I would be tickled getting 750 miles on a tank of diesel. When traveling cross country it gives you the option to find the best price. With my gas hog Sequoia, when I hit 300 miles I am looking for a station with cheap gas. I have no doubt I could get twice the mileage with a full size diesel SUV. Those two Taylors keep setting the bar higher and higher. I don't see anyone else or any brand in that league.
Chattanooga is proud of their record car being built there.
Those two and the 2.0 L TDI just keep getting better and better. It is also interesting in that the engine for the Passat TDI is the same for the Jetta TDI which they set a couple of earlier records @ 58 mpg and 60 something mpg with GY fuel saving tires. Imagine 84.1 mpg ! Maybe I should start doing 60 mph !! I might be able to top my personal best of 62 mpg. NAH ! I am having way too much fun !
I never have seen a clarification as to why with a similar TDI engine and MORE weight (+199 #'s 3360-3161) they were able to get 84 + mph vs the earlier 58/60 something. I think this speaks well of the 6 speed manual transmission. I suspect they did both earlier records with the DSG. Again even as the DSG's EPA H is the same, the 6 speed manual is probably the best match for a diesel. It seems to have much wider mpg RANGE. I know this is very true for the 5 speed manual.
I can't make it past 50 miles any more, although I hit a lot of rest areas before I'll hit a service station. Unless I need coffee, which is most of the time, and even then it's often Mickey Dees.
And now you know why I can't make it past 50 miles anyway. :P
Looks like the writer of the FreePress article has been reading us:
"Diesel fuel sells for more than gasoline. In Chattanooga on Monday, diesel sold for an average of $3.95 a gallon compared to $3.56 for regular unleaded gasoline, according to AAA’s Fuel Gauge Report.
Also, the diesel Passat costs more than a comparative gas-engine model. According to VW, the TDI SE model sells for $25,995 while a gas-burning SE goes for $23,725."
I don't mind stopping at McDees for a potty break and a Raspberry Ice Tea. I just hate having to find a gas station every 300-350 miles. That was nice with the MB Cruiser. I was averaging about 500 miles per day, and filling one time in the evening or morning. A Motorhome getting 25 MPG cruising at 70 MPH across TX. A much smaller Sequoia getting maybe 17 MPG cruising at 70 MPH. That is why diesel makes sense. Has nothing to do with the losers in the EPA that could not estimate mileage if their lives depended on it. They are a $9 billion per year cancer on our country. The only thing they and CARB have done is keep the gas taxes flowing in.
By the way the Taylors were able to eek out 64.62 MPG from a Cruze Eco last Summer. World record for a gas non hybrid vehicle. EPA rated it at 42, in reality it is 20 MPG less than the Much bigger more powerful Passat TDI they rated at 43 MPG. .
The other benefit is that if you on a road trip and only have to fill up every other day, you are less likely to spill diesel on your shoes and have to smell it all day. Or week. :shades:
Yeah, maybe. I guess it depends on how its packaged. Mild hybridization is what? $1500? And diesels are a crapshoot. The Benz GL diesel is actually cheaper than the gasser, for instance. Go figure. I think the advanced gasser engines are, of course, driving up cost and pushing them much closer to diesel engine costs (total guess on my part).
'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
There almost can be no doubt that the age of lazy gasser engines and transmission combinations have been put on eviction notice. We even hear of hosts talk about it. The gargantuan task is to MATCH the app minimum 30% diesel advantage.
Diesel engineers as one can surmise, also have to looki for ways to make diesels even more efficient. The ubiquitous slush box A/T has to buck up or face literal death. Even VW went to a more fuel efficient, albeit more expensive DSG. As most folks know, the DSG is not a slush box, but a dual clutch manual: automatic.
I was shocked to hear that a relative paid 34k (not including tax) for a level IV Prius @ a "discount" warehouse car buying service no less. He was happiest with the technological do dahs ! My expectation was for the price to go down, given the cheer leading we have heard about hybrids on various threads. Fuel mileage is 41 mpg on a car rated for 51 C/ 48 H ?
We were trading car stories and he asked what the Jetta TDI did mpg wise. GEEZ I didn't have the heart to even say and for 11,000 cheaper. :sick: I truly just bit my tongue. I didn't even go to the Passat TDI SEL @ 26k MSRP posting H EPA 43 mpg? I think either (FYI) would have taken the edge off the new car experience. Then to hear about 84.2 mpg? That would have definitely taken the wind out of the sails.
