By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
Actually the diehards are well represented in the over 97% gasser passenger fleet.
Anyone here ever seen such a calculation?
I test drove one of the first ones to come to San Diego. They called me every day for weeks trying to get me to buy it at $20k even. I thought it was cool. So quiet and fast enough for most freeway driving. It also came with an 8 year 100k mile Bumper to bumper warranty. The way the salesman presented it was Toyota did not want anyone but their people touching the car. My wife hated the looks and I did not buy.
Do I think it compared favorably with a midsized diesel such as the Passat TDI. Only in town. They do not handle well in any cross wind. And the real killer for me is the added complexity. I believe that will be the achilles heel of all hybrids. The main reason I sold mine.
avoid...the...comparisons...
avoid...the...comparisons...
avoid...the...comparisons...
avoid...the...comparisons...
kcram - Pickups Host
Also manufacturers will have to be very careful or prices when then new diesels are coming up. If they add 2000 USD in top of their best engine...not good. Also OPEC will be watching. It isn't in their best interest for Americans to drive 40+MPG cars and trucks. They would like us to drive Suburbans that only get 10MPG.
The demand is there for diesel cars/trucks, but in my opinion few things can kill it fast.
1. More than 700-1000 USD premium over the gas engine
2. Offering the diesel engine only in the top of the line model ( like Jeep Grand Cherokee, in Limited and Overland only, but not in the cheap Laredo).
2. OPEC getting a bit scared of the newfound popularity of diesel cars and artificially lowering gas prices where gas becomes 1,50/gal and diesel hovering at 2+/gal.
I have said this before in separate posts but allow me to repeat myself in one post so everyone can see it at the same time.
That was info about 2005 when Katrina had hit and everyone was looking for a lower-fuel-use car. That's why certain other types of small efficient cars peaked in sales.
I am talking about diesel demand in the USA for passenger cars RIGHT FLIPPIN NOW - AUGUST 2007. That demand is LOW, and no one has posted anything to conflict with that reality.
Anyone can post studies which show "this might happen" and "we expect this to happen" but that has no reflection on Reality. It's just a supposition, a guesstimate.
There are vehicle desire studies all the time, but they are just calling people and asking them what they think about a subject. That's about as reliable as flipping a coin.
I am shocked that you, Gary, would post a study about future guesstimates and then turn your nose up at Consumer Reports which reports Real Data from Real Owners in the Real World today.
Anyway, my point is and has been that if the DEMAND for diesel passenger cars had been there, the market would have met it headon with more diesel passenger cars.
That is supposedly going to happen in the next couple of years.
But it's not happening right now or in the last 18 months.
There is little doubt that diesel demand will ramp up as more cars become available from other makers besides VW and MB. There is no doubt that Honda should be able to sell 30K-50K a year of those sweet Accord diesels. As more people see more diesel cars available and reasonably priced and not stinky or loud, of course they will sell.
I have been saying that for a while now, WITHOUT the benefit of some call-up study.
OPEC has nothing to do with that. They sell crude, not refined products. The price differentials come from refiners and distributors here in the US... primarily the brand names on the gas station signs.
kcram - Pickups Host
EIA - Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update
On the right side of this page, you'll see the comparison "What We Pay For In A Gallon Of..." - if you do the math, you'll see the price of crude is basically the same for gasoline and diesel.
kcram - Pickups Host
Pollution created at Space Shuttle launch
Space shuttle fuel consumed in a launch: 3.5 million pounds
Gasoline consumed in one day in the US - 2,500 million pounds
In other words, one space shuttle launch is equivalent to about two minutes of gasoline consumption in the United States.
... There MUST be a division of regs between gas and Diesel... Gas <> MORE GHG, less NOx,,,, Diesel <> slightly MORE NOx, less GHG, with a particulate trap for soot.
A barrel of crude has fixed characteristics that yield a certain amount of all the components of the crude based on fractional distillation. For instance, now that Europe is 50% diesel cars, they sell us the unwanted gasoline that is a by-product of their focus on diesel production.
The quality of the crude is the biggest decider in what the yield is from a barrel, hence the term 'light sweet crude' which yields a greater proportion of gas, kerosene and high quality diesel. So OPEC does have an impact depending on the price they attach per quality of crude.
However to support your point, no one really talks about the cost of anything other than light sweet crude.
If we were to be honest, costs of crude are more dependant on the vagaries of the oil futures market which will drive up cost without any actual change in the current market. If a rebel group in Nigeria kidnaps some Chinese engineers, the cost of crude goes up based on the fear of instability and we pay for it at the pump.
(I have posted the link several times on this thread. EIA's "What Is In A Barrel Of Oil" [or some such])
..."If a rebel group in Nigeria kidnaps some Chinese engineers"...
