I don't remember where I read this, but the article described a small mom and pop wine recycling operation for ethanol, aka wines that for whatever reason can not be sold. So they buy them for salvage value (pennies on the dollar liquid wise) recycle $$ the glass and cork and metal parts and further process the wine to (greater concentrations of ) ethanol. Now I am sure the economic function is to keep the wine prices up, but that is probably another issue.
This country was founded on the small businesses like you have reported. It is the mega corporations like ADM and GE that have given capitalism a bad rap. I would love to see the alternative energy industry taken over by small entrepreneurial companies. If we could just get the Feds to butt out it would happen and end up costing US less and our grandchildren less. Subsidies only invite corruption as seen by the tax credit for ethanol, Wind and solar. Now the Volt & Leaf.
I would agree. It is almost like the multinational corporations are trying to create consumer farms. In that sense, the Chinese have it basackwards. They need to hurry and get their poor up to snuff (much higher average income), so they can have consumer farms at home. Makes you wonder why imported US products are all the rage? They can use their state owned cigarette production logistics system as a business model.
China is strangely silent about the diesel population. While it is well known that the China market outsold the US market (14 M vehicles vs 10.5 to 11 M US) not a peep (relatively) about ULSD products.
China is in a strange place right now. They did a pretty abrupt shift from "international cooperation" in 2006, and active participation in global economics, to a much more aggressive and intransigent stance in the present time. They seem to be struggling with a conflict between economic boom and political insecurity at home.
Well that seems to have been our role in the world---the place on earth where all countries go to sell their stuff. WALMART serves as a distributor for Chinese products.
I'm encouraged that 22% of VW's fleet is diesel, but that still leaves nearly 80% gassers, and the 2.slow and 2.5 are not exactly the most competitive engines in the market.
It should be more like 50%. Perhaps the number will go up as newer TDI models carry lower price tags? Jetta and Passat TDI are priced lower now.
While I would agree with you that 50% diesels would probably please VW to no end and perhaps prove them correct: you might want to explain your take in the context that almost no other (competitive) oem with so called "competitive" gasser engines (turbo to normally aspirated) have yet to bring THEIR diesels to the US market.
If I might cite one example: Honda Civic gassers vs Civic IcTDI. As good as the gasser mpg is, (38-42 mpg) 52 to 56 mpg is BETTER !!! If I might observe, it isn't that they (and other oems) are NOT making diesels.
So for example, the so called (heavyweight) US light truck market has been offering TDI's for literally years, albeit a much higher premium. If anything those oems should offer their diesels at more competitive price points (to their gassers) I think you would fine the choices almost a no brainer, and that is most likely the issue.
European gas prices are not comparable to prices in the US largely due to the taxes added n to the actual fuel price. In order to make a valid comparison strip out the taxes on both sides and hen compare the base fuel cost. Is a lot more comparable than many think. If you are suggesting hat the government is engineering prices to be the equivalent of European prices then we are talking about a significant tax increase and not the cost of fuel.
This is indeed a yes and no- way to go. However in the last analysis, (on a customer point of view; that issue of fairness is quiet opaque to the customer) out of sight out of mind.
Mrs. Shipo is being considered for a position which would require us to pick up a new car. Should it come to pass that she's offered the spot (and accepts), the current thinking is that I'll shift my 2009 Mazda3 to her and pick up a fully loaded Golf TDI (with a 6-Speed manual of course) for my new daily driver. The other cars (all of which are in line behind the Golf) in the running are as follows:
2) 2011 6-Speed VW GTI (what I really want is a 6-Speed GTD) 3) 2012 6-Speed Mazda3 s GT 5-Door (I'd have to wait and it's more than a bit ugly for my taste) 4) 2012 5-Speed Ford Focus SE (cramped rear seating and no stick available in higher trims) 5) 2011 Chevy Cruze (no stick available with the 1.4T except the Eco model; no thanks)
Well yes. The price of a barrel of oil is set WW. This is a major reason why they do not want local production of fuels, as it is simple to see that it is far cheaper to produce locally, if unhinged from the WW price fixing/calling.