I agree--- a hybrid diesel doesn't make too much sense, either economically or in terms of how it performs. Electric motors already give you all the torque you could ever want at very low RPMs, so the diesel engine merely replicates that.
Its not the torque we're after, but the efficiency, correct? Seems to me diesel/hybrid is the answer to all since diesel runs at incredible efficiency when at cruising speed and electric takes care of the around town stuff.
Theoretically hydridization adds 15% efficiency, yes? So take a 40mpg diesel and hydridize it for 46mpg.
I think maybe the real problem is the law of diminishing returns. In this case, you're "only" saving 50 gallons of gas/yr. That's a LONG time to recoup just that $1500 extra for the added electric equipment.
But, hell, that argument has stopped people from paying for the technology so far.
'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
I know this is sort of off topic, but I did get a real close look at the V6 gasser (PUG) supercharged hybrid VW Touareg while looking @ the TDI. You guys are making want to go back to the dealer to waste his time on a hybrid test drive. The combination (strictly my swag/op/ed) are the problems solutions appeals to a VERY niche market, albeit SMALL, literally a hand full of individuals. Someone that wants a V6 gasser with a (stealth) V8 performance, ok 380 hp on TAP (supercharge puts 100 hp at the trigger). Better than V6 mpg performance. OK,... 1 mpg better at 24, Giddy UP and went. 428 # ft of torque. And is willing to pay 11 to 13k over gasser and diesel options.
The result is that the FED Bravo prototype is twice as fuel-efficient as the traditional diesel Humvee whose duties it is designed to take on. The Army says it achieves 8.2 mpg in city usage and 14.2 mpg on the highway, versus the 3 to 6 mpg delivered by a Humvee.
The problem, as mentioned before, is getting the COST down to where it makes sense that people will BUY them.
Not only does a diesel hybrid add considerable cost, but you're right, it adds considerable complexity. So in addition to needlessly replicating the diesel's low end torque with expensive electronics that it doesn't need, the diesel hybrid takes away from one of the diesel's main selling points (be it real or perceived) --that it is 'simpler' to maintain.
I think the advanced gasser engines are, of course, driving up cost and pushing them much closer to diesel engine costs (total guess on my part).
I think the Ford Eco-Boost engines are more costly than a more efficient diesel would be. Just easier to get past the EPA/CARB. My understanding is Eco boost will give you more power or better MPG. Not both at the same time as does diesel.
VW/Audi being the leaders in racing diesels, have just entered a diesel hybrid for LeMans.
I don't think so. The gas engine is more complex in may cases. The more parts the higher the cost, the more labor to manufacture. In the EU where they sell more diesel vehicles, the economy of scale is in favor of the diesel engine.
The F150 with Eco boost V6 the price is $2000 more than the standard V6 and $1000 more than a V8. I cannot find mileage figures at the EPA for the EcoBoost Fords.
Only what it would take for YOU to buy a diesel car.
Fair comment, and the simple answer is that for me it would take an enormous drop in the cost of diesel fuel, since around here it carries a significant premium.
The irony is I found gas close by for $3.859 but that station does not have diesel, so for me it's still $4.399 or drive 10.8 miles to find relatively cheap diesel.
I was shocked to hear that a relative paid 34k (not including tax) for a level IV Prius a "discount" warehouse car buying service no less. He was happiest with the technological do dahs ! My expectation was for the price to go down, given the cheer leading we have heard about hybrids on various threads. Fuel mileage is 41 mpg on a car rated for 51 C/ 48 H ?
If this isn't a hybrid thread, and I'm not allowed to talk about them, then why can you attack them like this? Total double standard.
First off, he got ripped off, if that price is even correct. You can get a no-haggle price of $26k with Navi and Entune. $34k is ridiculous.
Out of 51 Prius in stock at fitzmall the most expensive one is $31.8k, so you'd have to be incredibly naive to pay $34k. Remember that's no haggle and the price includes freight.
Plus mileage on fueleconomy.gov is over 50.
So can we clarify the rules? Hybrid talk is not OK, unless it's critical and unfair? Gimme a break.
Not only does a diesel hybrid add considerable cost, but you're right, it adds considerable complexity
I think a diesel with start/stop would be a good compromise. Not too much cost but it would get those city numbers way up.
