A 62MPG Honda Diesel Due in the US in 2010

[RichardJensen]

The Milage Quoted was for the exsisting 2.2 Liter Acccord sold in Eroupe. In Imeprial Gallons

FE ratings for EU spec Accord

 

Extra Urban 62.8 mpg

Well, then, I stand by my assertion said article writers don't know jack.

 

EU Accord is smaller than the U.S. Accord, and an imperial gallon is 20% larger.

 

---

 

Man alive... And I think that article was posted on CNet--not some no-name wannablogger's website.

 

---

 

Also, I still think that we are a long way from widespread adoption of diesels, as I've still seen no evidence that there's a cheap and sustainable way around the NOx issue.

[matthewq4b]

Well, then, I stand by my assertion said article writers don't know jack.

 

EU Accord is smaller than the U.S. Accord, and an imperial gallon is 20% larger.

 

Yup lighter by a whole 50Lbs not really smaller by any measurable amount. The EU Accord is sold here as the Acura TSX.

 

Both the EU Accord and NA TSX pretty much share the same combined FE ratings in U.S gals. The hyway cycles in the EU post better ratings. but the City cylces show much lower ratings. So Using the combined is mostlikly the best gauge to use when looking at FE of EU sepc vehicals.

 

Matthew

[LincolnFan]

But if everybody drove diesels Lincoln the Earths fossil fuels would last 30% longer, surely you want to hang onto the oil you have in Saudi Arabia for long as possible before you have to get back on your camels Lincoln. What will the Saudi Royal family do for an income?

 

Are you serious? Oil is our curse. Greed is tearing our country apart and oil is the reason, oil is the cancer that's destroying this country internally.

[Edstock]

Are you serious? Oil is our curse. Greed is tearing our country apart and oil is the reason, oil is the cancer that's destroying this country internally.

 

I thought the Wahabists were the curse, and the madrassas they support.

 

Fun-loving, avant-garde types, they party like it's 999. :happy feet:

[Joe771476]

Funny, I see two Fords in the background of that pic! Secondly, I'm ashamed to say it, but I let my wife lease a 96 Sentra. Couldn't pass it up: $99 per month for 42 months and Nissan paid the property taxes! Anyway I could get 52 MPG highway with it! Diesels, electrics, hybrids: Who needs them?

[RichardJensen]

Yup lighter by a whole 50Lbs not really smaller by any measurable amount. The EU Accord is sold here as the Acura TSX.

 

Both the EU Accord and NA TSX pretty much share the same combined FE ratings in U.S gals. The hyway cycles in the EU post better ratings. but the City cylces show much lower ratings. So Using the combined is mostlikly the best gauge to use when looking at FE of EU sepc vehicals.

 

Matthew

Comparing 4-cyl./5 sp. trims of the Accord & Accord, there's about a 280lb difference between the U.S. and E.U. spec models.

 

Factor in that the new Honda Accord weighs about a hundred pounds more than the old, and you've got a not inconsiderable difference in weight between the EU Accord and the '10 Accord that the article references.

 

Also, between the EU Accord's 24.08mpg (30.1 imperial) combined rating and the 22mpg combined rating for the Acura TSX with the same powertrain, it seems that combined ratings are around 8-10% high with the EU regimen.

 

For the record, the EU Accord 2.2 with manual was rated at 17.76mpg (US) on the EU urban cycle and 32.72mpg (US) on the extra urban cycle.

 

This compares with 19/28 on the 2008 EPA cycle.

 

As Matt mentioned, the EU extra-urban cycle produces numbers that are substantially higher than the new EPA highway cycle, making the assertion that a U.S. Accord (weighing over 300lbs more than the tested vehicle) will return 63mpg in U.S. gallons on the EPA's test cycle pretty far outside the realms of possibility.

 

In short, it seems exceptionally unlikely that you will be able to buy a 63mpg Accord in the U.S.

[LincolnFan]

I thought the Wahabists were the curse, and the madrassas they support.