YUP! Let the ChiCom's do the saber rattling. Not only that, they turn out far more engineers than America does!
That's one way to look at it ....
I think I would rather say (and I'm just throwing in estimated numbers) "Transporting 4 men 5 miles in the shuttle is equivalent to transporting 20 million people 2 miles by car"
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
Holding hand out, biting on leather strap.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/08/09/bush.newser.ap/index.html
WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush dismissed Thursday raising the federal gasoline tax to repair the nation's bridges at least until Congress changes the way it spends highway money.
"The way it seems to have worked is that each member on that (Transportation) committee gets to set his or her own priorities first," Bush said. "That's not the right way to prioritize the people's money. Before we raise taxes, which could affect economic growth, I would strongly urge the Congress to examine how they set priorities."
About $24 billion, or 8 percent of the last $286 billion highway bill, was devoted to highway and bridge projects singled out by lawmakers. The balance is sent in the form of grants to states, which then decide how it will be spent.
I am talking about diesel demand in the USA for passenger cars RIGHT FLIPPIN NOW - AUGUST 2007. That demand is LOW, and no one has posted anything to conflict with that reality.
With essentially only one (high-end) manufacturer in the US market providing new diesel passenger cars, I think it's impossible to determine the demand right now.
If the only hybrid cars available today all cost around $50,000 - what would the demand be for that product? Vastly smaller, I would think.
1. News stories talking to people who want to buy diesel cars but cannot.
2. Waiting lists for TDI cars at dealerships.
3. Sales of diesel cars.
It is indeed difficult to gauge at this point. But my contention is that if people were clamoring for diesels, more "frustrated diesel buyers" would be making news, somewhere. There would be a waiting list for diesel cars, somewhere. Sales of available diesel cars would be skyrocketing because of high demand, somewhere.
You see my point? Lack of evidence can in itself be evidence.
This post is actually much better served in the Are heavy vehicles destroying our bridges? discussion, which was created as a result of the Minneapolis bridge collapse. Members are discussing funding/spending right now, as a matter of fact.
kcram - Pickups Host
It is like an oil refiner being told: you need to build NEW refineries. This will suck up investment capital. Also the stated goal is to CUT down your profit! The unsaid and denied is more refinery capacity would make demand even greater (at much less profit) On the other hand governments make more money in the multi leveled taxation marketing scheme!!!?? Now a NEW refinery hasn't been built for at least the last 40 years or 1 generation. We (all levels of regulatory effort) will tie up your application at least 20 years with the litany of every legal and frivolous to illegal methods of litigation with the attending fees and re application fees, studies and re studies etc etc etc ad nauseum. We will also NIMBY you into oblivion, which does NOT need any type of litigation. Fill in the blanks my friend!!??...
How does lack of new refineries tie in with lack of diesel passenger car demand?
The other is if you doubt that the regulatory agencies are NOT steering the issues about diesel passenger car fleet size and percentage, then just get them to issue a legally enforceable statement that until the 2010 implementation of even more stricter diesel emissions standards, they will let any volume of diesel models prior to 2010 standard (euro standards) any oem cares to bring over!
But that cannot possibly be what you mean........
These agencies could give a gosh darn if 50% of the passenger fleet were diesel....as long as those were CLEAN diesels !!
I'm afraid we are just going to have to agree to disagree.
In my world, CARB regulates diesel vehicles in the name of public health concerns and with the idea of controlling pollution, and nothing more.
In your world, there are ulterior and sinister motives.
Never the twain shall meet, I'm afeared........
Why would you say the NOx regs are too strict?
And there is really no division of regs that I know about, because there are no CARB violators in the unleaded side. All unleaded cars made in the USA are for sale in all 50 states.
There have been diesel violators. Once the reg is met, then they no longer violate the regs. Until they meet the regs, they are vehicle non-grata.
It's all in the interest of clean air, reduced smog, and public health my friends. There are no ulterior motives...
Here is a good page with some good information on the diesel programs in CA associated with CARB:
CA leads the way with cleaning up their diesel pollution
And all diesel vehicles under 7000 lbs are banned. They do not have a test for diesel cars is the bottom line. They do not check diesel trucks for emissions. It is easier to just ban them than to come up with all new equipment for testing. It is another good reason to buy a used diesel vehicle and bring it into a CARB state. NO SMOG CHECK. They do not have a test that will work with Hybrids either. So no smog check on hybrids. One of the main reasons the guy that just bought my GMC Hybrid was to get around the SMOG check every other year. Saves money to own a diesel or a hybrid in CA. Not only at the pump but at license time.
So CARB just makes the rules strict enough to keep ahead of the automakers smog control equipment. Oh, your diesel will pass Euro 5 regulations. Not good enough we want it to be cleaner than that. In the mean time they allow dirty filthy gas cars like the Scion xA to be sold in CA. A much dirtier car than the 2007 Blutec being sold in all the other states.