Remember, most driving is done in the city.
Yes, it's nice that a couple drove across the country on one tank of gas, but most of us will never do that, yet we all commute 5 round trips per week, probably 48 to 50 weeks a year.
Roads trips happen the other 2-4 weeks.
Hence the start-stop idea for the more common driving we do day in day out, which would pay off big dividends.
And you left out the majority (75% of the paragraphs) of the post which talked SPECIFICALLY of TDI's because? And you didn't say anything about diesels because?
You don't need a break, just stay on the diesel topic. Want to talk about hybrids? Start a hybrid thread and hang out there.
For my taste in vehicles the gas versions all require premium. Right today in San Diego, on average premium is 10 cents more than diesel. I have to drive 13 miles to get cheap gas at Costco. Plus only going to fill-up half as often is a big plus for me. If I buy the ML350 BlueTec it will only be used on vacations. That is part of the reason it is hard to justify buying. Our Sequoia is almost 5 years old and just over 25,000 miles. Still has over 2 years on the Platinum B to B warranty.
Unlike Michigan the gas stations here offer a plastic glove to keep your hands clean when pumping diesel.
I think my dream vacation boat would be that MB "Sprinter" CDI, outfitted in the camper configuration. Your 25 mpg turbo diesel floating down the highway is really the cat's meow. Could you run an A/C or heater as the case may be, when parked?
let's just say you can get alternatives for mid 20s.
I can get alternatives for city use under $1000. So that is not relevant to what it would take to buy a diesel. For a person that wants a diesel there is NO GOOD ALTERNATIVE. Why is that so hard for people to understand. That brought me to Edmund's in 1998 and keeps my coming back in hopes that the USA someday considers the waste of fossil fuel important enough to sell small diesel PU trucks and SUVs. I don't find that unreasonable wanting a PU truck that gets 35-40 MPG instead of 15-20 MPG. Ford and Toyota build them and sell them everywhere but here.
it's all about air quality. Diesels are still playing catch-up because they have *different* barriers to overcome than gas engines. They are getting real good at reducing CO2 per mile driven but they still have to deal with particulate issues.
Also, given that it takes more oil to make a gallon of diesel fuel, ( I read somewhere about 25% more?) when we do comparisons on energy efficiency, we should include an 'energy equivalency".
In other words, that gallon of diesel fuel you burn cost more in resources.
The actual procedures lead me to be believe, ... I don't think so. Mandatory @ and every 2 year TDI CA smog checks consist of visual inspection under the hood and the so called visual smoke test. In addition I had to take a 2009 TDI for a mandatory smog test in 2010. The technician owner that did my then 8 year old TDI said almost in a mantra like state: that all diesels smoke, all diesels smoke,.... OMH MMMMMMM..... So when he did the so called smoke test with absolutely NO smoke 7 times. I became concerned, as he took it to redline 7 times. I don't even take it to red line. So I asked him: is the smoke test supposed to be done 7 times and to redline? He said no, only once and redline is not required. So naturally I asked the question, so why did you do it 7 times? I think he was embarrassed or maybe pissed, so the answer was a bit hesitant. He simply said after a while, it didn't smoke. :sick: It actually gets better than that. Before my test, I had seen a gasser that "smoked and smoked badly and it passed the computerized test with flying colors. So did the one that I stayed after mine was finished. Gassers are not taken to redline but to something like 2,500 rpm.
Needless to say CA standards are the STRICTEST in the US. Diesels are NOT hooked up to a computerized smog tester. Even if it were, there is not doubt it would test as a new car (gasser) would. Total and absolute waste of time and resources and dollars.
California diesel emissions are NO PROBLEM for most diesel owners. Casting California as some incredible obstacle for a diesel car is simply not true.
Emissions testing isn't to test cars in good shape--they are designed to catch cars in bad shape. So obviously your car was in good shape.
I don't really think a smog technician cares whether you pass or not. You should be thankful he wasn't very familiar with diesels.
No stock diesel vehicle built after 1998 should have ANY trouble passing the California diesel emission test. The ones that do have trouble are the ones who have modified their engines and have failed to disguise same---either by adding on conspicuously radical equipment, or by not dialing back the power with their driver-controlled tuning devices.
So no diesel owner should fear the California emission test---most diesels breeze through it.
