Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Hybrid vs Diesel



  • larsblarsb Posts: 8,204
    measures, not the ENTIRE BIG PICTURE which is all the OTHER harmful chemicals that exist in more damaging quantities in diesel fuel than in gasoline exhaust.

    The components of diesel exhaust (DE) emissions are a public concern for the following reasons:

    Emissions from diesel engines include over 40 substances that are listed by the EPA as hazardous air pollutants. Components of DE contain potential cancer causing substances such as arsenic, benzene, formaldehyde, nickel, and PAHs. The diesel particulate matter (DPM) is very small (90% are less than 1um by mass), making DPM easy to respire into the deep lung. DPM has hundreds of chemicals adsorbed to their surfaces, including many known or suspected carcinogens. There are many irritants and toxic chemicals in the gaseous phase of DE. Oxides of nitrogen, component of urban smog, are in the gaseous phase of DE. There is a likelihood that people in both ambient and occupational settings can be exposed to DE. DE has the potential to cause adverse health effects including cancer, pulmonary and cardiovascular diseases. Studies show workers exposed to higher levels of DE are more likely to develop lung cancer. In 1990, the state of California identified DE as a chemical known to cause cancer. The International Agency for Research on Cancer has concluded that DE probably causes cancer in humans. The EPA has proposed classifying DE as a probable human carcinogen.

    Acute Effects of Diesel Emmission Exposure:
    Workers exposed to high concentrations of diesel exhaust have reported the following short-term health symptoms:

    irritation of the eyes, nose and throat,
    weakness, numbness, and tingling in extremities,
    chest tightness,
    wheezing, and

    I'm sorry, Troy, but there are no studies that link these sorts of health issues to gaoline exhaust.
  • gagricegagrice San DiegoPosts: 28,679
    According to the Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District (APCD) 2001 Clean Air Plan, 1999 base year NOx emissions from marine vessels were more than those from all on-road motor vehicles, and comprised just over a third of the total NOx emissions inventory. There is a growing awareness internationally of the significance of shipping emissions. Ships are increasing in number, size, carrying capacity and speed, while fuel use is increasing proportionally. In addition, residual heavy fuel oil – the most common fuel used in large ship engines – is decreasing in quality, while a greater number of engines are being designed to use this lower-quality fuel.

    This makes the pollution from Modern vehicles (those built since 1980s) INSIGNIFICANT compared to the major sources of pollution. These ships on our rivers and coastal harbors burn bunker oil which is as much as 3000 ppm sulfur. Most dirty diesel is less than 500 ppm with the 2006 mandated ULSD it will be 15-30 ppm. The ships that are causing much of the smog in coastal CA. are not included in that mandate. I don't know how to make it any clearer for those with blinders, that think our environmental regulators at the EPA & CARB are doing a bang up job. In short they are the ones that SUCK not the vehicles that save fuel by burning diesel. People in California are paying the price with this smog so people in Arizona can get there cheap TVs & Hondas from overseas.
  • gagricegagrice San DiegoPosts: 28,679
    I'm sorry, Troy, but there are no studies that link these sorts of health issues to gaoline exhaust.

    My understanding is that only the CARB states have the cleaner gasoline. That is how they get the higher EPA ratings. I know the 45 states gas has a higher sulfur content. That is why cars in those states stink. You really notice it when you leave CA and go to AZ or NV.
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Posts: 5,525
    But the issue on hand is cars, and related technologies. We are not going to talk about oil burning factories, are we?

    That said, at a gas station couple of days ago here in TX:
    87 grade: $1.90
    91 grade: $2.00
    93 grade: $2.10
    Diesel: $2.19

    So a 15% "premium" over regular unleaded gasoline for diesel continues. If ULSD adds another dime to the tag, the premium grows to 20%.
  • gagricegagrice San DiegoPosts: 28,679
    So a 15% "premium" over regular unleaded gasoline for diesel continues. If ULSD adds another dime to the tag, the premium grows to 20%.

    The very minimum increase in efficiency of the diesel over gas ICE is 25% so you still have a net gain. Plus our dependence on foreign oil will never be resolved with gas burning cars. Even with the lousy ethanol E85 it only saves 15%. Then you get 25% worse mileage. Where with B100 biodiesel you can tell the Middle East to drink their oil while you refill at McDonald's. Gas engines do not offer any real alternatives where diesel engines do... I still think all electric is the best or serial diesel electric.
  • gagricegagrice San DiegoPosts: 28,679
    Just for comparison ULSD at the SOCO station I use sells for $2.529 two weeks ago. They were selling Premium unleaded for $2.599. I use the ECD-1 in my little tractor and can tell no difference, except the puff of smoke when it starts is gone.

    Gas Diesel price comparison...
  • rfruthrfruth Posts: 630
    Some of the extra cost of ULSD my be built in already but my question is this, lets imagine its 2007 and you have a new TDI designed for and burning ULSD, how clean will it be compared to a gas burner or hybrid of the same vintage ?
  • gagricegagrice San DiegoPosts: 28,679
    The only info I can find is on the European diesels. My understanding is the new MB, BMW, Accord and VW diesels all pass the very stringent Euro4 emissions test. As far as Greenhouse gas those diesel cars exceed all but a few of the hybrids and CNG vehicles. The CNG Civic is cleaner than any of the hybrids. If that is you goal go CNG. A lot of cab drivers use CNG cars in San Diego.

