
This shopper specifically cites dealers marketing their Prius' to the $33K mark!
"I just checked out the price from the dealer I visted and the model in question was $27,000, not $33,000. However, there's been a lot of gaming and price gouging at dealers despite the sticker price. See this post for an example:
http://priuschat.com/forums/archive/o_t/t_8586/great-experience-in-northern-va.html
This shopper specifically cites dealers marketing their Prius' to the $33K mark!"
Scott, I think you can understand why people are skeptical of your argument if you're confounding what some loon may be asking for a vehicle and what it actually sells for. When you're disucssing the economic trade-offs between options, a $6,000 overstatement (and I would even contest that, since a loaded Prius is $25K and a base one is closer to $20-21K) will completely skew the comparison.
Also, you might want to do some research about something like this:
"from what I've read, the useful half-life of the car's battery system could be as little as five years -- for an average driver, that's about 75,000 miles. The replacement cost of the full system, according to the dealer I visited, is about $10K! That's 13 cents a mile in system degradation."
OK, so you've read that. Where did you read that? Do you have proof of even one single instance of a hybrid system failing that quickly? And even if it did, if you had done your research, you would know that hybrid-related components are covered for 8 years or 100,000 miles (and the batteries possibly even more than that), so a failure at 75,000 miles would cost exactly zero dollars and zero cents for the Prius owner.
http://www.toyota.com/vehicles/2005/prius/faq.html
With respect to the VW, they have had some MAJOR quality problems - especially the past few years. So it's a bit disingenuous to play the "what if" game with the Prius (which is made by a company with the best quality in the industry), yet conveniently ignore the flaws with your preferred option.
That said, Edmunds puts the Prius at 47 cents a mile and the Jetta TDI at 45 cents a mile, and that's assuming heavier depreciation numbers than the used market is showing the past couple of years. Note also they indicate the Civic Hybrid to be 4 cents cheaper per mile than the Jetta.
http://www.edmunds.com/new/2006/volkswagen/jetta/100544987/cto.html?step=2&%3CE:track%20comp='cto'%20lCode='2'%20/%3E#compare
Keep in mind, too, that if you're going to make fair comparisons, you should compare the automatic Jetta with the Prius, since the Prius doesn't have a manual transmission option. According to the EPA, the automatic Jetta TDI averages 38 mpg, not 43. And higher fuel economy (like the Prius) should also command a certain "risk premium" that's there to protect people in case gas prices keep escalating.
Lastly, there's the issue of emissions, and this isn't even a contest at this point - with the Prius getting 8 and 9 ratings (BIN 3 and SULEV II), while the Jetta TDI is only getting a 1 (BIN 10).
The bottom line is that the economic equation is a wash, so it's going to come down to what people prefer. And from the looks of Prius sales, it's pretty clear which one is most preferred.
Lets not forget that a Prius keeps its value very well in the first years. Many people are selling their 2001 Prius for almost what they paid them for (and most of them buy a 2004+ model with the money, from what I could read on forums). Few cars keep their value that well.
I guess that's a problem if you want to buy a used Prius, though.
I enjoy getting into arguments when there are none to be had. A few points:
When I went to purchase my car (August 2005), the Prius on the lot had a substantial "dealer charge" applied to it. The other option was to get on their "waiting list". These charges are real, albeit not standard across the country. In Virginia and other Southeastern states, these premiums were common when the gas crunch hit.
This problem was exacerbated by the $2,000 tax deduction, which dealers knew people were factoring into price, as well as the state law that made Prius the only SOV that could be used in HOV lanes during commuting hours.
You can dispute the facts, but please refrain from calling me a liar.
As to cost of ownership, I know a 10 year old Jetta TDI will retain about 1/3 of its resale value. I cannot make the same assumption for a Prius -- no one can as they have not been out that long.
Sorry about the 10/150K year vs. 8 year/100K. The higher number applies if you are in a "Green State", which you apparently are not. I recalled the higher number from my dealer discussions.
In any event, your correction makes the economics WORSE, not better! And again, please reserve the liar insinuation for someone that's not honestly attempting to advance the discussion of the issues.