An easy one to see is the cost of local production of bio diesel. Per gal (retail) it can be produced for app .75 cents per gal. Now this is a tad apples to oranges, but the corner store price for ULSD is @ 4.33. So as you can see that is a mark up of app 477%.
So if ULSD is $9.00 US then the mark up is more like 1,100%
Valid point, but I guess the answer is within the question itself - they have fuel-efficient gasser engines, therefore:
1. They are already OK on CAFE numbers (so they don't NEED them) 2. Diesels would not have as big an advantage for mileage 3. Diesels would not look as good vs gas on output
Look at the 2.slow. 115hp, and not among the latest crop of fuel sippers, either. I'll look it up...23/29 per fuel economy.gov, wow, worse than I thought!
So going for a TDI seems easily worth it - you give up nothing at all, just pay more, but sacrifice nothing.
The Civic IcTDI does not meet CARB emissions standards AFAIK. That means they would have to add the complexity and expense of urea injection, re-certify it, crash test it, etc.
So for Honda to improve on the Civic HF's 40+mpg highway would cost a fortune.
I know that Subaru brought over a Forester diesel and Edmunds tested it, but they also said it did not meet CARB emissions, so same problem.
The real problem? Two sets of standards. Once euro emissions standards are closer we might see more diesels here.
2012 Mazda3 2.0l gets SkyActiv tech and joins the 40mpg highway club. For the first time you can get a 2.0l hatch. Better yet, the face is toned down, the grin is far less offensive.
Focus - no stick is a bummer, my brother shopped an Escape and we had the same problem. Base model only. To make matters worse, they are special order only. We had to test drive an automatic to decide if we wanted a clutch/shifter we could not even sample. Yeah, right.
Ummm, maybe my post was unclear; the Golf TDI 6-Speed is sitting in the #1 slot of my short list.
"2012 Mazda3 2.0l gets SkyActiv tech and joins the 40mpg highway club. For the first time you can get a 2.0l hatch. Better yet, the face is toned down, the grin is far less offensive."
Yup, that's why the 6-Speed 2012 SkyActiv-G (which I neglected to indicate) Mazda3 is sitting in the #3 spot on my list.
Regarding the Focus; I'm thinking Ford dropped the ball on the whole stick shift thing. That said, given the lack of leg room (2+ inches fewer than the Golf, 3+ fewer inches than the Mazda3) I'd probably take a pass on the Focus anyway.
As for the Cruze; the Eco is kind of a quazi strippo model, and I like my sporting and luxury goodies.
For me there would be nothing past your number one choice as a commuter. Unless the 2012 Beetle TDI makes it over here. The Golf is more practical and one of the best looking smallish cars around.
shipo, you are the man! is my out-the-door-price cost arithmetic in the title correct?
I would love a new Golf TDI 6-speed to replace my 120k-mile 2006 5-spd TDI but another TDI is not quite on my short-list due to it not being a GM and also being too much $. However I know I will be dissatisfied with the mpg of anything but another TDI (45 tank after tank regardless of city/highway.)
But GM card plus the cash incentives result in me looking only-GM for next-vehicle! Not many diesel offerings. An HD truck is absurdly too large and the same large cost as a VW 2-a-reg TDI.
So I'll actually be considering one of the $11,000 5-speed Aveos for commuting, while I commute taking my GTO today, staying in 2nd gear for miles at a time!
Also I wonder what will be the entry-level price for Sonics?
For the Cruze, I am considering the 1.8 6-speed manual model, and had been wanting to wait for the supposed 2013 diesel. To get a diesel engine, I'll tolerate an automatic transmission (I prefer slushbox automatics). I may have to buy earlier since my current TDI's transmission has been talking to me about 3rd gear rather than engaging silently.
