Diesels....really worth it?

[chucky2]

Good thing you said something, I need to make a call for dinner...

[jpd80]

New Territory 2.7 V6 Diesel Fuel economy:

 

Urban: US 24 mpg

Extra urban US 36 mpg

Combined: US 29 mpg

 

 

 

Edited March 5, 2011 by jpd80

[StevenCaylor]

New Territory 2.7 V6 Diesel Fuel economy:

 

Urban: US 24 mpg

Extra urban US 36 mpg

Combined: US 29 mpg

 

 

 

 

That's great. Now have it meet US Tier 2 Bin 3 (California emission) standards, run it through the EPA economy tests and get back to us.

[jpd80]

That's great. Now have it meet US Tier 2 Bin 3 (California emission) standards, run it through the EPA economy tests and get back to us.

The rest of the world is on Euro 4 and 5, preferring fuel economy

over meeting NOX Regs before industry and technology is ready.

 

New non-Urea NOX elimination is coming in the next few years

that will return diesels to favor, Europe won't be giving up on them.

 

While you piss and moan about $4/gallon gas, our reality is $5 to $7/gallon fuel,

so I think we will agree to disagree given our different circumstances....

[Edstock]

New non-Urea NOX elimination is coming in the next few years

that will return diesels to favor, Europe won't be giving up on them.

Well, that sure is warm and fuzzy.

 

But, right now, it's t he US requirements we're talking about, and it appears that the loss of power, reduced economy and drivability seems to make diesels less than ideal.

 

But maybe "in the next few years"?

 

 

[jpd80]

Well, that sure is warm and fuzzy.

 

But, right now, it's t he US requirements we're talking about, and it appears that the loss of power, reduced economy and drivability seems to make diesels less than ideal.

 

But maybe "in the next few years"?

 

 

Never say never, but until a cost efficient catalyst is developed for Diesel that works in that specific environment, I see it as still costing way more than Ecoboost in the near future. In the meantime most of the worlds major countries haveswitched to Euro 4 or equivalent including China so even though the rest of the world still lags the US in terms of NOX regulations, there's a far greater audience willing to accept diesel and perhaps that makes the research/development of better cleaner engines viable.

 

Mazda SKYACTIV makes some impressive claims and is drawing nearer to a put up or shut up showdown, if ever there's a chance to move diesel forward with new thinking and technology, this is it.

[jpd80]

Well, that sure is warm and fuzzy.

 

But, right now, it's t he US requirements we're talking about, and it appears that the loss of power, reduced economy and drivability seems to make diesels less than ideal.

 

But maybe "in the next few years"?

 

 

Never say never, but until a cost efficient catalyst is developed for Diesel that works in that specific environment, I see it as still costing way more than Ecoboost in the near future. In the meantime most of the worlds major countries haveswitched to Euro 4 or equivalent including China so even though the rest of the world still lags the US in terms of NOX regulations, there's a far greater audience willing to accept diesel and perhaps that makes the research/development of better cleaner engines viable.

 

Mazda SKYACTIV makes some impressive claims and is drawing nearer to a put up or shut up showdown, if ever there's a chance to move diesel forward with new thinking and technology, this is it.

 

Something left field, give the Aussies a crack at meeting diesel regs and see what they come up with, sometimes you need to look at a problem in a different way. Ever had a problem stump you and someone walks up behind and says, "why not try this" and the solution becomes easy...

[Edstock]

Something left field, give the Aussies a crack at meeting diesel regs and see what they come up with, sometimes you need to look at a problem in a different way.

That's a good idea, as Ford has money to spend.

[jpd80]

That's a good idea, as Ford has money to spend.

We are now Euro 4 and our government is looking to go down the carbon tax route so I'm pretty sure we will be lagging Europe's Euro 5 and 6 only by a couple of years so it may be in our best interest to seek Aussie government funding for Euro 6 and Tier 2 US emissions as part of exportable technology (if not cars). Aussie government did pony up $13 million of the $21 million needed to upgrade the I-6 to Euro 4, it's now only a short jump to Euro 6 or tier 2 Bin 5 for petrols.

