Regardless, this diesel by-product is not going to waste.
Gasoline was a by-product to start with. It was disposed of until someone figured out how to ignite it in an ICE. We don't have to worry about the need for Gas for a very long time. There are millions of Chevy PU trucks that will still need gas 30 years after gas vehicles are no longer built.
"#2 diesel gives up to 37% BETTER fuel mileage than unleaded gas"
Really?
HCH delivers 47MPG on average to its owners. Are you claiming that diesel autos deliver 64.5MPG on average to it's owners?
"Diesel engines 500,000 to 1,000,000 miles or 10,000-20,000 hours"
We are talking about cars here. How many people do you know who drive their car that far or sits in it for 20,000 hours? Then you have the associated diesel car quality problems.
Do we really keep the same car for 50 years or so?
"Why would you want to buy a new gasser every 8.5 years or 100,000 miles or from 5-10 cars more than what one diesel will cover?"
I'm not aware of any cars today that won't go 100K miles. (Well OK maybe Yugo)
How many people do you know who have driven that proverbial million miles?
Are you saying that your diesel car will travel 1,000,000 miles without problems?
Regular gas cars should get 150-400 miles of good service, and I do personally know people who get that from their vehicles.
Someone posted:
"One of the areas of oil production in the Arctic is so "sweet" the oil can be run in the trucks straight out of the wells"
Straight out of the dirt, the sludge refines itself because it's so natural.
One thing you may have forgot to mention is that it's so natural & sweet that even the birds prefer it to flowing spring water.
Crude oil described as natural & sweet?
Keeping cars for 50 years?
Diesel reliability?
How much more misinformation are we going to wade through?
As I have said on other hybrid threads, I think the HCH vs diesel division is adversarial and artificial. You might believe in reverse magic but...
If you mate a diesel to a hybrid, in fact you will still keep the 37% advantage plus through hybrid technology, the diesel will be off the same amount of time that the current gasser mated to a hybrid is. So in fact the diesel mated to hybrid will achieve BETTER mph than the gasser/hybrid. What we do lack is the A/B real world products. So if I get 47 mpg without a hybrid, what do you think your gasser will get if it were the sole motivational source? If I may borrow from the Honda Civic gasser (29/38 EPA.) So in fact as a swag, hybrid technology gives app 22-25% better mileage. so with my 42/49 EPA- 51-59 mpg.
This is not misinformation, but I will grant you that the salvage statistics clearly indicate that folks that own the average gasser as a market preference keep their cars an avg of 8.5 years and the salvage rate is app 8% per year.
Because that is one area they had not competed. Diesel offers them an opportunity to tap into a relatively large market. BUT that does not make it better seller than gasoline, now does it?
Regardless, hybrid or diesel they still depend on oil. We will continue to burn oil in our cars until it makes sense, financially, to stop. People claim that we need to conserve our resources until a viable alternative is available. BS, a viable alternative could be available today, well maybe not today but pretty darn quickly. The problem is that it will cost a whole lot more than what we are used to paying. Unfortunately that will continue to be the case because the costs of these alternatives will only come down through economies of scale and the natural improvements driven by the market. So it becomes a chicken and egg situation, the price is high because we don't use it and we don't use it because the price is high. So based upon this a transition will occur only when the rising price of fossil fuels meets the price of the alternatives. The idea of conservation is based on the notion that it makes more sense to creep towards this inevitability rather than just accept it, bite the bullet and move on. My personal feeling is the creeping approach will ultimately result in more total oil being consumed, therefore more total CO2 being put in the air along with the rest of the pollutants.
Another inevitability. In the last 30 yrs the total miles driven on our roadways has doubled, this trend is showing no signs of slowing. I don't know about where the rest of the posters live but where I drive we are going to run into a congestion roadblock before we run out of gas.
We are currently in the last phase of "abuse" before the broad realization that things must change, and people's habits must change. The indications are clear: higher fuel costs, unstable oil prices, the trend toward higher MPG diesels AND hybrids.
The Mad Max movies of 25 years ago pointed to a day when "gas" was the most precious commodity and was warred over and cherished. I don't think we will ever see that scenario, but we MUST find ways to continue providing energy sources that do not include fossil fuels.
In the meantime, anything ANY OF US can do to help decrease the overall consumption is a good thing, whether diesel or hybrid.
This might be right church wrong pew. In fact Honda has been competing in the diesel market for a long time. The Honda iCTDI is Honda's first concept to market diesel engine. In terms of better seller perhaps again the assumption that diesel has to have "better" sales is adversarial and short sighted, Honda intends for its diesel product to be fully 40% of its European sales! (at no canibbalization of its current gasser sales) So 40% is less than 60%.
How much more misinformation are we going to wade through? HCH delivers 47MPG on average to its owners. Are you claiming that diesel autos deliver 64.5MPG on average to it's owners?
Honda claims there Accord i-CDTI got 76.6 mpg on the return trip after setting all the records for speed and endurance.
Light, sweet crudes are preferred by refiners because of their low sulfur content and relatively high yields of high-value products such as gasoline, diesel fuel, heating oil, and jet fuel.
One of the reasons we buy so much Saudi oil is the quality.
In fact Honda has been competing in the diesel market for a long time.