 

Fun-loving, avant-garde types, they party like it's 999. :happy feet:

 

Madarass is already plural, there's no need to add another "as".

 

Personally I don't have much idea about the Wahabists and w/e said about them. And I don't find it as humorous as you do.

[matthewq4b]

Comparing 4-cyl./5 sp. trims of the Accord & Accord, there's about a 280lb difference between the U.S. and E.U. spec models.

 

Factor in that the new Honda Accord weighs about a hundred pounds more than the old, and you've got a not inconsiderable difference in weight between the EU Accord and the '10 Accord that the article references.

 

Also, between the EU Accord's 24.08mpg (30.1 imperial) combined rating and the 22mpg combined rating for the Acura TSX with the same powertrain, it seems that combined ratings are around 8-10% high with the EU regimen.

 

For the record, the EU Accord 2.2 with manual was rated at 17.76mpg (US) on the EU urban cycle and 32.72mpg (US) on the extra urban cycle.

 

This compares with 19/28 on the 2008 EPA cycle.

 

As Matt mentioned, the EU extra-urban cycle produces numbers that are substantially higher than the new EPA highway cycle, making the assertion that a U.S. Accord (weighing over 300lbs more than the tested vehicle) will return 63mpg in U.S. gallons on the EPA's test cycle pretty far outside the realms of possibility.

 

In short, it seems exceptionally unlikely that you will be able to buy a 63mpg Accord in the U.S.

[apexpredator]

It's not just Honda with a TDI that FMC needs to worry about. In April of 2008 VW will have it's new 2.0 Bluetech Diesel available to the public. Initial EPA Estimates are looking like 40 City 55 Highway. On top of that it will have 148 HP and 250+ FPT.

 

The new Jetta and the new TDI's from other companies I think will spell a significant downturn in hybrid sales.

 

VW is also working on a TDI/Electric hybrid that is looking at the 100MPG mark.

 

Hey Ford, like the broken record I've become look at Ford of Europe and Ford of australia and get the damn TDI's 50 State Legal and get it here. Small car diesels are coming, they will become more popular than ever before, and if you wait until everybody else does it first you will be left behind!

 

When did FMC become followers instead of innovators?

Look at FMC's history of firsts!

The Ford Taurus started the path that the Accord and Camery have now dominated. What happend?

FMC once dominated the tow vehicle market because we had the best damn trucks for towing trailors available. Now GM has the best diesel and transmission for towing. (You have NO idea how much that hurts for me to type that)

The Explorer defined the SUV market that unfortunately became the laurel that FMC rested on for way too long.

 

What happened? Who did we fire? Who did we hire that just let the company that I dearly love fall to pieces?

 

You know it's just like a relationship with a person. The more you love them, the more you hate them when they wrong you.

 

That is why I just cannot stand what is going on with FMC these days and why I take every mistake they make so personally. On top of that they have have some product potential that is just out of control potential but they can't seem to get their QC, Marketing, and overall performance to mesh. The fusion is a great looking car once you get rid of that butt ugly chrome grill and Altezza style tail lights. BTW, hey Ford, the Altezza light craze was over two years ago!!

 

Ok, I'm ranting and off topic, sorry.

[LincolnFan]

Hey Ford, like the broken record I've become look at Ford of Europe and Ford of australia and get the damn TDI's 50 State Legal and get it here. Small car diesels are coming, they will become more popular than ever before, and if you wait until everybody else does it first you will be left behind!

 

Oh noes! Ford will be behind in diesels!

 

Dude, do you have any idea how much it will cost to make a diesel engine 50 states legal? Oh, that's right. YOU DON'T. Diesels already cost a premium in Europe, they're a 3 ~ 4K USD option, add in the price pf the equipment to make it 50 states legal and viola, you will never buy one. Besides, there are a lot of places where a gallon of diesel costs more than 30 cents than 87 octane/91 premium, is it really wise to push for diesel when you will probably never see any savings at all? Not to mention the NxOx emissions that cause cancer.