I might prefer a new Summer Yellow Aveo to replacing a 3rd older-vehicle's clutch in a year.
I cannot imagine the Aveo being as pleasurable to drive as the VW TDI. It will not hold its resale as well either. I don't think I am ready to return to GM. I had several of their trucks and a Suburban I really liked. If they were to offer a small diesel in a Acadia or Equinox sized vehicle I would be real tempted. They don't so my list is topped with the VW Touareg TDI. It satisfies all my current desires. Comfort, handling and 700 mile range between fill-ups.
Yes, I would also agree. Even I will admit that this is more subjective than objective, but one thing the VW's (TDI's) have not lost in the "made for America" models, they are still designed for the autobahn.
"In 2012, Volkswagen will introduce a Beetle TDI Clean Diesel model that is expected to be the fuel-economy leader, delivering about 40 mpg on the highway. Pricing has not yet been announced, but buyers should expect about a $5,000 premium over the base model."
The gasser starts at $19,765 plus $770 destination. So around $25k plus tax for the TDI, if predictions hold true.
It's an odds-on bet that, like the Golf, the base Beetle TDI will come with much more content than the base Beetle gasser. Said another way, only a portion of that $5,000 is for the diesel related engine, drivetrain and other componentry.
Correct me if I am wrong, but the 2.0 TDI would be $600 (slightly, +2.5%) more than the 2.0 turbo gasser MSRP. These two are actually the more apples to apples comparison. It would be an interesting foot race if the turbos gasser and diesel were the SAME MSRP. I think it would garner a lot of press. The JSW has already set a precedence @ 84% being diesel. I am sure the TDI sold @ a premium to the turbo gasser.
I agree that if you cross-shop a TDI with an Aveo the latter will only disappoint you, but to be fair they're $9995 and as we just saw the Beetle TDI is $25k, about 2.5 times as much.
Still, I'd get a used TDI over a new Aveo, which to me is a Korean car from the bad old days. At least wait for the Sonic.
Yes, the 2011/2012 Jetta, as I understand it has really been "customized" for the Corolla/Camry/Camry Hybrid markets. Further "customization" of the 2012 Passat seems to be aimed at the Camry/Camry Hybrid/Avalon set.
The upscale ones are not that bad, but the base Jetta screams cheap. To be honest I think they aimed below the Corolla. The plastic on the steering wheel was enough to make me run, not walk, away.
You get a lot of space for your $15,999.99 or whatever but that's about it. 115hp 2.slow and just 23/29 mpg is simply embarrassing.
Anymore comparison automotive shopping is truly TMI. It also does not always turn out the way you might hope and/or expect and that is good and bad.
I did luck out with a 04 Civic. I think (over 120,000 miles and 7/8 MY's) the depreciation has been truly MINIMAL. The same has been true with the 03 Jetta TDI, albeit less costly to run and with far less maintenance both scheduled and unscheduled.
"Chrysler and the U.S. Department of Energy are at work on a radical experimental engine with multi-fuel technology that can burn gasoline, E85 and diesel."
I'm not a fan of E85 at all due to it requiring roughly 30% increased additional fuel for the same output as gasoline. As anyone with an E85 vehicle can attest, you only buy it once and you look at the fuel gauge in wonder.
The only thing E85 is reasonably successful at is the car and motorcycle enthusiast market. It's somewhere around 120 octane, which can also be achieved by race gasoline and methanol, but E85 costs far less. So the racers love it...
Back to the article, that engine doesn't sound like it burns much diesel at all. There are engines that can truly burn almost anything-- gas turbines. They would have a bit of trouble meeting fuel economy standards, though.
The alarm sounders, (legislative, regulatory, environmentalists, product providers, etc. etc.) have easily known about so called "finite" supply and so called "dependence" on imported and foreign oils for literally 3 generations (90 to 120 years).