 

Mondeo diesel is being advertised here as giving better fuel economy than Hybrid Camry, makes you think anything is possible, perhaps some Aussie government money could be used to develop low NOX diesel technology that could be shared elsewhere....

Edited March 6, 2011 by jpd80

[SSchofield]

You buy a diesel car for one thing: FUEL ECONOMY. You buy a TDI for another: VALUE. I have experience here.

 

Why wouldn't you buy the Passat TDI instead? Same $$$, more legroom, etc. Hey, $25 K, 6 speed manual or auto... and 45+ MPG real world data. Oh, and don't forget the $1500 tax credit for "Green" automobiles either! I've owned 2 of 'em... along with Hondas and Toyotas... when my Accord craps out... back to diesel. No doubt. Yes, you'll have to buy the DEF liquid (you can buy it @ wal-mart), but hey, where else can you buy a nice car that gets as much as 49-50 mpg while lugging along at under 2,000 rpm's?

 

Oh, and if you really want to have a VW TDI make some "performance"... just get bigger fuel nozzles, adjust the timing, and of course, install a bigger air intake. BUT... your car will lose fuel economy, and you take a huge risk on wear and tear on your engine, transmission, etc.

 

Overall, the TDI is a great car, is fun, and of course... built in the USA (Yes, Chattanooga, TN to be exact).

 

You'll be miles and $$$ ahead in a TDI. Why else is there a 6 month delay in production boys? DEMAND.

[SSchofield]

Here's a noble idea to EUROPE: Your idea of saving the planet is DEAD. CARBON TAXES? What a bunch of crap! That $$$ would supposedly go towards what? Stop telling everybody what to do when your leaders are the ones making the tons of carbon with their jets, big vehicles, Industrial plants, etc.

 

If you want to save the planet... Pretend you are a Johnny Appleseed: PLANT A TREE. They are mother nature's filters... all trees, plants, etc. turn CO2 emissions into some good stuff. I learned that back in 6th grade Science. And... it's a HELLUVA LOT cheaper than paying WORLD "LEADERS" and AL GORE to tell me that they know BETTER THAN I DO.

Edited December 24, 2011 by SSchofield

[jpd80]

Here's a noble idea to EUROPE: Your idea of saving the planet is DEAD. CARBON TAXES? What a bunch of crap! That $ would supposedly go towards what? Stop telling everybody what to do when your leaders are the ones making the tons of carbon with their jets, big vehicles, Industrial plants, etc.

With the greatest of respect, you know nothing of what Europeans have done to reduce CO2 emissions.

An aggressive fuel tax encourages people to buy vehicles that more closely meet their needs, the only pity

is that collected money wan't used to reign in runaway budgets, a problem the US knows all too well.

 

If you want to save the planet... Pretend you are a Johnny Appleseed: PLANT A TREE. They are mother nature's filters... all trees, plants, etc. turn CO2 emissions into some good stuff. I learned that back in 6th grade Science. And... it's a HELLUVA LOT cheaper than paying WORLD "LEADERS" and AL GORE to tell me that they know BETTER THAN I DO.

 

We are way beyond just planting trees, that is happening but the likes of coal fired power stations have to be replaced

by either gas or nuclear power generation, doing that will reduce man made CO2 to half its present value.

 

I agree with you that there's an over emphasis on reducing CO2 in cars and IMO, gas prices will take care of that anyway.

A move on coal fired power plants is a far better proposition than sticking it to commuters. Give us cheap clean power

so we can charge our commuter vehicles up to go back and forth every day, that will kill a lot of CO2 vehicle output.

Edited December 24, 2011 by jpd80

[SSchofield]

Yes, you are right... I know nothing about what the high and mighty Europeans have done... except GO BROKE trying to make their policies work instead of common sense. Got EURO? I don't.

 

An aggressive fuel tax takes money AWAY from the individual and REDISTRIBUTES IT to GOVERNMENT. Yet, you say that you dislike "sticking it to the consumer". Damn... you're talking from both sides of the issue. Make a choice and stick with it.

 

Talk about limiting freedom in the name of the environment... that is ridiculous. Men yearn to be free. History has proven that.

 

If you want clean, cheap power... the market has to demand it, not government. Government can only limit your markets and your freedoms. Read history.