 

Yes, diesels are such a great option.

[Ford Jellymoulds]

Oh noes! Ford will be behind in diesels!

 

Dude, do you have any idea how much it will cost to make a diesel engine 50 states legal? Oh, that's right. YOU DON'T. Diesels already cost a premium in Europe, they're a 3 ~ 4K USD option, add in the price pf the equipment to make it 50 states legal and viola, you will never buy one. Besides, there are a lot of places where a gallon of diesel costs more than 30 cents than 87 octane/91 premium, is it really wise to push for diesel when you will probably never see any savings at all? Not to mention the NxOx emissions that cause cancer.

 

Yes, diesels are such a great option.

 

70% of all new cars sold in France are Diesels.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa38...05/ai_n13640858

 

So according you Lincoln the French should be dropping dead like flies all over the place with the highest NOx levels in the world, they should also have soaring cancer rates to match, compared to the superb clean air folk are breathing in places like California.

 

Mortality rates are higher in a diesel owning country

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/th...r/2102rank.html

No 10 French live longer 80.59 Years

No 45 US 78.00 Years

 

Deaths by Cancer of which lung cancer makes up the biggest percentage of the figure, Maybe gasoline cars pump out more benzine hydrocarbons carcinogens than diesel, and the lack of them might be causing a higher death rate in the US.

http://www.nationmaster.com/red/pie/hea_de...ath-from-cancer

Death by cancer US 321.9 deaths per 100,000 6%

Death by cancer France 286.1 deaths per 100,000 5.3%

 

If you are a big fan of global warming which l am not, a diesel will reduce Co2 by 30%

 

This doctor would still be alive today if he had bought a diesel rather than a poisonous gasoline car. Carbon monoxide is a lethal poison but has the capacity to kill humans within no time. Most of us would have inhaled this at some time or the other when we run a petrol car engine in a closed space like a garage. Since diesel engines produce virtually no carbon monoxide, they are that much safer. To counter this petrol car makers have come out with Catalytic Converters but the main problem here is that these converters take nearly 15-20 minutes to warm up and function effectively.

 

Why drive poison? It didnot do this Doctor much good.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html...rbon%20Monoxide

 

If we have 50 years left of fossil fuels left to consume until it runs out, because diesels are 30% more fuel efficient than gasoline vehicles, if everybody switched to diesels you could get another 15 years motoring from fossil fuels in your Ford.

 

Peugeot will be releasing the 308 hybrid diesel soon that returns 94 MPG (69 MPG USA) that’s not going empty your wallet when you fill up.

http://www.autobloggreen.com/2007/08/29/fr...308-hybrid-hdi/

 

So you can’t say that NOx is the only way to go Lincoln.

Edited October 9, 2007 by Ford Jellymoulds

[Ralph Greene]

Well....With the regular 4 cylinder Honda Accord, I can easily get mid 30's MPG on the hiway. How much extra will I have to pay for the diesel engine version, and how many miles will I have to drive it to recoup the extra engine cost? My guess is probably never, like a Prius. Also with the gas version, I don't have to carry extra gloves in car to use while fueling. Diesel is stinky.

 

However....The resale value of diesel vehicles may be very high, making their purchase economically viable. If they lose less value than the engines cost exrra, they will make sense. I know not everyone looks at it like i do.

[jasonj80]

If we have 50 years left of fossil fuels left to consume until it runs out, because diesels are 30% more fuel efficient than gasoline vehicles, if everybody switched to diesels you could get another 15 years motoring from fossil fuels in your Ford.

 

When you distill a Barrel of Crude, you only end up with so much diesel and so much gas from the barrel, its not like you can make a whole barrel of crude gas or diesel, you can play with the over lap sections but it becomes to costly as you get farther away from the overlap. Remember that Diesel comes from the part of the barrel that goes to make home heating oil, so if there is more demand it will cost you more to heat your home.