Try to find an emissions rating for any diesel in CA. None there. They have not tested any diesel in CA. The ratings would be better than many gas cars because CA mandated cleaner diesel when they went to low sulfur gas many years ago. When your diesel in AZ was on average 500 PPM sulfur, CA diesel was no higher than 130 PPM Sulfur. We had 15 PPM sulfur diesel more than a year before the rest of the USA. Still no tests to determine just how much a diesel car emits with ULSD.
Whether you like it or not CA does not want diesel cars to invade their state and eat into the cash cow known as gas tax. They tolerate hybrids to appease the tree huggers and Hollywood cronies.
The health risks from diesel exhaust are severe. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) estimates that 70% of the airborne cancer risk in the state is attributable to diesel PM
It cannot be blamed on diesel cars in CA. The number in CA does not even make a blip. No one here has argued that trucks and buses are not big polluters. They are and continue to be. Most of it caused by states like Arizona. Cross country haulers fill their tanks with cheap dirty diesel in AZ and NV then make the trip to LA and back without ever buying any clean diesel in our state. All the regs have done is put CA truckers out of business. They do not stop out of state or out of the country trucks to make sure they comply with lower sulfur diesel mandate. Hundreds of diesel trucks a day come up from Mexico. Do you think they are getting ULSD for 85 cents a gallon down there?
The regulations are so lopsided, and you think that CARB knows what they are doing. I guess you are right we will just have to disagree.
Indeed I have read in other articles; most (if not all) existing domiciled equipment are exempt till a min of 2025!! How disingenuous is that? Well, even that has a loop hole!? License them out of state and give the out of state shell that owns them, the contract to use out of state equipment!! DUH! Can we even spell the reason? ECONOMIC !!!??? Not that this is not a good reason. But it is an IDIOTIC reason to ban or limit, mitigated ULSD passenger diesels!!!??? The nexus here being the 20-40% fuel SAVINGS!!?? Or if folks don't remember, the point of the whole exercise is to USE LESS FUEL!!?? The article clearly points out the problem is NOT the mitigated and low percentage and volume passenger vehicle fleet using ULSD.
So really, dirty diesel UNMITIGATED and those diesels authorized to use greater than 500 ppm higher sulfur diesel: from bunk fuel @ 3000 ppm and greater content, the cruise ships down to the diesel school busses that transports YOUR children every day!! They in effect are allowed carte blanche (when it truly meant something) Not the mitigated diesel passenger vehicle fleet that uses ULSD!!!
Consider
..."In fact, while heavy-duty engines account for only 5% of California’s vehicles, they produce approximately 40% of the state’s NOx emissions.1"...
So assuming this is true, and to project: that the other 60% is caused by the passenger vehicle fleet of which LESS than 3% is MITIGATED diesel and ULSD, the current diesel fleet puts out AT MOST .018% of the states NOx emissions. This means most NOx comes from the (greater than 97%)gasser fleet!!!! Now since the study was NOT conducted (with the less than 3% of the diesel passenger) vehicle fleet using ULSD, .018% is wildly optimistic (or pessimistic in truth)! Indeed (again as a MAXIMUM) it is (140 ppm/15 ppm)= 9.333 X LESS. Or .0019285 % of the states NOx. !!! This is WAY less than one/half of 1 percent of NOx. Indeed it is not even measurable, let alone statistically significant!!!!
I also look forward to more diesel models!!
... ergo, CARB, EPA, and EURO should allow a little more GHG from the gasoline engines and a little more NOx from the Diesels.
as for demand for new diesel cars in CA, i think it's pointless to argue about it when such sales are prohibited - the market can't really be known.
how is a 99 flex fuel PU greener than a hybrid GMC pickup? biodiesel?! you already get to park up front at the hollywood parties with that hybrid pickup don't you?
... I am saying that: particulate trap, VIP Google level electronic fueling algorithms, the Modern Marvel common rail fuel injection, advanced turbos, low or no sulphur fuels, and one cat are ENOUGH, anything beyond this, that causes a loss of efficiency (more GHG ) is a BUREAUCRATIC BLUNDER.
As far as I know the E320 CDI for 2005-06 are the old inline 3.2L 6 cylinder with cast iron block. A well proven engine. It would run fine on the older high sulfur diesel. The newer 3.0L V6 will only run on ULSD. I believe all 2007 models are the V6 and called blutec. All the E, GL, ML & R models use the same 3.0L V6 engine with 7 speed transmission.
I do not think they have added the urea injection in any of the models we are getting in the states. I think MB is waiting for approval by CARB for the process. There will be no reason to add it if CARB will not give in on the 150k no maintenance issue.