[jpd80]

Yes, you are right... I know nothing about what the high and mighty Europeans have done... except GO BROKE trying to make their policies work instead of common sense. Got EURO? I don't.

Lighten up, no one is forcing you to do anything, all the government can do is encourage development of technology

and consumer buying patterns in a general direction, you still have the choice to refuse and go your own way.

 

An aggressive fuel tax takes money AWAY from the individual and REDISTRIBUTES IT to GOVERNMENT. Yet, you say that you dislike "sticking it to the consumer". Damn... you're talking from both sides of the issue. Make a choice and stick with it.

No, I don't have to because I can see both sides of the argument with impartiality and as such,

I will repeat what I said in my previous post in a bullet list so you understand more clearly:

 

1) An aggressive fuel tax (in Europe) encourages people to buy vehicles that more closely meet their needs,

 

2) the only pity (in Europe) is that collected money wasn't used to reign in runaway budgets, a problem the US knows all too well.

 

3) I agree with you that there's an over emphasis on reducing CO2 in cars and IMO, gas prices (without tax) will take care of that anyway.

 

4) Replacing coal fired power plants is a far better proposition than sticking it to commuters. and will reduce man made CO2 by half

 

5) Give us cheap clean power so we can charge our commuter vehicles up to go back and forth every day, that will kill a lot of CO2 vehicle output.

Now, do you understand what I'm trying to say?

America is not Europe, is not Australia, is not Asia - everyone walks a different road and our political and financial situations are very different,

so too are our needs and government strategies in achieving balance in all things, I hope this helps clear the air....

 

Merry Christmas.

 

John.

Edited December 25, 2011 by jpd80

[blksn8k2]

 

[/u][/b]4) Replacing coal fired power plants is a far better proposition than sticking it to commuters. and will reduce man made CO2 by half

 

5) Give us cheap clean power so we can charge our commuter vehicles up to go back and forth every day, that will kill a lot of CO2 vehicle output.

[/i]

 

I work in the power and steam generation industry and I can tell you that, just like everything else, it is not as simple as all that.

The US utility industry has tried to make more use of natural gas for the production of electricity mainly through the use of gas turbines. Unfortunately, that is not a very efficient way to produce electricity and all that has accomplished so far has been to cause the price of natural gas to rise due to supply and demand. For those of us who use gas to heat our homes that is not a good thing. Most of the gas turbine plants that were built a few years ago when the last push towards gas occurred are now only used during peak demand conditions. The majority of the gas turbine plants that were planned back then were never actually built. As more natural gas supplies are discovered (tar sands, shale formations, etc.) the cost of gas has gone down again so that could eventually make it more viable but, for now, coal and nuclear still produce the majority of our electricity. The other issue is that no matter whether you are burning coal or natural gas you will still be producing CO2. It will be less with gas but you still have not completely eliminated the problem.

The fact is that coal is still a less expensive and more efficient fuel for producing electricity and we still have very large reserves of coal. We are trying to find cleaner ways to burn coal and/or deal with the CO2 emissions through better combustion technologies and/or sequestration. As our government policies make coal less attractive we simply ship it off to some other country where the rules are less stringent so what did we really accomplish?

Nuclear would seem to be a reasonable alternative but the tragedy in Japan has shown that nuclear still has obvious risks as well. Also, the permitting process for a new nuclear power plant takes years if not decades.

Renewable sources like wind and solar are too inconsistent and will probably never be able to completely replace our current sources of producing electricity. The physical size of the power plants for most renewables are also much larger than our current power plants which raises the issue of land usage.

Simple, right? :shades:

 

Merry Christmas

[jpd80]

I work in the power and steam generation industry and I can tell you that, just like everything else, it is not as simple as all that.

The US utility industry has tried to make more use of natural gas for the production of electricity mainly through the use of gas turbines. Unfortunately, that is not a very efficient way to produce electricity and all that has accomplished so far has been to cause the price of natural gas to rise due to supply and demand. For those of us who use gas to heat our homes that is not a good thing. Most of the gas turbine plants that were built a few years ago when the last push towards gas occurred are now only used during peak demand conditions. The majority of the gas turbine plants that were planned back then were never actually built. As more natural gas supplies are discovered (tar sands, shale formations, etc.) the cost of gas has gone down again so that could eventually make it more viable but, for now, coal and nuclear still produce the majority of our electricity. The other issue is that no matter whether you are burning coal or natural gas you will still be producing CO2. It will be less with gas but you still have not completely eliminated the problem.