 

Diesel isn't the save all that Internet junkies think, as more and more emission items get added to them them the mileage goes down. A gallon of gas has about 11% less BTU than Diesel so if you can make a gas engine more efficient that 11% gain may not be worth the cost of the diesel engine. Plus with new batteries in the market, the cost of a electric/gas hybrid is something that will be close in cost to a diesel and result in better emissions and better fuel economy.

 

Also hybrids are becoming the "in" thing in Europe now as well. Ford will have one/two on the market soon. They also will have a few models here as well, more than has been said on here of late(2).

[Ford Jellymoulds]

Diesel is 20-40% more efficient than gasoline per gallon. If every car in America were traded in for a diesel-engine version, you would cut oil consumption by at least 40%, if not more thanks to the fact that there's a lot of gasoline engines that don't even get half as much mileage as a good turbodiesel.

 

Fuels have a limited shelf life, thus since oil is transported by slow barge, it's generally transported as raw crude oil and refined in the country it's sold so it can be quickly distributed while it's still freshly refined. The US imports only a very small percentage of it's gasoline pre-refined; mainly from Japan and Europe. Since diesel is so easy to refine you would be using so much less of it, the US has way more than enough refining capacity if all vehicles were converted to diesel.

 

Further, once all vehicles use diesel fuel, that paves the way to convert to using Biodiesel produced from either corn and/or algae grown in waste water. Biodiesel is far more clean than petro-diesel and every gallon of Biodiesel that you produce domestically means another 1.5 gallons of oil that did not have to be imported from another country.

 

There is an INCREDIBLE bias against clean diesel technology from people who's only experience with diesel is vehicles like Ford's PowerSmoke (I'm sorry, the PowerStroke) and other hideously nasty diesel vehicles. Modern clean diesel technology is so far advanced from what trucks use that it's like comparing hybrids to carburated cars of the 1970's. Sure, they use the same fuel, but there's nothing else in common.

 

Learn more about biodiesel here: http://www.biodiesel.org/

 

"Biodiesel is the name of a clean burning alternative fuel, produced from domestic, renewable resources. Biodiesel contains no petroleum, but it can be blended at any level with petroleum diesel to create a biodiesel blend. It can be used in compression-ignition (diesel) engines with little or no modifications. Biodiesel is simple to use, biodegradable, nontoxic, and essentially free of sulfur and aromatics."

 

US trade deficit is out of control, trade in oil is the main cause, so if you switched to diesel then bio-diesel you would see a massive turnaround in the balance of trade.

With the price of oil in world energy markets having nearly quadrupled over the last four years, it is little surprise that U.S. import prices have soared. One concern about these higher import prices relates to their implications for the U.S. trade balance, which turned to a deficit in 1992 and has been deteriorating ever since.

http://www.frbsf.org/publications/economic.../el2006-24.html

[jasonj80]

Diesel is 20-40% more efficient than gasoline per gallon. If every car in America were traded in for a diesel-engine version, you would cut oil consumption by at least 40%, if not more thanks to the fact that there's a lot of gasoline engines that don't even get half as much mileage as a good turbodiesel.

 

Diesel engine in its current form is ~20%-30% more fuel efficient than a same sized gas engine, however when you start to factor in emission requirements, it becomes less and less, in BTU's diesel has about 11% more energy per gallon so as you get down to it and you get a gas engine close in efficiency to a diesel does 11% mean much if there is a 20% price difference. The average person drives 15,000mile per year, and the average gas/diesel price is the same.

 

I can get a new Twin Force Fusion with 38 mpg highway and its $22,000, or I can get a Diesel one that gets 50 mpg. and have it cost me $3,000 more. I would spend $1200/year in gas, or I can send $900/year with Diesel. (assuming $3.00 average 15,000miles/year) For $300/year savings, after 10 years of driving i would be positive in fuel savings, even at 8 years considering fuel price increasing the average person only keeps a car 5 years; they never become positive in their investment.