Also California does not direct diesel cars to diesel-specific smog stations, giving them an even better chance of passing. So CARB is either not the diesel owner's boogey man, or they are really lousy conspirators. :P
If CARB wanted to bust your...pistons...they'd force you to go to a dealer-specific smog station, where they'd be sure to catch any modifications.
But regular smog stations have little experience with diesels--you could probably get away with quite a lot without hardly trying.
Also, given that it takes more oil to make a gallon of diesel fuel, ( I read somewhere about 25% more?) when we do comparisons on energy efficiency, we should include an 'energy equivalency".
In other words, that gallon of diesel fuel you burn cost more in resources.
I would love to see that study. So you are saying the Oil Companies out of the goodness of their hearts are selling diesel at below their cost? From what I know working around oil production for 25 years, distillates are the easiest part of the refinement process. In fact some crude oil coming out of the ground in the Arctic will run fine in a diesel truck or generator.
on the commodity market heating oil which is diesel and will run in most diesel engines that do not require ULSD is now cheaper than gasoline, which also needs special treatments depending on where it is sold.
Yes diesel has more energy per gallon than gas. I cannot believe it takes more to refine than gasoline.
Carrying your argument to the conclusion. We would outlaw all gasoline and diesel engines and only allow Natural Gas as that is cleaner than any gas or diesel engine or combination with electric. I think they have pushed small diesel engines in the USA beyond the point of diminishing returns.
You have pointed out both fallacies of the CA emissions test for diesels. One most vehicles newer than 1998 have decent smog equipment. Two most smog check station operators are clueless on testing diesels, which makes it subjective and possible to get screwed with a clean burning engine.
Even with testing gas engines I learned the hard way. I took our old Mazda down the street to a smog test only station. Less than a mile from home. It failed some test and I had to take it to a repair and test facility about 10 miles away. It passed fine with no work after a 10 mile drive. I paid double for that mistake on my part. And the lousy CA system.
that's not what I said though. i said we should look at energy equivalency. You are presuming I think, that my position is adversarial.
You are talking about comparisons from the fuel pump (how many gallons of diesel do you buy vs. how many gallons of gasoline I buy) in order to calculate the cost to drive.
By adding energy equivalency into the equation, we are then also measuring the *supply chain* in entirety.
Now, some people may claim, and rightly argue, that when it comes to basic consumer information, or EPA numbers, that judging the supply chain has no place.
But the yield is, in fact, different for gasoline and diesel.
Right now, a barrel of oil (42 gallons) can make either 19.2 gallons of gasoline or about 10 gallons of diesel, says the EIA, and then should know.
Really YOUR first paragraph is the whole point, Diesel emissions PDVF are NOT a problem in CA. They just do it for REVENUE., implying that it IS a problem. Are there some problem children? Absolutely. The first time a jacked up 500 hp 1000# ft of torque diesel or OTHERWISE truck spewing smoke trails and is called in, they should schedule a smog only test right then and there. Keep in mind they still charge money for so called in lieu of a yearly smog test YEARLY.
Right, so I guess they tested a 1 year old TDI because they thought it probably was not in good shape? Preposterous !! REVENUE x 7 is the rule !
He was familiar as he needed to be under the law. He actually went to very extensive diesel smog testing classes.
"California diesel emissions are NO PROBLEM for most diesel owners. Casting California as some incredible obstacle for a diesel car is simply not true. "
California emissions STANDARDS are the problem. California has a unique geography, a big valley, that could be argued necessitates unique emissions levels. However, some very populous states have decided to adopt the same standards as CA, without having the same unique need. Since these ~ 10 states represent about half the US population, car manufacturers won't sell a diesel here unless it meets both the federal and CA standards. NOx is the problem, not particulates.
"Diesels are still playing catch-up because they have *different* barriers to overcome than gas engines. They are getting real good at reducing CO2 per mile driven but they still have to deal with particulate issues."
Particulates are at least controlled in diesel vehicles. Particulates have, to date, been uncontrolled in Stoich SI engines, because particulates volumes have historically been low for that technology. However, DI changes that. A 2012 diesel with particulate control emits far fewer particulates than a 2012 DI gasoline engine, which has no mechanism for trapping or eliminating particulates. Like 10-20 times fewer by mass on an FTP cycle. Fewer than a PFI LEV II gasoline engine, in fact, according to a 2010 CARB report. Again NOx is the sticking point for diesels, and perhaps we're being too stringent with that (CA's central valley notwithstanding).
