... A Diesel is much more efficient @ part throttle than a gas engine. I should probably word it that at part throttle a Diesel has much less of a BSFC (brake specific fuel consumption) penalty compared to a gas engine.
I think one reason why I put it the way I did was because MOST gasser drivers DO NOT believe what I said. They probably haven't a CLUE what you said, AND/OR what it REALLY MEANS. :lemon:
It sort of follows the other clue, you/me say : full torque comes on @ 1900 rpm. Well does that mean a diesel has no guts?! Or like you tell a gasser guy this diesel has 350 hp. They will say no big deal most hi po rigs have at least 375 hp. ...BUT detuned it has 620 #ft of torque......!!??
Aside from the Jetta 2.0L TDI will there be any other mid-sized sedan available in a diesel to be sold to the general public in the US this year or next year ? I hear Chrysler may put a diesel in their Grand Cherokee,but I am looking for a mid-sized sedan with 'guts'.
They are available in most of the USA now. They came out as a 2007 model. They seem to be deeply discounted along with all the SUVs. As long as diesel is high priced it will dissuade buyers. When I bought my 2005 Passat TDI diesel was more than unleaded. I paid under invoice. When I sold a year later diesel was cheaper than gas. I sold for $3000 more than I paid brand new. People are silly about fuel prices. They sell a big rig to save on gas. Not looking at the $1000s they lose on the deal.
Now is a good time to buy that Grand Cherokee Diesel.
I saw in the local rag (Detriot (AP) (news filler ) registered US market hybrid vehicles hit the 350,289 mark. So even with years of hype the % is up to .0013933% of the passenger vehicle fleet.
Conversely while dismal, regulated against and BANNED since the 2005 model year in notably CA, the diesel passenger vehicle fleet has come down from less than 3% to 2%.
Even with all of its hyperbole, misstatements, plots, off subject rants, and conspiracies this is still one of the more entertaining sites around. Throw in the occassional informational item and Shebang! an omelet!
Why this is true, I am not really sure, but vehicles cost considerably more in CN than the US. So while I am sure 2,300 more is acurate in CN, it might not be so across the southern border. On mylast trip up into CN, I did not hook up with any diesel car enthusiasts, so I will stand corrected on any updates.
I would expect the Diesel version of the Jetta in the U.S. to be $1500 to $2000 more than the gas version, or about what has been predicted, based on the Canadian numbers. I wish the article had given some more information on the vehicle dimensions. I suppose I could troll around the internet for the numbers.
On a related diesel note, diesel is still hovering around $4.56 in NY according to AAA. And, for the first time every state is over $4 per gallon. RUG is also up.
The high diesel prices still surprise me. There must be refinery issues preventing them from increasing the diesel supply beyond the demand in Europe and heating oil needs in the NE. I think the EIA is scheduled to release a new report in May which may explain this in greater detail.
The EIA is predicting a diesel price of $3.39 in 2009 and a RUG price of $3.24. A 15 cent a gallon difference in price would certainly help diesel cars make some good headway in the market. Of course this is all based on oil at $92.50 a barrel. Time will tell.
Yes unfortunately high fuel prices are news. :lemon: Higher prices even cause PAIN. I find sometimes these published "averages" are misleading.
So for example, most times when I go to fill, the real world prices are HIGHER than the published "AVERAGES" at the time. Most times I wish I could pay (at max )the average and find those stations that really throw off the averages. (aka CHEAPEST)
So corner store prices today 3.83 RUG, 4.03 PUG, D2 4.39. (northern left coast)
Interesting link. Bar chart on P10 is good as a comparative guide, but actual numbers depend upon engine size/vehicle weight etc. Current European Jetta 2.0 TDi actually puts out 237 gmCO2/mile - CO2 figures are manadatory over here. The VW 5.0 V10 TDi, (in the Touareg), kicks out 494 gmCO2/mile. The 1.4 TSI 170bhp gasser in the Jetta puts out 278 of the CO2 bits and the 2.0 TSI 197bhp in the same Jetta puts out 302gmCO2/mile.