 

The reason that Diesel got to be so big in Europe has more to do with the tax rate on it vs. the tax rate on gas than the increase in fuel mileage. Diesel used to cost 1/2 as much as gas in France, today however the price is very close and in some cases gas is actually cheaper. While the new diesels are much better than the past at NVH, you can still tell its a diesel when your outside the car and your hand still smells if you don't wear a glove when you fill it up.

 

Does Diesel need to be included in powertrains, yes. But it is not the end all be all great pie in the sky dream that some think. You still end up with gas when you crack a barrel of oil.

[macattak1]

It's a 4-cylinder Matt, and will be in the Odyssey & Accord.

 

I'm not a betting man, but I find 60+ mpg for a fullsize car (the Accord is no gossamer princess) when run under the EPA's new test regimen, which includes acceleration up to, and sustained speeds of 80mph, to be extremely unlikely.

 

Not only is the Accord bigger than the EU midsizers you speak of, the EPA's test regimen is stiffer than the current EU regimen.

 

I do not understand the total disbelief in diesel engines your showing?

 

Mercedes 2008 E class E320 Bluetec diesel:

3.0 6cyl

210/400 hp/trq

3800 lbs

23/32 mpg

 

That is a sold heavy car and it scoots pretty darn nicely.

 

Visit Fred's TDI and you will see people getting 60mpg all day long in their Volkswagons. The Jetta is rated at 45mpg and it has some get up and go too. I would think that a car that can get you moving as fast at a Jetta and gets 50mpg on the hyway easily would garner better support regardless of what one thinks of diesel fuel or diesel engines or not.

 

on a side note. North of Sac CA there is The Woodland Tractor museum. They have a battery powered news paper trucks from like 1910. A fleet of them were used in Philly up till ~1970 to deliver papers. Imagine driving a 1910 batter powered truck for your job until it was decommissioned around 1960 or 70?

 

Also, sometime around the 40s a diesel farm tractor engine broke the record and rand for like 36 hours under load on 1 liter of kerosene. Now, the tractor would only move about 3 mph, but still. Talk about efficient.

 

So, I just do not see the idea of disliking something so much that has been proven to have so many excellent and superior uses?

 

Honda claiming a 60 mpg diesel? I don't find that too far out there at all. I would have no reason to even really doubt it. If one can make a decent sized and weight sedan get 50+mpg I don't care how they do it I am pretty much for it. Even a hybrid which I am not a major fan of.

 

Peace and Blessings

[RichardJensen]

My problem with diesels is that there is no cheap 50-state solution to the NOx problem.

 

VW's previous 45-state diesel cost $4k more than the gas version. It is exceedingly unlikely that a 50-state solution will cost less.

 

That $4k savings is difficult, if not impossible to recoup directly (although, as Ralph Greene pointed out, you'll likely get more back on resale).

 

In the end, diesel is not a magic bullet. There are no magic bullets.

[Ford Jellymoulds]

My problem with diesels is that there is no cheap 50-state solution to the NOx problem.

 

VW's previous 45-state diesel cost $4k more than the gas version. It is exceedingly unlikely that a 50-state solution will cost less.

 

That $4k savings is difficult, if not impossible to recoup directly (although, as Ralph Greene pointed out, you'll likely get more back on resale).

 

In the end, diesel is not a magic bullet. There are no magic bullets.

 

Its not the magic bullet Richard, but l don't want to see Ford fall behind the rest here, because diesel will take of in the US, folk were saying the same things about diesel will never catch on in Europe me included about 10 years ago.

[RichardJensen]

Its not the magic bullet Richard, but l don't want to see Ford fall behind the rest here, because diesel will take of in the US, folk were saying the same things about diesel will never catch on in Europe me included about 10 years ago.

Diesel caught on because it was given a pass in both emissions regulations and taxation.

 

Why?

 

Because the EU signed onto Kyoto, and was willing to allow proven contaminants to be released into the atmosphere in order to prevent the release of more speculative contaminants.