Not something I've been aware of. Honda started offering CTDi in European Civic beginning in March 2003 (an Isuzu 1.7-liter, 100 HP unit which was part of GM-Honda engine deal). The i-CTDi in Accord is the first "Honda" diesel.
quote ruking1-"Did it ever occur to you that if 40% of the vehicle fleet is on #2 diesel and there is a tax credit (which would encourage its use)for using domestic diesel, i.e., soybeans, mix, used fryer oil, etc that BY DEFINITION this LESSENS dependence on FOREIGN OIL??? And by how much???... 40%?????? So if we are at 2-3% passenger diesel use we have a long way to go to hit European levels of 40-50% of the vehicle passenger fleet."-end quote
Sure, all that is great, but how realistic is it? If you want to campaign to your congresspeople to initiate a program like that, send me the petition and I will sign it !!
But for now, today, the choice between the type of diesel you can buy at the filling station is "dirty" or "dirty" in the USA. I'm not saying that is right, because it is a shame. But it is a fact.
Until biodiesel, soybean diesel, and fry oil diesel are EASILY and READILY available for the average consumer, they are not very good options, are they?
Couldn't bio-diesel be used in a fuel cell? I agree that a diesel engine uses a greater percent of the energy in its fuel than a gasoline ICE, but it's still ICE. The difference is no where near the efficiency increase of an electric motor over an ICE. One of the biggest obstacles fuel cell vehicles face is, how to store the hydrogen? I'm not an expert, I only know what I read but as far as I know there is no energy involved in extracting hydrogen from a hydrocarbon fuel. This extracted hydrogen fuels the fuel cell which supplies the power to the electric motor. If this is in fact the case it seems to me that any advocate of bio-diesel should be also advocating skipping the ICE step and realizing the maximum benefit of the ultimate combination, bio-diesel fuel cells.
Full commercial use is estimated to be at least 30 years away and that is for the hydrogen. There are some serious serious concerns and obstacles, but suffice to say that fuel cells have been used in our space programs for decades.
There are of course beta testing(real life) with municipalities (local transit authorities) on busses.
But for now, today, the choice between the type of diesel you can buy at the filling station is "dirty" or "dirty" in the USA.
Many larger cities have ULSD & LSD available today. Biodiesel is also available in many places. The more people that buy these products the more we will see them become available. As more cars are available and CARB gets they head out of the sand we may be able to slow the use of fossil fuel. Hybrids are not the answer because of the limited numbers built. Honda wants to keep reaping huge profits and the hybrids would cut into their bottom line.
I'm in a large city and there is no ULSD or Willie fuel (Biodiesel) even though he is from around here ! (yep you said many not all) - I keep hearing about these wonderful European diesels, can't buy those either however can get a hybrid from my local Toyota or Honda dealer yesterday - that 120 MPG VW diesel sounds good, hope we see it soon and its reasonably priced.
I didn't want to say the words N F!!! And we thought the big D word was politically incorrect!!??
Folks might think Ballard a wacko for advocating N P, but you know his company Ballard Fuel Systems is one of the pioneers and leaders in getting fuel cell to stuff like busses etc! Precisely the folks and brain trust that is in the trenches trying to bring the new "hydrogen" economy to the fore.
When you say 30 years away I'm assuming that is based upon our current level of effort. My guess is that if we had a sustained period of supply disruption resulting in gas prices in the $4/gallon range that 30 years would magically become a lot shorter. The corellary to that is that as long as gas prices stay cheap that 30 years might keep shifting to the right. You might say, so what, as long as gas is cheap why not burn it? Well I can see the logic there except that the price for alternatives won't come down until they are being used. Also, I don't know how much oil is left in the ground right now but I'm pretty sure that we will suceed in burning more of it through managed consumption. Is that a worthwhile goal.
RE: My comment on using bio-diesel in a fuel cell. I thought that there was research going on where you would fill up one of these vehicles with gas, diesel, ethanol, etc.. just like a conventional car. The extraction of hydrogen would occur internally. Some of the biggest obstacles that results in this 30 year time frame have to do with filling the car with hydrogen, gaseous or very cold liquid. Creating an infrastructure to support hydrogen distribution and extracting the hydrogen from a source, say water. For the time being these would all be bypassed and you would now be discussing electric v ICE instead of hybrid v diesel. I don't think it would be much of a discussion given that an electric motor is twice as efficient as an ICE. That order of magnitude would make the difference between gas-hybrid and diesel pretty trivial.
Well yes that is correct. Killer applications can come on, etc, but to try to take that to the bank and say : someone wil come up with a killer application and this will render the so called oil crisis mute 2 years from now! ( 2006) might not be something you would want to hang your hat on! Say that at one too many cocktail parties, and they will start to run when they see you heading towards them.
Also, while I totally understand, but probably did not address to your satisfaction, the alternates, the fact of the matter is when investing on the possible technology the market will or might finally go to: YOU do not want to get that wrong by investing in the WRONG WAY!!!!! I can not stress that enough.
The last time WE did that on an epic scale was the Manhattan project and its subsequent 60 or so years. But we had a war to win! We really don't have to beat the enemy to a "brand new secret" weapon as intelligence and history showed the Germans and the Japanese were working on during WW2.