MPG figures (while a laugh @ 25/35 mpg) are really made to sell the majority of cars @ DISCOUNT to those standards!!!! Edmunds.com (last I checked) listed 585 models. It would be interesting to see a break down on %'s that get say 40+ mpg?. The majority would fall (I would SWAG) below the standards.
They also have known that a passenger diesel fleet of 26% would go a VERY long way on using far less oil both foreign and domestic. Yet in the US, we are only @ less than 5% diesel passenger fleet.
They have also know for a long time that R&D into biodiesel has the potential to make biodiesel both recycleable from current processes, extra (but marginal) lands and "manufacturable" from current lands and from algae in again marginal lands with access to H20 both sea and fresh water. Algae bio diesel "manufacture" has the HIGHEST per acre yield potential than from almost any other source.
Yet we are still wanting (defacto) the magic bullet to save the day: massive supplies of only RUG to PUG and (now) diluted with ethanol. Funny thing about the dilution both in its pure, E85, to 10% dilution. It gets even less mpg than the fuel it dlutes (25% less) It even polutes more!
They should really tell the truth about "plug in" electrical cars. The ultimate power source are coal/natural gas fired with environmentally ugly battery storage. To boot the infrastructure will not be able to support the additional loads with any % implementation.
So 10 to 20 years from now we will STILL be debating: how to arrange the deck chairs on the "Titanic" so to speak, i.e., but diesels don't come with all the bells and whistles we all expect from the common 50,000 dollar economy vehicles, etc., etc. The mpg standard will probably still be @ 35 mpg, the 2012 standard.
Americans are not good at long-range planning because their governments (throughout the decades) pander to short-range politics. You simply cannot tell the American people the truth about anything anymore. They refuse to hear anything painful...perhaps because it's been so long since we've had to suck it up a little and live smarter and less wastefully, I dunno.
The resistance to diesel cars in America is part of this psychology I suspect. Diesel = Euro econobox OR diesel = UPS truck
On a CNBC financial station (you know all those superfulous charts graphs and prices whirling or streaming by) I heard Fed Chief Benanke say we had a WORLD WIDE 50% SLOW DOWN of the growth (small small letters) of oil consumption growth, aka normally 102 to 103% (2-3% yearly growth) to 1% yearly growth) Just 101% year over year, this year.!!!
Judas Priest if it takes a FULL Recession aka mini DEPRESSION, what will it take to realy effect a 1% LOSS ??? (99% from 100%)
I lived in Brazil from 1979-1985 or so and we owned two ethanol powered cars.
Back then we didn't have modern fuel injection to sort out the fuel mixture, but they also had start problems on cold, damp mornings. Fortunately there weren't too many of those.
Mileage indeed was horrendous. We got about 40% less range.
They did make more power than the gas equivalent engines, though. Octane for the fuel is higher.
It's funny, ethanol lose market share in the late 80s and early 90s, but has made a come back now that modern computer controls have made them run a lot better.
Thing is, if it's built for flex-fuel, you're not really taking advantage of that extra octane, because a higher compression ratio would not do well with gas alone.
I think Ethanol cars died out in Brazil when the price of sugar on the World market shot up in the 1980s as well. Do the cars that run on E100 sold in Brazil, run equally as well on RUG? There is a poster here that lives in Brazil and swears the E100 cars get better mileage than on Gasoline. No way they can compete with diesel or biodiesel on an apples to apples comparison.
I remember my brother's Chevette had a tiny little gas tank under the hood, I think (not sure?) that it worked like a "choke" system on motorcycles, where it mixed in gas from that separate tank until the engine was warm, then switched to Ethanol only.
I remember seeing clear alcohol, though, so I believe it was 100%.
Unless they only mixed Amoco Ultimate clear.
Nowadays the engines are Flex Fuel and run on any combination. Not sure if they mix it to E85 specs or what.