 

Not a good idea, IMO, but I'm not into politics, have no desire to be into them, and in any event, what's done is done.

 

Anyway: Unless the U.S. grants exemptions on diesel emissions and taxation of diesel vehicles, diesel will not be an economical solution.

 

Not to say that I think the U.S. should or shouldn't do these things--rather, I'm saying that under the current environment, diesel is not looking like a breakthrough technology.

[macattak1]

My problem with diesels is that there is no cheap 50-state solution to the NOx problem.

 

VW's previous 45-state diesel cost $4k more than the gas version. It is exceedingly unlikely that a 50-state solution will cost less.

 

That $4k savings is difficult, if not impossible to recoup directly (although, as Ralph Greene pointed out, you'll likely get more back on resale).

 

In the end, diesel is not a magic bullet. There are no magic bullets.

 

That all pans out...except that you come out against diesels.

 

Ford makes a lot of money in medium+ duty trucks.

Because of those trucks Ford is locked into the Diesel market.

Excluding obvious start up costs, I do not think it would be more expensive for Ford to build their own Diesels in house.

If Ford does not have the volume to mfg. diesel engines in house then no one can do it.

If they are going to build medium duty diesels, which I think they should and likely will again some day, I think they would be wise to build smaller diesels as well.

 

? How bad is the NOx problem polution wise? Example, given current ULSD and 2010+ compliant engines, how bad is the NOx problem pollution wise verses a gasser of the same hp/trq? Not technical cost. But pollution concern? That is not something I am up on. Thanks.

 

What if the volume of diesels in the general public segment. Say 2 liter to 4 liter TDI's was just 10% of the market. Would that not lower the cost of diesel engines significantly? 20%? That is about as high as I would expect it to go and argue for. But I think that 20% market for diesels would lower the costs significantly.

 

Peace and Blessings

 

Peace and Blessings

[Ford Jellymoulds]

Diesel caught on because it was given a pass in both emissions regulations and taxation.

 

Why?

 

 

Anyway: Unless the U.S. grants exemptions on diesel emissions and taxation of diesel vehicles, diesel will not be an economical solution.

 

Most diesels like those from Peugeot sold in Europe have very low NOx levels, they are way below set by those for future regulations in the US and California. So as the cost of fuel rises l think you will see the US flooded with diesels as legislation won't be stopping them coming Richard, l would just like to see Ford be the leader when it happens, and not get caught out by it. In the UK taxation on diesel & gasoline is the same, only bio-diesel gets a discount, and law was passed last week that all petrol stations must sell 5% bio-diesel at the pumps.

 

Diesel engines can reduce CO2 emissions when compared to petrol, but they have substantially higher emissions of Particulate Matter (PM) and Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx) both of which contribute to poor local air quality. Fitting FAP virtually eliminates PM emissions, bringing them down to levels comparable with that of petrol engines.

http://www.green-car-guide.com/features/me...ehicle-show.htm

Edited October 12, 2007 by Ford Jellymoulds

[RichardJensen]

How bad is the NOx problem polution wise? Example, given current ULSD and 2010+ compliant engines, how bad is the NOx problem pollution wise verses a gasser of the same hp/trq? Not technical cost. But pollution concern? That is not something I am up on. Thanks.

Well, ULSD doesn't help much. It's combustion temp that does it.

 

NOx standards are .2 g/mi under existing Euro IV regs, IIRC. California standards that will be in place in 2010 are .04 g/mi, again, IIRC.

 

It doesn't sound like much, but it requires decreasing emissions by a factor of 5, a 500% improvement, if you will, and that's not cheap or easy at this time.

 

--

 

Naturally, Jellymoulds, the smaller the engine, the less the NOx output.

 

Teensy Peugeot diesels sold with hefty discounts on diesel fuel may make sense in Europe, but they do not make sense in the U.S. where the proportional cost of upgrading to a diesel on a B car is far higher than, say a SD pickup truck.