"Right now, a barrel of oil (42 gallons) can make either 19.2 gallons of gasoline or about 10 gallons of diesel, says the EIA, and then should know. "
Key phrase, 'right now'. Over a 100 yrs timeframe, refineries have been optimized to maximize gasoline output. It doesn't have to be that way. We've seen the History Channel program that explained that when we first started refining, the focus was distillates (like diesel), and not knowing what to do with the gasoline, they dumped it.
Actually I have covered a lot of what you have posted in other posts and in slightly different contexts. I say be careful what is wished for. Indeed there are not particulate filters for "gassers". The current emissions systems are not specified to cut down ethanol (10% mandate) emissions !! Indeed diesels emit far less particulate matter than gassers. So by all rights, "fairness" and scope of the so called problem all gassers should get particulate filters just like diesels are mandated. After market fittings should add 3k per car and then new car manufacturers should be app 2k. Brave new world when the shoe is on the other foot, eh?
Yes. I am not sure why CA gets the lead dog role over the Fed EPA. When you look at the passenger vehicle fleet, it is app 24 M cars. Now the US PVF is 258.8 M (NHTSA 2009 figures) so CA is only 9.2% of the PVF. Diesels @5% of the PVF is 12.94 M DPVF.
Again this is a SWAG, but if diesels are NORMALLY distributed in the over all PVF, statistics hold then CA should have app 1.2 M diesels (5% of 24 M PVF) . When you factor that 60% are so called light trucks, CAR diesels are less than .480 k or 480,000. CA counties acknowledge that most of the so called extra pollution is done by 5% of scofflaw smokers who are ALL GASSERS.
"Indeed there are not particulate filters for "gassers". Indeed diesels emit far less particulate matter than gassers."
You have anything to back that up? It doesn't sounds right to me.
California emissions standards aren't for revenue---again, that's a conspiracy theory---california standards are to control our sometimes horrible air quality problems. We aren't making this up. :P
As for some states adopting standards which are stricter than they need for that state---this is undoubtedly true, but it's better than playing catch-up.
If you don't get ahead of the game in emissions standards, you'll soon be so far behind it'll take decades to catch up.
Los Angeles is a perfect example. Without emissions standards in place, I could see that city going back to the worst air quality in America in a year or two.
Diesel emissions standards are just part of the larger picture. There's no conspiracy against diesels. Someday, even jet skis and lawn mowers will have to comply....maybe even cows, I don't know.
Again, there are NO conspiracies. This ignorance (as in ignored on purpose) is TOTALLY and completely LEGAL !! To boot no one or entity has been convicted of conspiracy !!!!! You are making up the lift the rug and the cockroaches will scurry about tale. They scurry about in PLAIN SIGHT !!! :P
Goes way back. California was the first state to enforce any kind of emissions regs as I recall---back in 1966 (?). Detroit fought it tooth and nail of course.
California is now in the forefront to combat global warming and develop substantial sources of renewable energy. This time the oil industry fought them tooth and nail, in a 2010 ballot initiative, and they lost, too.
California doesn't always get it right, but they usually lead the way.
Given the massive automobile market in CALIF, the automakers have to pay attention.
I really have no context of what 24 M vehicles or 9.2% of the PVF market means. To me, the math indicates that 90.8% of the PVF market is ELSE WHERE, aka @ least 49 other states. I guess the oems just want the "cattle brand": CA approved, so to speak.
The enviro cons (CA) and the auto industry AND auto unions (Michigan) are thick as fleas, aka ACTIVE in same (democratic) party. Perhaps they wanted the distance between the two states as a proper (in the British style) fence. The principle here being good fences make good neighbors.
Comments
Chattanooga is proud of their record car being built there.
http://timesfreepress.com/news/2012/may/08/chattanooga-made-vw-passat-sets-milea- ge-record/
I never have seen a clarification as to why with a similar TDI engine and MORE weight (+199 #'s 3360-3161) they were able to get 84 + mph vs the earlier 58/60 something. I think this speaks well of the 6 speed manual transmission. I suspect they did both earlier records with the DSG. Again even as the DSG's EPA H is the same, the 6 speed manual is probably the best match for a diesel. It seems to have much wider mpg RANGE. I know this is very true for the 5 speed manual.