Even if that could happen, we may chose not to go there such as efforts in nuclear fission and fusion. There, I have said the N word! Keep in mind that aircraft carriers and submarines have been N powered for a long time. How does 50 years between refuelings for the USS Ronald Reagan grab ya!?
MODERATOR /ADMINISTRATOR Find me at kirstie_h@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name. 2015 Kia Soul, 2021 Subaru Forester (kirstie_h), 2024 GMC Sierra 1500 (mr. kirstie_h) Review your vehicle
As the host implied, a lot of hostility is generated; especially by those who really do not want to really address the concerns they profess to care about. They want to be able to regulate,control,release hot air, RAISE THE COST AND PRICE of operations unnecessarily and rail against "windmills" so to speak.
Our nexus?
Not too man folks that embrace hybrids, for example has stated a reasonable logical plan to address the issue of how using a gasser hybrid decreases our dependence on FOREIGN oil(their BURNING ISSUE, no pun intented), for example. Their synergistic logic and actions actually dictate continued FOREIGN OIL dependence, which oxymoronically drifts inexorably to 100%!!! They might want to tell you that they feel good doing something for the environment, but... When it is addressed by the diesel folks, well suddenly "DIESEL ADVOCATES ARE HOSTILE"??!! And diesel is BAAAAAD for the environment. As I have observed, they do like to repeat mantras, however.
Fair enough! So are we to take it energy savings of diesel vs hybrid is a "non issue", in the larger scheme of things? Actually this was concluded in the longest anti SUV thread on Edmunds.com and the SUV population is far larger than either the hybrid or diesel population; single or combined at 12-15% of the passenger vehicle fleet.
___I am a huge fan of Honda’s iCDTi but its emissions technology and future capabilities are behind that of the Ford/Toyota/MB diesels either on the street or on the drawing boards from my reads. Honda is not forthcoming with their future design plans of course but hopefully they will have these cleaned up to at least meet a Tier II/Bin 5 spec soon enough. Currently, even w/ ULSD, they don’t stand chance.
___Honda leads the world in low emissions tech for gasoline engines with the 05 PZEV based (non-hybrid) Accord w/ Auto and the PZEV based HCH being 2 of the best. Better then anything Toyota and Ford has offered the consumer to date anyway. I hope they (Honda) are also working on the DPF’s and the specialized CAT’s needed that Ford and MB have locked up with their own patented designs overseas. Apparently, Toyota traded some of the HSD tech used in the Ford Escape HEV for some of Ford’s CAT tech and that places both above the rest of the players in some regards. I am thinking Ford might have received the raw end of the bargain but who is to say just yet? With the above, the Ford/Peugeot-Citroën partnership is doing some incredible things in terms of FE and low emissions diesels over in Europe and hopefully we will all be the beneficiaries of this in the not to distant future. The benefits of lower pricing, lowered emissions, and more choices irregardless if it’s a Diesel, a SI-ICE, or any combination of the two in a hybrid is in all our best interests.
___I am not so concerned with the hemorrhage as Ford is again profitable and hopefully on the upturn if recent quarters are a sign. 05 estimates are heading down again although they (Ford) will still be profitable? I am concerned with the extremely profitable operations of Toyota as far out as I can see by comparison. Toyota has a huge lead in the hybrid technology race, they have a car and truck line that many around the world regard as bullet proof (rightfully earned in some respects), can demand top dollar for many of their automobiles vs. huge rebates and such from the big 2.5 to move theirs, and have technology in both the diesel and Fuel Cell arena’s to keep them not only competitive but possibly in the lead in some regards.
___The future is on the wall and it appears that Ford is doing everything they can given it is now a race to their death if they cannot get around their middling profitability. The 500 needs the 3.5 L and with a 4 year lead, it wasn’t ready? Both Toyota and Honda had to laugh (at Ford’s expense) about that one? The hybrid tech heading into the upcoming Fusion had better be damn spectacular to compete against the upcoming Camry Hybrid. The PZEV diesel tech from the Meta-One has to be ready to go as soon as the nation’s pumps receive ULSD in another 1 - 1.5 + years. Probably not a chance for that? If not, the Ford advantage in diesel FE and emissions will soon be overcome both in Europe and here in the states. This is one advantage Ford has over both Toyota and Honda and if they do not begin to take advantage of this strength, they might be signing off on their death warrant. At least the Volvo purchase brought their safety standards up to Honda levels in the automobiles they are choosing to use it in (500 and Freestyle). When I look at what Ford has to offer in terms of FE, they are sadly dated in one way or the other. The Mazda designed PZEV rated 2.0e’s in the Focus’ with an EPA rated 26/32 or 35 (Auto/Manual) are ~ a match for the much more powerful Accord I4 2.4 but neither have the smoothness or the real world FE let alone when up against their target competition, today’s non-hybrid Civic or the upcoming 2006’s? As you move up the line, it only gets worse. If the 06 Civic’s get a Strat charge - DI i-VTEC like some are hoping for, the Focus is essentially very old news. Depending on the up charge of the HH, the Escape HEV might be another also ran? The 500 still hasn’t proved anything by comparison to the Camry in terms of sales. In trucks, Ford has a nice lead with the F series but it is not as profitable as it once was. I own a Ranger myself and would not purchase a Toyota Tacoma or Tundra given the costs if I were in the market today. Many others do not see it the same way as I do of course
To me, this is an indicator; for "right now"(recent quarter/s) is/are the fruition of past investment/s decision/s. To the extent that they are on target, better or worse, etc, is an indication of whether they can or can not make future investment decisions , that can have consequences in the long term.