 

And, once again, the U.S. will not be flooded with diesels, UNLESS there are substantial changes in both regulation and taxation. The situation here is no different than Europe pre-Kyoto. Diesels exist, but are marginalized. If the U.S. acts to make diesels attractive, Ford has access to the technology and can have diesel options available if/when that happens. Since it will require changing legislation in both Congress and California it will not happen quickly, and will be well telegraphed.

[matthewq4b]

Well, ULSD doesn't help much. It's combustion temp that does it.

 

NOx standards are .2 g/mi under existing Euro IV regs, IIRC. California standards that will be in place in 2010 are .04 g/mi, again, IIRC.

 

It doesn't sound like much, but it requires decreasing emissions by a factor of 5, a 500% improvement, if you will, and that's not cheap or easy at this time.

 

--

 

Naturally, Jellymoulds, the smaller the engine, the less the NOx output.

 

Teensy Peugeot diesels sold with hefty discounts on diesel fuel may make sense in Europe, but they do not make sense in the U.S. where the proportional cost of upgrading to a diesel on a B car is far higher than, say a SD pickup truck.

 

And, once again, the U.S. will not be flooded with diesels, UNLESS there are substantial changes in both regulation and taxation. The situation here is no different than Europe pre-Kyoto. Diesels exist, but are marginalized. If the U.S. acts to make diesels attractive, Ford has access to the technology and can have diesel options available if/when that happens. Since it will require changing legislation in both Congress and California it will not happen quickly, and will be well telegraphed.

 

 

Richard the stand alone tech already exists to lower the NOX in diesels to acceptable limits it does not need to be invented or created (we had this discussion once already) the issue is cost and packaging to fit it in road vehicles right now. But this will be overcome. These exact same issues we faced in the mid and late sixties with catalyst tech for gasoline engines. Remember when Cats came out int he eraly and mid 70's replacement costs for them were pushing a $1k then, now 30+ years later they can be had for under $100

 

Also Diesel engines are not limited to just diesel fuel fossil or Bio. But can be run on CNG, they are for more efficient on CNG than gasoline is. Are super clean and efficient on CNG. That option is available.

 

 

As for the heating fuel issue for homes. That is something that has to go is it expensive (even now) and extremely dirty. One Oil furnace dumps more crap in the atmosphere than couple hundred modern Diesel Cars or trucks. The newer units are not bad but the older ones are really. In Canada fuel oil heating is all but gone the way the dodo bird. I believe the biggest users of heating fuel are now the east coast and most small rural villages on the coast still use it. But with the west Atlantic Oil Fields I imagine it is only a matter of time before we see them on NG as well. I doubt there is one house in BC Alberta Sask that uses Fuel Oil as the heating medium. We went right from coal to NG for heating homes. In Ont a lot of people went from Oil to Elec (poor bastards) but this was done when ELEC rates were super cheap.

 

 

And the ULSD makes a big difference. It was just not the sulphur that was lowered but the over all quality of the fuel is much better than pre ULSD.

 

 

 

Matthew

[RichardJensen]

the issue is cost and packaging to fit it in road vehicles right now.

Exactly. As long as there is no mandate to use diesels (which there was with cat-cons), those costs will not be eaten, they'll be passed on to the consumer.

[Ford Jellymoulds]

Exactly. As long as there is no mandate to use diesels (which there was with cat-cons), those costs will not be eaten, they'll be passed on to the consumer.

 

Diesels are coming to the US Richard

http://www.autobloggreen.com/2007/07/16/di...the-us-in-2010/

 

Diesels are going to have a lot more muscle than gasoline models

http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Featu...rticleId=108977

 

They are going to be meeting new US legislation

http://blogs.cars.com/kickingtires/2007/01...er_vw_dies.html

 

Just about everybody will have a diesel car except Ford why?

http://www.autospies.com/news/BMW-says-3-0...g-to-U-S-21276/