Your post also discusses "failure" and I am not. I am discussing degradation: this is a different issue. Failure in the context of warranty would be GOOD, as it would be covered. Degradation of performance, however, is not. Toyota does not guarantee its fuel efficiency, just that the car will start and get you where you need to go.
If the efficiency of the batteries declines, that is not a warranty issue. It is simply wear and tear. You can read the DOE HEV (High Efficiency Vehicle) study data yourself: the Prius Gen II loses about .8MPG per year in efficiency, and according to their data has a life-time (which they call 160,000) average MPG rating of 45.6.
Again, for the record, I am not suggesting these numbers are BAD. They just are!
It's also worth noting here that the Prius is a particularly Urban vehicle suited to high stop-and-go traffic environments. The vehicle gains a good measure of its high average ratings because the gas engine shuts off when the vehicle stops, as well as uses the electric motor to accelerate. In a straight rolling highway comparison, the batteries, etc. are not the big deal. Rather, the vehicle gains its efficiency at speed from low weight and great areodynamics: elements of good vehicle design I noted in earlier posts.
Thank you for contributing the Edmonds data. The TCO tool is pretty cool. That said, it really doesn't apply to my argument. The Edmonds TCO does its projections assuming a "five-year" period of ownership. Second, it makes estimates based on like models unless there is compelling live resale data to draw from. In the first case, the Prius batteries are still under warranty; in the second, the Prius curve mimics that of the Honda Civic and the Jetta. I don't believe this curve is economically realistic because these vehicles are simply not the same.
To summarize, my points are simply this:
(1) Hybrids are a new technology product and therefore have uncertainties. We do not know what the future will bring for these vehicles in terms of useful life like we do with other, more established platforms.
(2) Batteries degrade. There's not a battery on the planet that can run at peak efficiency ad infinitum. The current batttery platforms are designed to run for the "useful life" of the car. The DOE currently defines "end-of-life" for hybrid vehicles as 160,000. (This is not to say they can't run to 1M miles, there's just no data that I've seen. If you have, please post it for the rest to see.)
(3) Resale is a function of demand. Prius II is better than Prius I. Prius I has displayed battery degradation; Prius II is better. How many people into the Prius are interested in buying a Prius I? More important, how many people are going to be interested in buying a Prius I out of warranty"?
As an aside, current replacement cost (if you didn't have the warranty) for the battery system would run north of $7,000 for parts. Then there's labor. Now, as volumes increase, prices may drop, so perhaps this replacement cost fades. However, we just don't know.
Assuming resale holds and consumers in 5 or 10 years are willing to assume the risks of owning a complex electric hybrid warranty-free, perhaps my bet was wrong. Like computers and other consumer electronics devices, it's my belief these vehicles will depreciate to near zero after 10 years if and until they have a battery replacement.
Oh, and regarding emmissions issues. The fundamental issue with Diesel emmissions in the US is sulphur. Because it is still primarily a commerical fuel (trucks and farm equipment), cutting sulphur is considered an economic issue that affects businesses. While it's slow going, the move is underway to reduce sulphur to ultra-low sulphur grade (ULSD) in the US by 2009 to keep Diesel equipment in compliance with increasingly strict EPA standards.
In fact, of the five major concerns in emissions -- carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, carbon dioxide, particulate matter and nitrogen oxides -- diesel generally emits less small amounts of the first three. The reason for the low BIN you quoted falls squarely on sulphur because it isprone to creating particulates.
One solution, of course, is to burn biodiesel, which I happen to do, but don't need any applause. It's available in my rural area and I'm happy to support the fringe benefit of reducing demand on foreign oil. According to Biodiesel.org, B100 (pure biodiesel) has the following characteristics vs. conventional petrol-based diesel:
Total Unburned Hydrocarbons -67%
Carbon Monoxide -48%
Particulate Matter -47%
Sulfates -100%
So, again, I'm pleased the current Ford Ex is going off-sale. :)
"You can read the DOE HEV (High Efficiency Vehicle) study data yourself: the Prius Gen II loses about .8MPG per year in efficiency"
You've just made me curious about how they reached that .8MPG figure, and what is the yearly efficiency loss of other non-hybrid vehicles. Is that info available?