Good to hear from you again!! Yeah I think with the implementation of the 2006 "low sulfur" diesel fuel standard, that MIGHT remove the heretofore impediment to CA and the other 4 states, banning the sales of "new" model (2004,2005, etc) year diesels: such as the MB E320, VW TDI's, Honda, (even) etc.
"to try to take that to the bank and say : someone wil come up with a killer application and this will render the so called oil crisis mute 2 years from now! ( 2006) might not be something you would want to hang your hat on!"
I would because it's already happened. The only problem is that people aren't listening.
It's an engine that was tested by SwRI. They've got the #1 engine research facility in the world. Unless their numbers are wrong this engine produces 50-80% less NOx emissions and is up to 28% more efficient than the Otto cycle in our cars today.
What some people don't realize is that about 12% of the potential chemical energy actually goes to powering the wheels of our cars. So, with an engine that is 42% efficient, as opposed to 33%, you get 19% of that energy going to the wheels. AKA you'd get 58% better gas mileage, and that's only before you use technologies like hybrid engines or compression ignition (diesel) technology, which could easily be applied to this new engine design as well.
This technology would render the oil problem mute for at least a decade or so. We'd still eventually need an alternative, but it would give us some serious breathing room if people would only start looking at the numbers.
Perhaps you have been missing part of the discussion. There are already diesels that get upwards of 60-100 mpg. And also there is that problem or nightmare of investing in the wrong technology.
I feel like some people would beat the dead horse forever or until something like this is hitting them in the face.
I mean for goodness sake, it's not as if this is just some rogue laboratory claiming these numbers. SwRI knows that their reputation is on the line here. I'm sure they wouldn't sign off on the patent applications unless they were pretty darn sure they were right. They know these things are public knowledge. It's actually a federal offense to lie on a patent application.
The one of the real problems or challenges is really not the diesel or hybrid when it comes to passenger cars. It is really one of inertia or more specifically, the 230+ M registered passenger car fleet in the USA.
Since Europe has app the same people and vehicle populations you can do a comparative study on how long it took and why the Europeans went with diesel resulting in 40-50% of the vehicle fleet while in the USA the diesel fleet is more on the order of 2.5-2.9%. The hybrid % is so low that I would even dare guess is less than 1/2 of 1%. So the real problem as you have noted is GASSERS.
One metric might be the salvage industrys' data of roughly 8% of the vehicle fleet per year goes to salvage (18,000,000). Another is the average age of the fleet is 8.5 years. So against this back drop of 100,000 per year production of Prius's how long will it take to get to ANY modest % of the fleet!? Another is it has taken at least 30 years that I remember to even come to the metric of 2.3-2.9 % of the diesel vehicle population. Happy hypothesis and number crunching.
One notable "edsel" example is/was the ill fated "electric" cars. a scant 10 years ago, the environmentalists were gleeful to get the regulatory nod to "FORCE" the auto industry to manufacture up to 10% of the yearly new car sales! This of course was the vaulted "harbinger" of environmental awareness. Well, fast forward to 2005, not even environmentalists' drive the so called "electric" powered cars.
"The hybrid % is so low that I would even dare guess is less than 1/2 of 1%. So the real problem as you have noted is GASSERS."
And how many diesel autos are here today compared to hybrid cars?
"Well, fast forward to 2005, not even environmentalists' drive the so called "electric" powered cars."
They don't make them anymore and when they did, they were sold to fleets. I'm certainly not an "environmentalist" and would love to tool around in one.
I disproves your point, diesel has been around building a certain kind of reputation for how many tens of decades, while hybrid has only been around for about 6 years?
Would it require mass migration in only 6 short years time from diesel to hybrid, or regular ICE to hybrid to prove it is a good alternative?
People still aren't educated in hybrid, I'm still asked how often do I plug it in.
In contrast, people are educated in diesel. They know what to expect. Today's diesels are clean and efficient. The problem is that in a few years they will be yesterday's diesel, perpetuating their legacy. The hype created by diesel enthusiasts always turns out to be false as their systems get older.
"I (t-sic) disproves your point, diesel has been around building a certain kind of reputation for how many tens of decades, while hybrid has only been around for about 6 years?"
I am not sure how you conclude that it disproves my point about the electrical powered vehicles, of which a hybrid is a derivative!? Electric powered vehicles have been around nearly forever (or at least 50 years that I am personally cognizant of)!!?? So I think if you have been in urban area's such as San Francisco that you have seen electric buses? Certainly Cable Cars (can we read old here) have been run on electricity? So there is certainly no "lack" of education!!??
I disproves your point, diesel has been around building a certain kind of reputation for how many tens of decades, while hybrid has only been around for about 6 years?
The hybrid car has been around more than a 100 years. Dr. Porsche built a hybrid race car in 1906 that was quite competitive. Toyota and Honda were very late comers to hybrid motivation.