Couldn't have said it better myself.
And now you know why I can't make it past 50 miles anyway. :P
Looks like the writer of the FreePress article has been reading us:
"Diesel fuel sells for more than gasoline. In Chattanooga on Monday, diesel sold for an average of $3.95 a gallon compared to $3.56 for regular unleaded gasoline, according to AAA’s Fuel Gauge Report.
Also, the diesel Passat costs more than a comparative gas-engine model. According to VW, the TDI SE model sells for $25,995 while a gas-burning SE goes for $23,725."
You know you can IV that coffee
By the way the Taylors were able to eek out 64.62 MPG from a Cruze Eco last Summer. World record for a gas non hybrid vehicle. EPA rated it at 42, in reality it is 20 MPG less than the Much bigger more powerful Passat TDI they rated at 43 MPG. .
I do like stopping at Flying Js.
'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
'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
Diesel engineers as one can surmise, also have to looki for ways to make diesels even more efficient. The ubiquitous slush box A/T has to buck up or face literal death. Even VW went to a more fuel efficient, albeit more expensive DSG. As most folks know, the DSG is not a slush box, but a dual clutch manual: automatic.
I was shocked to hear that a relative paid 34k (not including tax) for a level IV Prius @ a "discount" warehouse car buying service no less. He was happiest with the technological do dahs ! My expectation was for the price to go down, given the cheer leading we have heard about hybrids on various threads. Fuel mileage is 41 mpg on a car rated for 51 C/ 48 H ?
We were trading car stories and he asked what the Jetta TDI did mpg wise. GEEZ I didn't have the heart to even say and for 11,000 cheaper. :sick: I truly just bit my tongue. I didn't even go to the Passat TDI SEL @ 26k MSRP posting H EPA 43 mpg? I think either (FYI) would have taken the edge off the new car experience. Then to hear about 84.2 mpg? That would have definitely taken the wind out of the sails.
Seems to me diesel/hybrid is the answer to all since diesel runs at incredible efficiency when at cruising speed and electric takes care of the around town stuff.
Theoretically hydridization adds 15% efficiency, yes? So take a 40mpg diesel and hydridize it for 46mpg.
I think maybe the real problem is the law of diminishing returns. In this case, you're "only" saving 50 gallons of gas/yr. That's a LONG time to recoup just that $1500 extra for the added electric equipment.
But, hell, that argument has stopped people from paying for the technology so far.
'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
MPG.
Gasoline hybrids can't match it.
Straight diesels can't match it.
EVs can sometimes match it, but then there is the "range" problem.
A Volt with a diesel generator versus the gasoline generator onboard might add a few MPG and would not likely add significant costs.
Diesel Hybrid Humvee:
http://www.foxnews.com/leisure/2012/05/07/fed-bravo-is-hybrid-vision-next-humvee- /
The result is that the FED Bravo prototype is twice as fuel-efficient as the traditional diesel Humvee whose duties it is designed to take on. The Army says it achieves 8.2 mpg in city usage and 14.2 mpg on the highway, versus the 3 to 6 mpg delivered by a Humvee.
The problem, as mentioned before, is getting the COST down to where it makes sense that people will BUY them.
sounds like a lose/lose situation to me.
I think the Ford Eco-Boost engines are more costly than a more efficient diesel would be. Just easier to get past the EPA/CARB. My understanding is Eco boost will give you more power or better MPG. Not both at the same time as does diesel.
VW/Audi being the leaders in racing diesels, have just entered a diesel hybrid for LeMans.
http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-13746_7-57428329-48/audi-to-field-first-diesel-hybr- id-at-le-mans/
it costs a staggering sum of money to develop a new engine for a new market.
The F150 with Eco boost V6 the price is $2000 more than the standard V6 and $1000 more than a V8. I cannot find mileage figures at the EPA for the EcoBoost Fords.
Fair comment, and the simple answer is that for me it would take an enormous drop in the cost of diesel fuel, since around here it carries a significant premium.
The irony is I found gas close by for $3.859 but that station does not have diesel, so for me it's still $4.399 or drive 10.8 miles to find relatively cheap diesel.
That's what it would take. :shades:
If this isn't a hybrid thread, and I'm not allowed to talk about them, then why can you attack them like this? Total double standard.
First off, he got ripped off, if that price is even correct. You can get a no-haggle price of $26k with Navi and Entune. $34k is ridiculous.