The third generation of the Mercedes-Benz M-Class sets new benchmarks in the SUV world with its leading-edge automotive technology. The new M-Class boasts optimum energy efficiency, leading standards of passive safety, outstanding ride comfort combined with superb driving dynamics, as well as a completely revamped interior design offering excellent ergonomics among its key strengths.
The low fuel consumption and exemplary emissions figures make impressive reading - on average, the entire model range burns 25 percent less fuel than the predecessor. Never before has Mercedes-Benz succeeded in cutting fuel consumption by such a huge margin with an SUV model change. An ultramodern engine line-up, a class-beating Cd value of 0.32, extensive BlueEFFICIENCY measures, as well as new development tools such as the "energy-transparent vehicle" all play their part in delivering the good energy efficiency figures. The ML 250 BlueTEC 4MATIC is particularly outstanding in this respect: it is 28 percent more economical than its predecessor, consumes just 6.0 l per 100 km on the NEDC driving cycle (158 g CO2/km) and can cover as much as 1500 kilometres on a single tank of fuel.
In the ML 250 BlueTEC 4MATIC, the 3.0-litre V6 of the previous model is replaced by the thrifty four-cylinder EU6-standard unit already familiar from, for instance, the S-Class.
The 2.2-litre CDI engine turns the ML 250 BlueTEC 4MATIC into the most economical SUV in its class. With NEDC fuel consumption of 6.0 l/100 km, the model even outperforms any hybrid model currently offered by the competition. Despite the low fuel consumption figures, this Mercedes-Benz M-Class model boasts maximum torque of 500 Nm at 1600 rpm and rated output of 150 kW (204 hp) with outstanding performance: the M-Class accelerates from 0 to 100 km/h in 9.0 seconds before going on to a top speed of 210 km/h.
Now that is what I am talking about. A roomy comfortable SUV that gets over 39 MPG. with a range of over 900 miles between fueling stops. And they have improved the looks a bit.
I would say ML, GL and X5 BMWs are the most popular SUVs in my area. I have only talked to a couple of folks that have the ML diesel and they love it. I wanted to like the X5 diesel. It was a rocket to drive. The seats were like plywood. I like the seats in my Sequoia Limited. And I liked the Mercedes seats. I would not buy a vehicle without a 7 year warranty, so breaking is not a big issue. Before I take off on a long cross country trip I want to buy a vehicle that gets better mileage than the Sequoia. Not sure what. But 39 MPG combined is pretty tempting for an SUV the size of the ML. The 9 second 0-62 mph is as good as my Sequoia V8. The price of fuel is not as much of an issue as having to fill up every 325 miles with the Sequoia.
Few peeeople take into consideration the EXTRA MONEY for oil changes, oil filters, and the expensive parts a deisels require. Say nothing of the high price of fuel.
Or, how about if the engine won't take any fuel higher than B-5. Most fuel where I live is at least B-10 or B-20 ultra low sulfer fuel.
I had a 2005 Jeep Liberty with a CRD diesel engine, 2.8L 4 cyc, turbo. It was made in Italy by VM Morori spa. It was in the shop 25 times in 16 months. Chrysler found these engines were so bad they bought mine as well as several others. I totally respected Chrysler for contacting me and asking if I would be willing for Chrysler to by back the CRD Jeep.
I do remember the issues you had with your Jeep. You cannot gauge all diesels by that one. As far as high cost oil changes. My Passat TDI service at the dealer was less than my Sequoia. And they used 30W dino in the Toyota and expensive synthetic in the VW. Plus oil changes are just half as often with a diesel as a gas engine. Not a chance they are more expensive to maintain. You had a bad experience with that diesel that was not designed for all the emissions crap EPA/CARB forced onto Chrysler. It is good they never put that engine in the Wrangler. I would have bought one just for fun in the back country. Glad they bought it back. Did they have better luck with the Grand Cherokee diesel? I looked at one, and the back seats were too crowded. It was used as they did not make it to CA new, if I remember correctly.