Notice I use the word "produced" and not "invented". You couldn't go buy a gas-electric hybrid car only a few years ago, but more than 40 years ago you could buy a diesel car.
You and me couldn't buy an EV, but they were produced how long ago? 7 Years or so?
The main miss-conseption is "the plug" and battery technology. Without exception, when people hear that we don't plug our hybrids in and it doesn't have thousands of pounds of lead-acid cells and we enjoy a +600 mile range then the attitude turns positive.
Explain to someone that the "new" diesels are clean and don't smoke to get a similarly good reacton. Then they get stuck behind one that is 7-10 years old, and they remember the same claims when they were new.
Then they get stuck behind one that is 7-10 years old, and they remember the same claims when they were new.
I believe that is the misconception. I followed a 240D Mercedes the other day and it was as clean as the gassers on the street.
And there has not been a concerted effort to build clean diesel cars in America the last 40 years. The big Three bought Japanese dirty diesels and GM built that horrible gas to diesel conversion. If the automakers had spent the money on improving diesel engines, that has been wasted on the gas engines, we would have cleaner and more efficient cars today. Instead they come up with these flaky hybrids to suck more of our money while making us feel green. Hybrids are no more practical today than they were 100 years ago. Still too expensive for the gain in economy.
ANN ARBOR, Mich., Jan. 30 - The Environmental Protection Agency has developed a prototype diesel engine that meets tough new emissions standards to be phased in over the next few years in the United States. On Friday, the Ford Motor Company said the technology was promising enough that it had reached agreement with the agency to try to develop it for use in its cars and trucks.
About half the new cars sold in Europe use diesel fuel. But in the United States, obstacles, including memories of smoke-belching diesel vehicles from the early 1980's, have led automakers to restrict use of diesel fuel mostly to pickups and larger trucks.
Diesel has some favorable attributes. Because it is roughly 30 percent more fuel-efficient than gasoline, diesel-powered cars emit considerably less global-warming gas, and they can allow more travel between fill-ups.
The diesel engine developed by the E.P.A. does not require filtration because it uses a combustion temperature that is far lower than usual, preventing the creation of nitrogen oxide.
Wow! It is pretty amazing that the entity itself, the EPA did the R/D work on a new prototype diesel engine!!??? This to me is encouraging news!
Part of it, however is a no brainer in that the US government under the Clinton administration gave the big three automakers 1.5 BILLION dollars to do a "clean sheet" high mileage prototype (diesel was NOT specified) and each of the "three automakers" independently and separately came up with a diesel motivated power plant prototype.
Comments
Gasoline was a by-product to start with. It was disposed of until someone figured out how to ignite it in an ICE. We don't have to worry about the need for Gas for a very long time. There are millions of Chevy PU trucks that will still need gas 30 years after gas vehicles are no longer built.
Really?
HCH delivers 47MPG on average to its owners. Are you claiming that diesel autos deliver 64.5MPG on average to it's owners?
"Diesel engines 500,000 to 1,000,000 miles or 10,000-20,000 hours"
We are talking about cars here. How many people do you know who drive their car that far or sits in it for 20,000 hours? Then you have the associated diesel car quality problems.
Do we really keep the same car for 50 years or so?
"Why would you want to buy a new gasser every 8.5 years or 100,000 miles or from 5-10 cars more than what one diesel will cover?"
I'm not aware of any cars today that won't go 100K miles. (Well OK maybe Yugo)
How many people do you know who have driven that proverbial million miles?
Are you saying that your diesel car will travel 1,000,000 miles without problems?
Regular gas cars should get 150-400 miles of good service, and I do personally know people who get that from their vehicles.
Someone posted:
"One of the areas of oil production in the Arctic is so "sweet" the oil can be run in the trucks straight out of the wells"
Straight out of the dirt, the sludge refines itself because it's so natural.
One thing you may have forgot to mention is that it's so natural & sweet that even the birds prefer it to flowing spring water.
Crude oil described as natural & sweet?
Keeping cars for 50 years?
Diesel reliability?
How much more misinformation are we going to wade through?
As I have said on other hybrid threads, I think the HCH vs diesel division is adversarial and artificial. You might believe in reverse magic but...
If you mate a diesel to a hybrid, in fact you will still keep the 37% advantage plus through hybrid technology, the diesel will be off the same amount of time that the current gasser mated to a hybrid is. So in fact the diesel mated to hybrid will achieve BETTER mph than the gasser/hybrid. What we do lack is the A/B real world products. So if I get 47 mpg without a hybrid, what do you think your gasser will get if it were the sole motivational source? If I may borrow from the Honda Civic gasser (29/38 EPA.) So in fact as a swag, hybrid technology gives app 22-25% better mileage. so with my 42/49 EPA- 51-59 mpg.
This is not misinformation, but I will grant you that the salvage statistics clearly indicate that folks that own the average gasser as a market preference keep their cars an avg of 8.5 years and the salvage rate is app 8% per year.
The range should be 51-- to 61 mpg.
In the same context that applied to the post I responded to.
Because that is one area they had not competed. Diesel offers them an opportunity to tap into a relatively large market. BUT that does not make it better seller than gasoline, now does it?