The fact is that coal is still a less expensive and more efficient fuel for producing electricity and we still have very large reserves of coal. We are trying to find cleaner ways to burn coal and/or deal with the CO2 emissions through better combustion technologies and/or sequestration. As our government policies make coal less attractive we simply ship it off to some other country where the rules are less stringent so what did we really accomplish?

Nuclear would seem to be a reasonable alternative but the tragedy in Japan has shown that nuclear still has obvious risks as well. Also, the permitting process for a new nuclear power plant takes years if not decades.

Renewable sources like wind and solar are too inconsistent and will probably never be able to completely replace our current sources of producing electricity. The physical size of the power plants for most renewables are also much larger than our current power plants which raises the issue of land usage.

Simple, right? :shades:

 

Merry Christmas

 

Thanks, I've worked in and around power generation and process plants on the other side of the pacific for close on 30 years

and I know where you're coming from but until the US factors in a true cost for producing Carbon and in particular CO2,

coal fired power generation will stay. What is more concerning is the 500 units being developed in China, a new one comes

on line every month and the CO2 output of China and India will become much more than US and Europe as this grids grow..

 

At the moment, Australia has approximately 44% of the worlds know Uranium reserves, so I thing we're sitting prety good as

a potential world supplier until a new and better fuel source comes along. It will be interesting to see how all this pans out as

Australia has now passed legislation for taxing carbon production at $26/ton, no other country in the world is doing that and

I fear it will now make our products and exports basically uncompetitive, the big concern is that China and japan will now go

elsewhere for their coal, gas, iron ore and Aluminium.

 

Merry Christmas everyone,

Spare a thought for the citizens in Christchurch New Zealand

who are still receiving after shocks up to 6.0 on the rictor scale

[SSchofield]

The ONLY way government encourages these days is to make laws that FORCE companies to do what lawmakers wish to be done. Let the MARKETS decide the direction, innovation, and technology... these are driven by PROFITS. NOT by Government. Look at how our Congress has screwed things up... By the way... China isn't going to comply with any "treaty" that will limit themselves from an environmental viewpoint. Do you really think that some "World" agency is gonna stop countries from creating energy by whatever means? Please stop right there. When it comes to self-preservation... mankind will stop at nothing. Don't doubt me. Burn that coal, gas, etc. There's a bunch of it. Make it cleaner, sure... but keep costs low.

[jpd80]

I'm wondering how a thread on the worth of diesel engines in car and SUVs got onto the ills of political decision making and CO2...

 

Oh yeah, that's right ...Europe and social engineering through fuel and CO2 taxation and wanting to be seen as green and clean...

Since no gas tax or tax on carbon is happening in the USA anytime soon, don't expect wholesale switching to diesel cars.

Edited December 25, 2011 by jpd80

[SSchofield]

Nice attempt at satire. No gas tax? Try and do some reading mate... over 50% of the price of a gallon of U.S. gasoline comes from TAXES. Federal, State, & Local. Diesels are more popular in Europe due to the tax breaks given to diesels. Oh, and don't forget the fact that they are 30% more fuel efficient in many cases.

 

Auto Diesels in the states here have been given a bad reputation due to their emergence in the 1980's and their demise due to poor designs from several companies (GM was the #1 culprit: making V8 diesels from Gasser parts). Fortunately for VW, Mercedes, and BMW... they have not died. They have enjoyed quite a resurgence. If you do a search on American Car lots these days... diesel autos are HARD TO KEEP IN STOCK due to the fuel economy benefit, the longevity, and the resale value. Oh, and yes... we're offering a $1,500 U.S. TAX CREDIT on them too. (Politics there) Better yet, show me a salesman who DOES NOT want to sell DIESELS in the U.S. and I'll show you a person who doesn't want to earn fast money. DIESELS are in high demand. Check VW inventories of TDI's... they are high demand. Mercedes-Benz & BMW are right behind them. For you to surmise that we Yanks don't want diesels because of Bullsh*t enviromentalist wacko policies is ludicrous. The 2 cannot be farther from the truth. Again... it goes back to economics. European diesels have been a hit b/c of tax breaks (higher gas taxes too!-- Gov't. intervention in the free market), longevity, and better performance longitudinally. Prove me wrong... you cannot.