Of the 8 people reporting their mileage on the EPA site the 2006 E320 CDI is averaging 33.2 MPG. That is 6 MPG better than the EPA rating. Nearly 20% better than it is rated. So it sounds like their new EPA rating system is FAR from fixed. I really doubt they have tested any diesels. They just made up a formula with one size fits all.
I should note the newer blutec engine puts out more GHG than the older one. I think somewhere the regulators are going to have to decide which is more important. Squeaky clean emissions or lower fuel consumption and less CO2. We have gone through this in the 1980s. There were several vehicles getting 50 MPG and they got so loaded down they lost their fuel economy. We could argue all day that it was all important STUFF. I just disagree that's all.
First, the EPA absolutely did not "make up a formula with one size fits all."
Let me say this again so maybe you will finally understand it:
Even if the EPA itself does not test CAR ONE, EVER AGAIN, the cars ARE TESTED BY THE MANUFACTURER using the EPA test specs !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
So regardless of if the EPA has tested a diesel car, the MB diesels have been given EPA "estimate" tests in a Mercedes Benz temperature-controlled laboratory using the EPA test protocol.
And it's OBVIOUSLY a more accurate test than the old test. But THERE IS NO TEST which can ever be created which will completely match all the car mileage in the Real World. There are just too many factors involved.
Getting a new, better test which uses the A/C and more realistic highway speeds is a BIG STEP FORWARD for the EPA.
And remember too: The diesels will do better on the EPA test because of how well they perform (fuel efficiency-wise) at higher highway speeds. So most new diesel cars will beat the new EPA test in the Real World is my guess.
So for example on the 2003 Jetta TDI the sticker does indeed say 42/49 EPA. So except for the values, this is and so is the following, PURE BOILER PLATE! This boiler plate is literally the same on every new car sticker. (i.e., BOILER PLATE?!) It also goes on to say:
"Actual Mileage will vary with options driving conditions,driving habits and vehicle condition. Results REPORTED (all caps,bold, larger font, my sic) to EPA indicate that the majority of vehicles with these estimates will achieve between 35 and 49 mpg in the city
and between
41 and 57 mpg on the highway"...
So for a practical example, what about a range of 35 mpg to 57 mpg don't you understand? Also the majority of vehicles will report between 35 and 49 mpg? This is with a standardized EPA test protocol wiht a rating of 42/49.
You really need to explain what you don't understand about not understanding, what is pretty easily understood. Since you posted the post about EPA protocoled tests and the fact that manufacturers' are the one that ACTUALLY do the tests!!??
Now if this ("I really have no idea what you are talking about") is the basis for disagreement, then while I respect that you have an opinion based on this, BUT it is pretty weak indeed.
"Critical parts of you post are almost a gross misreading or misuse of the new car sticker on each and every new car! You need to get off of the deer FROZEN by the headlamps approach!"
I said nothing to incite such a reprimand.
All I did was defend the new EPA test.
What does defending the EPA test have to do with a deer frozen in the headlamps?
I am sure the trial lawyers will be able to manufacture new and innovative ways to milk more money out of this change. Perhaps I am just jealous I am not getting 33% of 500 milllion dollars! While this is good for them (upwards of 33% of the judgment, tax free) it hardly does anything to/for the typical consumer. The Jetta (or any other vehicle for that matter) will still get 62 mpg if I drive like a grand father. I still will get 46 mpg in San Francisco rush hour traffic. I will still get 48 mpg for 584 miles (12.1 gals) in 6.25 hours. I will still get 48-52 mpg in a daily commute.
I removes false expectations, which in the past has lead to silly things like car buyers suing automakers for "false advertising."
It allows a consumer to more realistically gauge how much money they are going to need to budget for gas money, which in today's world is a BIG DEAL for most families.
For those two reasons, all the extra things you mentioned (I have heard nothing about it being related to lawsuits or political reasons) are worth it.
First, the EPA absolutely did not "make up a formula with one size fits all."
I suggest you go to the following site and click on the "convert old mileage to new". The tests have always been low for diesel cars. Yet with the new tests they drop diesel ratings even lower. So the new tests are not accurate and they are done by a formula for all existing cars. Further muddying an already worthless program. The MFG should be responsible for stating mileage and liable if they are lying.
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/ratings2008.shtml
I know you have read the test procedures. They are mostly done by the MFG on preproduction vehicles.
Not a formula for testing NEW CARS.
There is a difference, and I know you knew what I meant.
P.S. if you want to keep talking about this, take it to the New EPA Test forum and I'll respond there.
Indeed I look forward to the 7th year where the first "Smog Only" test is usually due, being has how the TDI has been exempt. This has a double benefit in that the test is TOTALLY unnecessary and cost app 70-100 dollars to boot. At 3 dollar #2 diesel per gal and 50 mpg that is UP to an extra 1667 miles of commute travel.