Another inevitability. In the last 30 yrs the total miles driven on our roadways has doubled, this trend is showing no signs of slowing. I don't know about where the rest of the posters live but where I drive we are going to run into a congestion roadblock before we run out of gas.
We are currently in the last phase of "abuse" before the broad realization that things must change, and people's habits must change. The indications are clear: higher fuel costs, unstable oil prices, the trend toward higher MPG diesels AND hybrids.
The Mad Max movies of 25 years ago pointed to a day when "gas" was the most precious commodity and was warred over and cherished. I don't think we will ever see that scenario, but we MUST find ways to continue providing energy sources that do not include fossil fuels.
In the meantime, anything ANY OF US can do to help decrease the overall consumption is a good thing, whether diesel or hybrid.
Honda claims there Accord i-CDTI got 76.6 mpg on the return trip after setting all the records for speed and endurance.
Light, sweet crudes are preferred by refiners because of their low sulfur content and relatively high yields of high-value products such as gasoline, diesel fuel, heating oil, and jet fuel.
One of the reasons we buy so much Saudi oil is the quality.
Not something I've been aware of. Honda started offering CTDi in European Civic beginning in March 2003 (an Isuzu 1.7-liter, 100 HP unit which was part of GM-Honda engine deal). The i-CTDi in Accord is the first "Honda" diesel.
If Accord Diesel can deliver 76.6 mpg at all times, it would be a magical event, putting all competitors to shame. Wouldn't it?
If Accord Diesel can deliver 76.6 mpg at all times, it would be a magical event, putting all competitors to shame. Wouldn't it? "
So would a gasser, eh? But that would be in total disregard of the variance that is in the real world.. isn't it now?
Just couldn't seem to push it up over the 70 mark and still drive normally.
I'm just bust' in at the seams.
It was one of my most exiting driving experiences.
"I am not worthy, I am not worthy !!"
Congrats....
Sure, all that is great, but how realistic is it? If you want to campaign to your congresspeople to initiate a program like that, send me the petition and I will sign it !!
But for now, today, the choice between the type of diesel you can buy at the filling station is "dirty" or "dirty" in the USA. I'm not saying that is right, because it is a shame. But it is a fact.
Until biodiesel, soybean diesel, and fry oil diesel are EASILY and READILY available for the average consumer, they are not very good options, are they?
There are of course beta testing(real life) with municipalities (local transit authorities) on busses.
Many larger cities have ULSD & LSD available today. Biodiesel is also available in many places. The more people that buy these products the more we will see them become available. As more cars are available and CARB gets they head out of the sand we may be able to slow the use of fossil fuel. Hybrids are not the answer because of the limited numbers built. Honda wants to keep reaping huge profits and the hybrids would cut into their bottom line.
Nearly all auto manufacurers are developing their own gasoline hybrid systems and are anxious to get to market.
Shall I provide links?
Toyota and Honda simply beat them all to the punch.
Sounds like we'll need nuclear fusion plants to give us the energy to produce the hydrogen.
My vote today would be for a diesel. A Jeep Liberty would be my choice for its utility and snow capability.
Folks might think Ballard a wacko for advocating N P, but you know his company Ballard Fuel Systems is one of the pioneers and leaders in getting fuel cell to stuff like busses etc! Precisely the folks and brain trust that is in the trenches trying to bring the new "hydrogen" economy to the fore.
RE: My comment on using bio-diesel in a fuel cell. I thought that there was research going on where you would fill up one of these vehicles with gas, diesel, ethanol, etc.. just like a conventional car. The extraction of hydrogen would occur internally. Some of the biggest obstacles that results in this 30 year time frame have to do with filling the car with hydrogen, gaseous or very cold liquid. Creating an infrastructure to support hydrogen distribution and extracting the hydrogen from a source, say water. For the time being these would all be bypassed and you would now be discussing electric v ICE instead of hybrid v diesel. I don't think it would be much of a discussion given that an electric motor is twice as efficient as an ICE. That order of magnitude would make the difference between gas-hybrid and diesel pretty trivial.
Also, while I totally understand, but probably did not address to your satisfaction, the alternates, the fact of the matter is when investing on the possible technology the market will or might finally go to: YOU do not want to get that wrong by investing in the WRONG WAY!!!!! I can not stress that enough.
The last time WE did that on an epic scale was the Manhattan project and its subsequent 60 or so years. But we had a war to win! We really don't have to beat the enemy to a "brand new secret" weapon as intelligence and history showed the Germans and the Japanese were working on during WW2.
Even if that could happen, we may chose not to go there such as efforts in nuclear fission and fusion. There, I have said the N word!
kirstie_h
Roving Host
Host, Future Vehicles & Smart Shopper discussions
MODERATOR /ADMINISTRATOR
Find me at kirstie_h@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name.
2015 Kia Soul, 2021 Subaru Forester (kirstie_h), 2024 GMC Sierra 1500 (mr. kirstie_h)
Review your vehicle
Our nexus?