Comments
China is strangely silent about the diesel population. While it is well known that the China market outsold the US market (14 M vehicles vs 10.5 to 11 M US) not a peep (relatively) about ULSD products.
Consumer farms..I like it. Exactly what we have become.
It should be more like 50%. Perhaps the number will go up as newer TDI models carry lower price tags? Jetta and Passat TDI are priced lower now.
If I might cite one example: Honda Civic gassers vs Civic IcTDI. As good as the gasser mpg is, (38-42 mpg) 52 to 56 mpg is BETTER !!! If I might observe, it isn't that they (and other oems) are NOT making diesels.
So for example, the so called (heavyweight) US light truck market has been offering TDI's for literally years, albeit a much higher premium. If anything those oems should offer their diesels at more competitive price points (to their gassers) I think you would fine the choices almost a no brainer, and that is most likely the issue.
2) 2011 6-Speed VW GTI (what I really want is a 6-Speed GTD)
3) 2012 6-Speed Mazda3 s GT 5-Door (I'd have to wait and it's more than a bit ugly for my taste)
4) 2012 5-Speed Ford Focus SE (cramped rear seating and no stick available in higher trims)
5) 2011 Chevy Cruze (no stick available with the 1.4T except the Eco model; no thanks)
An easy one to see is the cost of local production of bio diesel. Per gal (retail) it can be produced for app .75 cents per gal. Now this is a tad apples to oranges, but the corner store price for ULSD is @ 4.33. So as you can see that is a mark up of app 477%.
So if ULSD is $9.00 US then the mark up is more like 1,100%
Valid point, but I guess the answer is within the question itself - they have fuel-efficient gasser engines, therefore:
1. They are already OK on CAFE numbers (so they don't NEED them)
2. Diesels would not have as big an advantage for mileage
3. Diesels would not look as good vs gas on output
Look at the 2.slow. 115hp, and not among the latest crop of fuel sippers, either. I'll look it up...23/29 per fuel economy.gov, wow, worse than I thought!
So going for a TDI seems easily worth it - you give up nothing at all, just pay more, but sacrifice nothing.
The Civic IcTDI does not meet CARB emissions standards AFAIK. That means they would have to add the complexity and expense of urea injection, re-certify it, crash test it, etc.
So for Honda to improve on the Civic HF's 40+mpg highway would cost a fortune.
I know that Subaru brought over a Forester diesel and Edmunds tested it, but they also said it did not meet CARB emissions, so same problem.
The real problem? Two sets of standards. Once euro emissions standards are closer we might see more diesels here.
Why not a TDI?
2012 Mazda3 2.0l gets SkyActiv tech and joins the 40mpg highway club. For the first time you can get a 2.0l hatch. Better yet, the face is toned down, the grin is far less offensive.
Focus - no stick is a bummer, my brother shopped an Escape and we had the same problem. Base model only. To make matters worse, they are special order only. We had to test drive an automatic to decide if we wanted a clutch/shifter we could not even sample. Yeah, right.
Cruze - why no Eco?
Ummm, maybe my post was unclear; the Golf TDI 6-Speed is sitting in the #1 slot of my short list.
"2012 Mazda3 2.0l gets SkyActiv tech and joins the 40mpg highway club. For the first time you can get a 2.0l hatch. Better yet, the face is toned down, the grin is far less offensive."
Yup, that's why the 6-Speed 2012 SkyActiv-G (which I neglected to indicate) Mazda3 is sitting in the #3 spot on my list.
Regarding the Focus; I'm thinking Ford dropped the ball on the whole stick shift thing. That said, given the lack of leg room (2+ inches fewer than the Golf, 3+ fewer inches than the Mazda3) I'd probably take a pass on the Focus anyway.
As for the Cruze; the Eco is kind of a quazi strippo model, and I like my sporting and luxury goodies.