Out of 51 Prius in stock at fitzmall the most expensive one is $31.8k, so you'd have to be incredibly naive to pay $34k. Remember that's no haggle and the price includes freight.
Plus mileage on fueleconomy.gov is over 50.
So can we clarify the rules? Hybrid talk is not OK, unless it's critical and unfair? Gimme a break.
I think a diesel with start/stop would be a good compromise. Not too much cost but it would get those city numbers way up.
Remember, most driving is done in the city.
Yes, it's nice that a couple drove across the country on one tank of gas, but most of us will never do that, yet we all commute 5 round trips per week, probably 48 to 50 weeks a year.
Roads trips happen the other 2-4 weeks.
Hence the start-stop idea for the more common driving we do day in day out, which would pay off big dividends.
You don't need a break, just stay on the diesel topic. Want to talk about hybrids? Start a hybrid thread and hang out there.
MSG#5535 is dead bang on .
Now if you quit being childish we can get back to diesels.
No more cheap shots at hybrids, k?
I looked and didn't find anything close to a price advantage for diesels.
TDI anything with DSG and Navi runs very high 20s. You can get a better price with a ... let's just say you can get alternatives for mid 20s.
Unlike Michigan the gas stations here offer a plastic glove to keep your hands clean when pumping diesel.
I can get alternatives for city use under $1000. So that is not relevant to what it would take to buy a diesel. For a person that wants a diesel there is NO GOOD ALTERNATIVE. Why is that so hard for people to understand. That brought me to Edmund's in 1998 and keeps my coming back in hopes that the USA someday considers the waste of fossil fuel important enough to sell small diesel PU trucks and SUVs. I don't find that unreasonable wanting a PU truck that gets 35-40 MPG instead of 15-20 MPG. Ford and Toyota build them and sell them everywhere but here.
Here's your city alternative.
Also, given that it takes more oil to make a gallon of diesel fuel, ( I read somewhere about 25% more?) when we do comparisons on energy efficiency, we should include an 'energy equivalency".
In other words, that gallon of diesel fuel you burn cost more in resources.
Needless to say CA standards are the STRICTEST in the US.
Emissions testing isn't to test cars in good shape--they are designed to catch cars in bad shape. So obviously your car was in good shape.
I don't really think a smog technician cares whether you pass or not. You should be thankful he wasn't very familiar with diesels.
No stock diesel vehicle built after 1998 should have ANY trouble passing the California diesel emission test. The ones that do have trouble are the ones who have modified their engines and have failed to disguise same---either by adding on conspicuously radical equipment, or by not dialing back the power with their driver-controlled tuning devices.
So no diesel owner should fear the California emission test---most diesels breeze through it.
Also California does not direct diesel cars to diesel-specific smog stations, giving them an even better chance of passing. So CARB is either not the diesel owner's boogey man, or they are really lousy conspirators. :P
If CARB wanted to bust your...pistons...they'd force you to go to a dealer-specific smog station, where they'd be sure to catch any modifications.
But regular smog stations have little experience with diesels--you could probably get away with quite a lot without hardly trying.
In other words, that gallon of diesel fuel you burn cost more in resources.
I would love to see that study. So you are saying the Oil Companies out of the goodness of their hearts are selling diesel at below their cost? From what I know working around oil production for 25 years, distillates are the easiest part of the refinement process. In fact some crude oil coming out of the ground in the Arctic will run fine in a diesel truck or generator.
on the commodity market heating oil which is diesel and will run in most diesel engines that do not require ULSD is now cheaper than gasoline, which also needs special treatments depending on where it is sold.
Yes diesel has more energy per gallon than gas. I cannot believe it takes more to refine than gasoline.
Carrying your argument to the conclusion. We would outlaw all gasoline and diesel engines and only allow Natural Gas as that is cleaner than any gas or diesel engine or combination with electric. I think they have pushed small diesel engines in the USA beyond the point of diminishing returns.
Even with testing gas engines I learned the hard way. I took our old Mazda down the street to a smog test only station. Less than a mile from home. It failed some test and I had to take it to a repair and test facility about 10 miles away. It passed fine with no work after a 10 mile drive. I paid double for that mistake on my part. And the lousy CA system.
You are talking about comparisons from the fuel pump (how many gallons of diesel do you buy vs. how many gallons of gasoline I buy) in order to calculate the cost to drive.