Not too man folks that embrace hybrids, for example has stated a reasonable logical plan to address the issue of how using a gasser hybrid decreases our dependence on FOREIGN oil(their BURNING ISSUE, no pun intented), for example. Their synergistic logic and actions actually dictate continued FOREIGN OIL dependence, which oxymoronically drifts inexorably to 100%!!! They might want to tell you that they feel good doing something for the environment, but... When it is addressed by the diesel folks, well suddenly "DIESEL ADVOCATES ARE HOSTILE"??!! And diesel is BAAAAAD for the environment. As I have observed, they do like to repeat mantras, however.
___I am a huge fan of Honda’s iCDTi but its emissions technology and future capabilities are behind that of the Ford/Toyota/MB diesels either on the street or on the drawing boards from my reads. Honda is not forthcoming with their future design plans of course but hopefully they will have these cleaned up to at least meet a Tier II/Bin 5 spec soon enough. Currently, even w/ ULSD, they don’t stand chance.
___Honda leads the world in low emissions tech for gasoline engines with the 05 PZEV based (non-hybrid) Accord w/ Auto and the PZEV based HCH being 2 of the best. Better then anything Toyota and Ford has offered the consumer to date anyway. I hope they (Honda) are also working on the DPF’s and the specialized CAT’s needed that Ford and MB have locked up with their own patented designs overseas. Apparently, Toyota traded some of the HSD tech used in the Ford Escape HEV for some of Ford’s CAT tech and that places both above the rest of the players in some regards. I am thinking Ford might have received the raw end of the bargain but who is to say just yet? With the above, the Ford/Peugeot-Citroën partnership is doing some incredible things in terms of FE and low emissions diesels over in Europe and hopefully we will all be the beneficiaries of this in the not to distant future. The benefits of lower pricing, lowered emissions, and more choices irregardless if it’s a Diesel, a SI-ICE, or any combination of the two in a hybrid is in all our best interests.
___Good Luck
___Wayne R. Gerdes
___I am not so concerned with the hemorrhage as Ford is again profitable and hopefully on the upturn if recent quarters are a sign. 05 estimates are heading down again although they (Ford) will still be profitable? I am concerned with the extremely profitable operations of Toyota as far out as I can see by comparison. Toyota has a huge lead in the hybrid technology race, they have a car and truck line that many around the world regard as bullet proof (rightfully earned in some respects), can demand top dollar for many of their automobiles vs. huge rebates and such from the big 2.5 to move theirs, and have technology in both the diesel and Fuel Cell arena’s to keep them not only competitive but possibly in the lead in some regards.
___The future is on the wall and it appears that Ford is doing everything they can given it is now a race to their death if they cannot get around their middling profitability. The 500 needs the 3.5 L and with a 4 year lead, it wasn’t ready? Both Toyota and Honda had to laugh (at Ford’s expense) about that one? The hybrid tech heading into the upcoming Fusion had better be damn spectacular to compete against the upcoming Camry Hybrid. The PZEV diesel tech from the Meta-One has to be ready to go as soon as the nation’s pumps receive ULSD in another 1 - 1.5 + years. Probably not a chance for that? If not, the Ford advantage in diesel FE and emissions will soon be overcome both in Europe and here in the states. This is one advantage Ford has over both Toyota and Honda and if they do not begin to take advantage of this strength, they might be signing off on their death warrant. At least the Volvo purchase brought their safety standards up to Honda levels in the automobiles they are choosing to use it in (500 and Freestyle). When I look at what Ford has to offer in terms of FE, they are sadly dated in one way or the other. The Mazda designed PZEV rated 2.0e’s in the Focus’ with an EPA rated 26/32 or 35 (Auto/Manual) are ~ a match for the much more powerful Accord I4 2.4 but neither have the smoothness or the real world FE let alone when up against their target competition, today’s non-hybrid Civic or the upcoming 2006’s? As you move up the line, it only gets worse. If the 06 Civic’s get a Strat charge - DI i-VTEC like some are hoping for, the Focus is essentially very old news. Depending on the up charge of the HH, the Escape HEV might be another also ran? The 500 still hasn’t proved anything by comparison to the Camry in terms of sales. In trucks, Ford has a nice lead with the F series but it is not as profitable as it once was. I own a Ranger myself and would not purchase a Toyota Tacoma or Tundra given the costs if I were in the market today. Many others do not see it the same way as I do of course
___Good Luck
___Wayne R. Gerdes
I agree this issue has been touched upon at the other thread....
I like the diesels and hybrids....wish California will allow sale of diesels sooner..
did not know this thread can get so heated also...
take care.... :-)
I would because it's already happened. The only problem is that people aren't listening.
See the following two patent applications.
http://69.143.55.21/US20040255882.pdf
http://69.143.55.21/US20050016475.pdf
It's an engine that was tested by SwRI. They've got the #1 engine research facility in the world. Unless their numbers are wrong this engine produces 50-80% less NOx emissions and is up to 28% more efficient than the Otto cycle in our cars today.
What some people don't realize is that about 12% of the potential chemical energy actually goes to powering the wheels of our cars. So, with an engine that is 42% efficient, as opposed to 33%, you get 19% of that energy going to the wheels. AKA you'd get 58% better gas mileage, and that's only before you use technologies like hybrid engines or compression ignition (diesel) technology, which could easily be applied to this new engine design as well.