I would love a new Golf TDI 6-speed to replace my 120k-mile 2006 5-spd TDI but another TDI is not quite on my short-list due to it not being a GM and also being too much $.
However I know I will be dissatisfied with the mpg of anything but another TDI (45 tank after tank
regardless of city/highway.)
But GM card plus the cash incentives result in me looking only-GM for next-vehicle! Not many diesel offerings. An HD truck is absurdly too large and the same large cost as a VW 2-a-reg TDI.
So I'll actually be considering one of the $11,000 5-speed Aveos for commuting, while I commute taking my GTO today, staying in 2nd gear for miles at a time!
Also I wonder what will be the entry-level price for Sonics?
For the Cruze, I am considering the 1.8 6-speed manual model, and had been wanting to wait for the supposed 2013 diesel.
To get a diesel engine, I'll tolerate an automatic transmission (I prefer slushbox automatics).
I may have to buy earlier since my current TDI's transmission has been talking to me about 3rd gear rather than engaging silently.
I might prefer a new Summer Yellow Aveo to replacing a 3rd older-vehicle's clutch in a year.
The gasser starts at $19,765 plus $770 destination. So around $25k plus tax for the TDI, if predictions hold true.
2012 Volkswagen Beetle Priced (Inside Line)
Hurry up and get the Golf before the VW cost cutters who worked on the Jetta get a hold of it.
Still, I'd get a used TDI over a new Aveo, which to me is a Korean car from the bad old days. At least wait for the Sonic.
You get a lot of space for your $15,999.99 or whatever but that's about it. 115hp 2.slow and just 23/29 mpg is simply embarrassing.
I did luck out with a 04 Civic. I think (over 120,000 miles and 7/8 MY's) the depreciation has been truly MINIMAL. The same has been true with the 03 Jetta TDI, albeit less costly to run and with far less maintenance both scheduled and unscheduled.
Like gas and diesel but don't like ethanol?
Like diesel and don't like gas?
Where are you going to draw the line? It's confusing enough to drive one to EVs. :shades:
Chrysler, Feds Developing Experimental Gasoline-Diesel Engine (Straightline)
"Chrysler and the U.S. Department of Energy are at work on a radical experimental engine with multi-fuel technology that can burn gasoline, E85 and diesel."
The only thing E85 is reasonably successful at is the car and motorcycle enthusiast market. It's somewhere around 120 octane, which can also be achieved by race gasoline and methanol, but E85 costs far less. So the racers love it...
Back to the article, that engine doesn't sound like it burns much diesel at all. There are engines that can truly burn almost anything-- gas turbines. They would have a bit of trouble meeting fuel economy standards, though.
MPG figures (while a laugh @ 25/35 mpg) are really made to sell the majority of cars @ DISCOUNT to those standards!!!! Edmunds.com (last I checked) listed 585 models. It would be interesting to see a break down on %'s that get say 40+ mpg?. The majority would fall (I would SWAG) below the standards.
They also have known that a passenger diesel fleet of 26% would go a VERY long way on using far less oil both foreign and domestic. Yet in the US, we are only @ less than 5% diesel passenger fleet.
They have also know for a long time that R&D into biodiesel has the potential to make biodiesel both recycleable from current processes, extra (but marginal) lands and "manufacturable" from current lands and from algae in again marginal lands with access to H20 both sea and fresh water. Algae bio diesel "manufacture" has the HIGHEST per acre yield potential than from almost any other source.
Yet we are still wanting (defacto) the magic bullet to save the day: massive supplies of only RUG to PUG and (now) diluted with ethanol. Funny thing about the dilution both in its pure, E85, to 10% dilution. It gets even less mpg than the fuel it dlutes (25% less) It even polutes more!
They should really tell the truth about "plug in" electrical cars. The ultimate power source are coal/natural gas fired with environmentally ugly battery storage. To boot the infrastructure will not be able to support the additional loads with any % implementation.