 

If you think for 1 moment that taxing people for exhaling CO2 is the way to make us happy... you're crazy. Taxing Carbon is a legal form of racketeering. The people do not benefit from this robbery. It is redistribution of wealth... aka socialism. Isn't Europe trying that and failing right now? YEP.

 

Oh, and by the way Aussie... Virtually everything we do or are associated with involves CO2. Taxing me for exhaling? LUNACY. LIBERTY OR DEATH...DON'T TREAD ON ME. Didn't we fight a war about unfair oppression, excessive taxation without representation, etc.? YES!!! Diesels are viable here... but Ford doesn't want to introduce them yet until the Corporate Average Fleet Economy is too high and they have to implement it. Europe is a great proving grounds for their small diesels too by the way. Ever notice that?

 

Good luck with telling your people that taxing them MORE because they exhale is in their best interest... I'm sure it'll go well with taxing their livestock for flatulating and deficating... releasing greenhouse gasses... UGH!!!

[akirby]

Why would Ford throw away all that "profit" from these highly sought after diesels? They have the engines ready to go in Europe - it wouldn't be that hard to bring them over IF they thought they could sell them at a profit. And why haven't any other mfrs done the same thing? A small number of VW buyers does not make an entire market. Until American consumers change their minds about diesels there just isn't enough money in it for most mfrs.

[jpd80]

Nice attempt at satire. No gas tax? Try and do some reading mate... over 50% of the price of a gallon of U.S. gasoline comes from TAXES. Federal, State, & Local. Diesels are more popular in Europe due to the tax breaks given to diesels. Oh, and don't forget the fact that they are 30% more fuel efficient in many cases.

All countries have examples of those inbuilt taxes but Europe goes way further, try living with $8.40 a gallon for gasoline and diesel,

I'm sure you'd buy a diesel whatever over gasoline in a heart beat over 70% of that is tax which means they are paying way more tax

which makes diesel's 30% better fuel economy so attractive, albeit because a gallon of diesel contains more energy that gasoline.

 

So please, if you want to piss and moan about fuel taxes, you're on the wrong side of the pond.

Edited December 25, 2011 by jpd80

[SSchofield]

Ask Ford about why they haven't brought them over yet...

[SSchofield]

Great leadership over there eh? Exceedingly high fuel prices... why? EXCESSIVE TAXES.

[jpd80]

Ask Ford about why they haven't brought them over yet...

Don't have to, Ford has a raft of European diesels they could launch in no time flat, so why don't they?

US emissions costs and the lower cost of fuels makes selling a near $4,000 diesel option very hard.

 

The use of diesels in Europe is based on a strong consumer desire to combat $8.40/gal fuel and in that situation,

a diesel returning 30% better mileage than gasoline equivalents has a much quicker payback at $2.50/gal

compared to the US where fuel is roughly $3.00/gal therefore, diesel giving a payback of 90 cents/gal but with

much more initial outlay to meet much stricted NOX emissions on top of the hefty engine premium. for the diesel.

 

In the case of US fuel prices, the buy in cost of Ecoboost is much lower but also gives a 20% reduction in fuel consumption.

 

Great leadership over there eh? Exceedingly high fuel prices... why? EXCESSIVE TAXES.

As I said before, Europe uses fuel taxes to change people's buying choices but,

what really annoys is European states squandering near $6/gallon in taxes.

Edited December 26, 2011 by jpd80

[RichardJensen]

Well, it's not even a $.90 payback.

 

Depending on how you drive it, you won't necessarily see that 30% increase in economy, and diesel generally carries a premium over gas.

 

As for the question as to why Ford has no diesels, there's not much to add. Only that I suspect the VW diesels are volume constrained for emissions purposes, given that they score poorly (ULEV, or the same as a F150), in comparison to the gas models (SULEVs).

 

BTW: The gas powered Jettas get atrocious fuel economy (24 & 31? What?)