This technology would render the oil problem mute for at least a decade or so. We'd still eventually need an alternative, but it would give us some serious breathing room if people would only start looking at the numbers.
Yeah, of course there are risks of investing in the wrong technology. That's why you test it before putting it into production.
How can we possibly ignore the potential gains this technology would provide? I don't understand why people don't even want to try.
I mean for goodness sake, it's not as if this is just some rogue laboratory claiming these numbers. SwRI knows that their reputation is on the line here. I'm sure they wouldn't sign off on the patent applications unless they were pretty darn sure they were right. They know these things are public knowledge. It's actually a federal offense to lie on a patent application.
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-30/NCSA/PPT/2003EARelease.pd- - - f
Since Europe has app the same people and vehicle populations you can do a comparative study on how long it took and why the Europeans went with diesel resulting in 40-50% of the vehicle fleet while in the USA the diesel fleet is more on the order of 2.5-2.9%. The hybrid % is so low that I would even dare guess is less than 1/2 of 1%. So the real problem as you have noted is GASSERS.
One metric might be the salvage industrys' data of roughly 8% of the vehicle fleet per year goes to salvage (18,000,000). Another is the average age of the fleet is 8.5 years. So against this back drop of 100,000 per year production of Prius's how long will it take to get to ANY modest % of the fleet!? Another is it has taken at least 30 years that I remember to even come to the metric of 2.3-2.9 % of the diesel vehicle population.
One notable "edsel" example is/was the ill fated "electric" cars. a scant 10 years ago, the environmentalists were gleeful to get the regulatory nod to "FORCE" the auto industry to manufacture up to 10% of the yearly new car sales! This of course was the vaulted "harbinger" of environmental awareness. Well, fast forward to 2005, not even environmentalists' drive the so called "electric" powered cars.
And how many diesel autos are here today compared to hybrid cars?
"Well, fast forward to 2005, not even environmentalists' drive the so called "electric" powered cars."
They don't make them anymore and when they did, they were sold to fleets. I'm certainly not an "environmentalist" and would love to tool around in one.
So in your estimation does this illustrate my point? Or not?
..."And also there is that problem or nightmare of investing in the wrong technology. "...
Would it require mass migration in only 6 short years time from diesel to hybrid, or regular ICE to hybrid to prove it is a good alternative?
People still aren't educated in hybrid, I'm still asked how often do I plug it in.
In contrast, people are educated in diesel. They know what to expect. Today's diesels are clean and efficient. The problem is that in a few years they will be yesterday's diesel, perpetuating their legacy. The hype created by diesel enthusiasts always turns out to be false as their systems get older.
I am not sure how you conclude that it disproves my point about the electrical powered vehicles, of which a hybrid is a derivative!? Electric powered vehicles have been around nearly forever (or at least 50 years that I am personally cognizant of)!!?? So I think if you have been in urban area's such as San Francisco that you have seen electric buses? Certainly Cable Cars (can we read old here) have been run on electricity? So there is certainly no "lack" of education!!??
The hybrid car has been around more than a 100 years. Dr. Porsche built a hybrid race car in 1906 that was quite competitive. Toyota and Honda were very late comers to hybrid motivation.
See hybrid timeline:
http://www.hybridcars.com/history.html
Notice I use the word "produced" and not "invented".
You couldn't go buy a gas-electric hybrid car only a few years ago, but more than 40 years ago you could buy a diesel car.
You and me couldn't buy an EV, but they were produced how long ago? 7 Years or so?
The main miss-conseption is "the plug" and battery technology. Without exception, when people hear that we don't plug our hybrids in and it doesn't have thousands of pounds of lead-acid cells and we enjoy a +600 mile range then the attitude turns positive.
Explain to someone that the "new" diesels are clean and don't smoke to get a similarly good reacton. Then they get stuck behind one that is 7-10 years old, and they remember the same claims when they were new.
I believe that is the misconception. I followed a 240D Mercedes the other day and it was as clean as the gassers on the street.
And there has not been a concerted effort to build clean diesel cars in America the last 40 years. The big Three bought Japanese dirty diesels and GM built that horrible gas to diesel conversion. If the automakers had spent the money on improving diesel engines, that has been wasted on the gas engines, we would have cleaner and more efficient cars today. Instead they come up with these flaky hybrids to suck more of our money while making us feel green. Hybrids are no more practical today than they were 100 years ago. Still too expensive for the gain in economy.
About half the new cars sold in Europe use diesel fuel. But in the United States, obstacles, including memories of smoke-belching diesel vehicles from the early 1980's, have led automakers to restrict use of diesel fuel mostly to pickups and larger trucks.
Diesel has some favorable attributes. Because it is roughly 30 percent more fuel-efficient than gasoline, diesel-powered cars emit considerably less global-warming gas, and they can allow more travel between fill-ups.
The diesel engine developed by the E.P.A. does not require filtration because it uses a combustion temperature that is far lower than usual, preventing the creation of nitrogen oxide.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/31/business/31auto.html
Part of it, however is a no brainer in that the US government under the Clinton administration gave the big three automakers 1.5 BILLION dollars to do a "clean sheet" high mileage prototype (diesel was NOT specified) and each of the "three automakers" independently and separately came up with a diesel motivated power plant prototype.