The 6.1 V8 in the Chrysler 300C churns out a mighty 528 gmCO2/mile.
All the figures are based on conversion from European gmCO2/km figures.
Only one query : Where did they get a Diesel Hybrid to play with, or is this a theoretical number ?
1. I have no author ship in the link, so I do not know where the data on a "non existent" (on the market) product came from. I am swagging there are specifications pages/links for those who are in the business of diesel/hybrid oem ing. It would seem an even less than sophomoric oversight for Harvard lass'/laddies to overlook footnotes on something so obviously "non existent".
2. After 42 years of driving (my nexus) we are just getting around to numbering our highway and roads entry and exit signs. Perhaps that is indicative of how future important changes will be dealt with. It amazes me that despite the internet availability of information and concern about GHG's, C02 data that for the US market models goes unpublished. It is literally like looking for a small needle in a HUGE haystack to get the data that is freely published (as you have noted) in the European market!? :lemon:
3. You probably also noted (by its absence) the authors did not include a gasser hybrids category, (otto cycle? aka Prius,Civic), being as how they put a non existent diesel hybrid- why not an exisiting gasser/hybrid?
4. It might be related to the "electrical". This to me was the visual SHOCKER!! If the graphs are representitively correct, electrical vehicles (non gasser/diesel, etc) emit ALMOST to over 2x more GHG's than BD100 !!!!!!!!!!!!! (please pardon my obvious over use of the ex clam point!!!!)
The ramifications are literally enormous!
So in the context of your response, those (European ) DIESEL CO2 figures drop off a MINIMUM of 68% just by the use of BD100 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ..."Current European Jetta 2.0 TDi actually puts out 237 gmCO2/mile - CO2 figures are manadatory over here."...
So on BD100, it would put out 76 gmCO2/mile and or LESS !!
(SWAGGED #'s (D2, 375 grams CO2 equivalent mile- BD 100, 120 grams CO2 equivalent mile= 255/375= 68% min )
For electrical vs BD 100 it is more like 43%!!! This is still HUGE. It is especially so as electrical was/is being touted as the MOST GREEN (least CO2 emitting) of all the current solutions. As one can see, definitely NOT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
... In the USA, if it was not for global warming, the public awareness, would still be, almost, 100 percent, influenced by CARB and EPA. Not, to mention the tens of thousands of mechanics and DIY mechanics that think of the three non-volume metrics as Gospel. Unburned HC, CO and NOx are only measured as content of a specific quantity, say a cubic foot, or 100 cubic foot. For thirty plus years there was no mention of how many cubic feet of exhaust gas is emitted. So that in the early days the regs caused something that was capable of obtaining 20 MPG to only get 15 MPG (if or when it ever ran right), however it might pass the sniff test the day it left the showroom. .. ... YES, total carbon output should be as ubiquitous as the three measurments above and there should even be some incentives built into the regs for better grades in this area.
A brand new Shell station just opened up near me, and had signs for diesel. How wonderful - but when I finally stopped in it was bio diesel - 4 pumps of bio diesel. I need ULSD. What where they thinking?
Non one is refining biodiesel, certainly not Shell, in the kind of volume you would need for four pumps in a name-brand gas station.
Biodiesel is not officially regulated in any way shape or form (ULSD is required by law) so maybe you need to get a better answer from the guy that owns the gas station.
If it is a blend you should count yourself lucky. Biodiesel acts as a cleaning agent with no negative side affect if the blend is low enough.
One possible update. even LOWER GHG and Nox emissions for ULSD than for RUG to PUG.