By adding energy equivalency into the equation, we are then also measuring the *supply chain* in entirety.
Now, some people may claim, and rightly argue, that when it comes to basic consumer information, or EPA numbers, that judging the supply chain has no place.
But the yield is, in fact, different for gasoline and diesel.
Right now, a barrel of oil (42 gallons) can make either 19.2 gallons of gasoline or about 10 gallons of diesel, says the EIA, and then should know.
http://205.254.135.7/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=327&t=9
That's probably one reason it costs more.
Right, so I guess they tested a 1 year old TDI because they thought it probably was not in good shape? Preposterous !! REVENUE x 7 is the rule !
He was familiar as he needed to be under the law. He actually went to very extensive diesel smog testing classes.
California emissions STANDARDS are the problem. California has a unique geography, a big valley, that could be argued necessitates unique emissions levels. However, some very populous states have decided to adopt the same standards as CA, without having the same unique need. Since these ~ 10 states represent about half the US population, car manufacturers won't sell a diesel here unless it meets both the federal and CA standards. NOx is the problem, not particulates.
"Diesels are still playing catch-up because they have *different* barriers to overcome than gas engines. They are getting real good at reducing CO2 per mile driven but they still have to deal with particulate issues."
Particulates are at least controlled in diesel vehicles. Particulates have, to date, been uncontrolled in Stoich SI engines, because particulates volumes have historically been low for that technology. However, DI changes that. A 2012 diesel with particulate control emits far fewer particulates than a 2012 DI gasoline engine, which has no mechanism for trapping or eliminating particulates. Like 10-20 times fewer by mass on an FTP cycle. Fewer than a PFI LEV II gasoline engine, in fact, according to a 2010 CARB report. Again NOx is the sticking point for diesels, and perhaps we're being too stringent with that (CA's central valley notwithstanding).
"Right now, a barrel of oil (42 gallons) can make either 19.2 gallons of gasoline or about 10 gallons of diesel, says the EIA, and then should know. "
Key phrase, 'right now'. Over a 100 yrs timeframe, refineries have been optimized to maximize gasoline output. It doesn't have to be that way. We've seen the History Channel program that explained that when we first started refining, the focus was distillates (like diesel), and not knowing what to do with the gasoline, they dumped it.
For lux brands that's often the case.
Makes the case for diesels far more compelling.
Yes. I am not sure why CA gets the lead dog role over the Fed EPA. When you look at the passenger vehicle fleet, it is app 24 M cars. Now the US PVF is 258.8 M (NHTSA 2009 figures) so CA is only 9.2% of the PVF. Diesels @5% of the PVF is 12.94 M DPVF.
Again this is a SWAG, but if diesels are NORMALLY distributed in the over all PVF, statistics hold then CA should have app 1.2 M diesels (5% of 24 M PVF) . When you factor that 60% are so called light trucks, CAR diesels are less than .480 k or 480,000. CA counties acknowledge that most of the so called extra pollution is done by 5% of scofflaw smokers who are ALL GASSERS.
You have anything to back that up? It doesn't sounds right to me.
California emissions standards aren't for revenue---again, that's a conspiracy theory---california standards are to control our sometimes horrible air quality problems. We aren't making this up. :P
As for some states adopting standards which are stricter than they need for that state---this is undoubtedly true, but it's better than playing catch-up.
If you don't get ahead of the game in emissions standards, you'll soon be so far behind it'll take decades to catch up.
Los Angeles is a perfect example. Without emissions standards in place, I could see that city going back to the worst air quality in America in a year or two.
Diesel emissions standards are just part of the larger picture. There's no conspiracy against diesels. Someday, even jet skis and lawn mowers will have to comply....maybe even cows, I don't know.
California is now in the forefront to combat global warming and develop substantial sources of renewable energy. This time the oil industry fought them tooth and nail, in a 2010 ballot initiative, and they lost, too.
California doesn't always get it right, but they usually lead the way.
Given the massive automobile market in CALIF, the automakers have to pay attention.
That of course, is California's hole card.
The enviro cons (CA) and the auto industry AND auto unions (Michigan) are thick as fleas, aka ACTIVE in same (democratic) party. Perhaps they wanted the distance between the two states as a proper (in the British style) fence. The principle here being good fences make good neighbors.