So 10 to 20 years from now we will STILL be debating: how to arrange the deck chairs on the "Titanic" so to speak, i.e., but diesels don't come with all the bells and whistles we all expect from the common 50,000 dollar economy vehicles, etc., etc. The mpg standard will probably still be @ 35 mpg, the 2012 standard.
The resistance to diesel cars in America is part of this psychology I suspect. Diesel = Euro econobox OR diesel = UPS truck
Judas Priest if it takes a FULL Recession aka mini DEPRESSION, what will it take to realy effect a 1% LOSS ??? (99% from 100%)
Back then we didn't have modern fuel injection to sort out the fuel mixture, but they also had start problems on cold, damp mornings. Fortunately there weren't too many of those.
Mileage indeed was horrendous. We got about 40% less range.
They did make more power than the gas equivalent engines, though. Octane for the fuel is higher.
It's funny, ethanol lose market share in the late 80s and early 90s, but has made a come back now that modern computer controls have made them run a lot better.
Thing is, if it's built for flex-fuel, you're not really taking advantage of that extra octane, because a higher compression ratio would not do well with gas alone.
I remember my brother's Chevette had a tiny little gas tank under the hood, I think (not sure?) that it worked like a "choke" system on motorcycles, where it mixed in gas from that separate tank until the engine was warm, then switched to Ethanol only.
I remember seeing clear alcohol, though, so I believe it was 100%.
Unless they only mixed Amoco Ultimate clear.
Nowadays the engines are Flex Fuel and run on any combination. Not sure if they mix it to E85 specs or what.
Better to pay higher up front then down the road in constant repairs.
The low fuel consumption and exemplary emissions figures make impressive reading - on average, the entire model range burns 25 percent less fuel than the predecessor. Never before has Mercedes-Benz succeeded in cutting fuel consumption by such a huge margin with an SUV model change. An ultramodern engine line-up, a class-beating Cd value of 0.32, extensive BlueEFFICIENCY measures, as well as new development tools such as the "energy-transparent vehicle" all play their part in delivering the good energy efficiency figures. The ML 250 BlueTEC 4MATIC is particularly outstanding in this respect: it is 28 percent more economical than its predecessor, consumes just 6.0 l per 100 km on the NEDC driving cycle (158 g CO2/km) and can cover as much as 1500 kilometres on a single tank of fuel.
In the ML 250 BlueTEC 4MATIC, the 3.0-litre V6 of the previous model is replaced by the thrifty four-cylinder EU6-standard unit already familiar from, for instance, the S-Class.
The 2.2-litre CDI engine turns the ML 250 BlueTEC 4MATIC into the most economical SUV in its class. With NEDC fuel consumption of 6.0 l/100 km, the model even outperforms any hybrid model currently offered by the competition. Despite the low fuel consumption figures, this Mercedes-Benz M-Class model boasts maximum torque of 500 Nm at 1600 rpm and rated output of 150 kW (204 hp) with outstanding performance: the M-Class accelerates from 0 to 100 km/h in 9.0 seconds before going on to a top speed of 210 km/h.
Now that is what I am talking about. A roomy comfortable SUV that gets over 39 MPG. with a range of over 900 miles between fueling stops. And they have improved the looks a bit.
Or, how about if the engine won't take any fuel higher than B-5. Most fuel where I live is at least B-10 or B-20 ultra low sulfer fuel.
I had a 2005 Jeep Liberty with a CRD diesel engine, 2.8L 4 cyc, turbo. It was made in Italy by VM Morori spa. It was in the shop 25 times in 16 months. Chrysler found these engines were so bad they bought mine as well as several others. I totally respected Chrysler for contacting me and asking if I would be willing for Chrysler to by back the CRD Jeep.
I'm not sure if you mean Farout's Liberty or all Jeep Liberty CRDs.
Over in the Liberty CRD board, Farout wasn't the only one with issues by far. And Winter2--what a time he's had.