    For any vehicle certified to better than Euro 4 emission standard, the noxious emissions score is 9. To achieve this score a vehicle must already be certified to ADR 79/01 in Australia.
  • diesels are already cleaner than gasoline in every category except NOx: - 2000 VW Manual Beetle (grams/mile)

    ----- Gas TDI
    NOx 1.3 2.7
    PMs ----- ----- (not measured)
    CO2 7.0 4.7
    CO 1.10 0.01
    HC 0.15 0.00 (evaporative)

    VW TDI diesels have already been promoted by's green score:

    2000 = 1
    2005 = 6

    I fully expect to see 2007 = 9 with the European clean-diesel technologies. In other words, equal to a gasoline car.

  • SylviaSylvia Posts: 1,636
    I deleted a few of the "no, you don't listen" "No, you listen" posts

    They are attacking and insulting. Either agree to disagree and move on or stop posting. The bickering needs to stop.
  • "The components of diesel exhaust (DE) emissions are a public concern for the following reasons (snip)"

    Every flaw you list is a flaw of gasoline too. Gasoline has PMs. Gasoline has carcinogens. Gasoline is NOT clean.

  • gagricegagrice San DiegoPosts: 28,679
    For those truly interested in cutting loose from foreign oil, Biodiesel is the answer. Nothing else on the US market comes close.

     Dr. Bernd Pischetsrieder, chairman of the board of management of Volkswagen, remarked that while Volkswagen will eventually offer hybrids, it won’t be soon.

    Speaking to journalists in London, prior to the SMMT Annual Dinner, where he was guest speaker, he said: “We are not interested in making cars which don’t make money.”

    Biodiesel, he suggested, is the short-term answer and confirmed that his company was working in this area.
  • larsblarsb Posts: 8,204
    In the battle of Hybrid versus Diesel, electrictroy has posted that the EU rated the diesel Lupo the "world's cleanest car" back in 2002.

    Does anyone have a link to any page that says that? I have googled my tail off trying to confirm or deny that statement, and cannot find a thing either way.

    I would REALLY be interested to know:

    A) if they really declared such, and
    B) what their criteria was.

    I can't for the life of me see how the emissions of a diesel could ever be declared "cleanest in the world."

    Any links or ideas, anyone?
  • I HAD a link, but it's dead. The EU apparently deleted the webpage as "old news".

    As for criteria, the European Union measures all the same values we do (NOx, CO, HC), but they also include CO2, because they are obligated to meet the Kyoto Treaty. And with the Lupo 3L TDI's 90mpg economy, it's CO2 is only *half* as much as a Prius or Civic.

    So the CO2 is likely the reason it won.
  • gagricegagrice San DiegoPosts: 28,679
    Volkswagen claims that the Lupo 3L can actually do better than 3 liters per 100 kilometers of consumption, although we were not able to test this as we were limited to 3 days of in-town driving since the low-sulphur fuel required for this car is not available here and VW only had limited supplies. None-the-less, we never saw less than 68 miles per gallon during all our around town driving - pretty impressive.
  • larsblarsb Posts: 8,204
    I suppose since the 2002 champeenship (unconfirmed) the Lupo fell back into the pack for the EU award in 2003 and 2004?

    So far I have seen NOTHING ANYWHERE on the web that says anything about the EU awarding "worlds cleanest car" to anyone in 2002, 2003, or 2004.

    Did they discontinue the award after 2002?
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Posts: 5,525
    Perhaps the standards have changed now. Although not exactly EU, but Civic Hybrid dubbed the cleanest vehicle in UK. Prius came in second, and Vauxhall Corsa 1.3 CTDi is third. What happened to Lupo?

    Here is a link.
  • larsblarsb Posts: 8,204
    The Lupo is no doubt very clean for a diesel. See this volkswagon PDF file:

    But in all their bragging on the Lupo in that document, they NEVER say anything about it ever being rated "cleanest car in the world" which you know the marketing types who produce reports like this would have jumped all over....
  • gagricegagrice San DiegoPosts: 28,679
    Wolfsburg. Gerhard Plattner, the Austrian journalist and long-distance specialist, has once more entered the Guiness book of records driving a Volkswagen. At the beginning of November, the world champion in economic driving covered a distance of 4,683 kilometres through 20 European countries in a standard Lupo 3L TDI. He achieved his aim of carrying out this journey - which started in Oslo, Norway and finished in The Hague in The Netherlands - with just 100 euros in fuel costs without any problem at all. In fact, all he eventually needed was 90.94 euros, which corresponds to an average consumption of 2.78 litres / 100 km.

    Gerhard Plattner completed his first successful 100 euro eco-tour in August this year. In a standard Polo TDI, he drove 3,129 kilometres through 15 European countries. His average fuel consumption over this distance was just 3.95 litres / 100 kilometres with fuel costs of 90.89 euros.

    Both of these record journeys were by no means carried out at a snail's pace. The average speed of the first eco-tour was 81.69 km/h and the average speed of the Lupo 3L TDI was 80.76 km/h. The eco-tours were accompanied and monitored by independent experts.

    The Volkswagen Lupo 3L TDI was ranked first for the fourth time in a row in the environmental car ranking of the prestigious German institute "Öko-Trend". This repeated success was achieved, alongside the extremely low consumption figures, through low levels of emissions and also the production line which is oriented around ecological aspects.
  • When VW drove the Lupo TDI around the world, they averaged 99 miles per gallon.


    And practical. We're not talking about a 2-seat car here (insight), or something from the Jetsons (the 1 Liter/240 mpg car), but a 4-seat car with styling similar to a Golf/Jetta Wagon and plenty of room for groceries.

This discussion has been closed.