Since the study indicates diesel (LSD= 500 ppm, with CA mandating 140 ppm) and does not indicate ULSD (15 ppm) , the recent mandated switch (Oct 2006) to ULSD (15 ppm) would further decrease GHG and NOX emissions. So if ULD (500 ppm) was way better than RUG to PUG @ 30 ppm) then (500-15= 97% LESS emissions) is even better (LESS)
I think the environmentalis loath to put these types of data in visual graphic form because the MASSIVE difference between ULSD/BD20/BD100 and RUG to PUG which they advocate is massively WORSE!! and by their own definitions!!!!
So what do you think would happen now to the price of RUG to PUG to get the sulfur ppm from 30 to match ULSD @ 15 ppm????????
..."When the department bought $17 million in flex-fuel vehicles in 2006 and 2007, there was just one ethanol station, in San Diego,"...
Let's see a trip to the one lone flex fuel station in CA- San Diego from Sacramento to FLEX-FUEL fill state legislature vehicles is a minimum of 506 miles one way/ 1012 miles R/T
I have just read (Spring issue of BMW Magazine over here) that BMW is launching Advanced Diesel with BluePerformance in the USA next Fall. Reportedly they will sell 335d sedans and X5's. On BMW Magazine on-line there is already some promotional video. Interested posters may have a look at:
... I believe most of the flex-fuel injection systems tune themselves with the O~2 sensor in that whatever percentage of alky is in the tank the system can change injector bandwidth to tune the engine, including un-flexed gasoline. (UFG) (lol).
Using bio diesel would knock 68% off an already impressive 136g/km or 43.52 g/km.
In contrast the Prius is "104g/km for Toyota's version".
Small wonder why the greenies do not like diesel and bio diesel with the system conspiring to keep diesel @ 2% of the passenger vehicle fleet population.
Yes a 6 speed manual would probably be my first choice. Also the DSG is really creating a buzz (over here) anyway.
(computer shifted clutch type operation, with two "modes" 1. automatic-like 2. row /roll your own! )
I am watching the DSG reliability, longevity issues. Even a less than ideal dual plate (Jetta TDI) clutch has 300,000 to 400,000 miles expectations. R/R costs are less than 1,000.
I know that automatic repairs are app 2000-3000. DSG? Who really knows at this time?!!
I have posted that other than light sweet crude is cheaper than light sweet crude. Add to that new refining efficiencies and the advantages add up even more for diesel.
The following discussion has been cut and pasted from a stock recommendation so I have CUT all but the references to refining efficiencies.
"The key ... is the “crack spread,” or the difference between the selling price of all the products that come out of a barrel of oil and the cost of that barrel. But when the price of oil is shooting up, product prices tend to lag and the crack spread and refining margins get squeezed.
The New York Mercantile Exchange crack spread is [around] the $12 area. I expect the summer driving season to drive it to $20 or more."... .
..."... first advantage is that it can process "heavy" or "sour" crude oil, which sells for $10 to $30 a barrel less than sweet crude. Its advanced technology [can] handle these harder-to-process oils, including bitumen from Canadian tar sands.
Second, X recently upgraded its refineries by investing in hydrocrackers that can convert 90% of a barrel of oil to gasoline or diesel, while their competitors can convert only 50% to 70%. Heavy crude sells at an average 20% discount to light sweet crude, yet Holly can get more barrels of gasoline out of a barrel of heavy crude than their competitors can out of light sweet crude!
So when you add up:
1. a 10-30% discount a barrel 2. add to that a 20-40% efficiency 3. that the majority of oil IS OTHER than light sweet crude. 4. diesel easier to refine 5. diesel burning products have a 20-40% efficiency over like RUG to PUG products
the advantages of D2 over RUG to PUG are huge
(Below are the references so one does not think I am making this stuff up, it is more known in the industry, but I am NOT an industry insider- just a curious consumer like most other folks.)
"Small wonder why the greenies do not like diesel and bio diesel with the system conspiring to keep diesel 2% of the passenger vehicle fleet population."
The idea that all greenies do not like biodiesel is not true.
Bluewater Network is a division of Friends of the Earth. Sounds pretty green to me.
"A conspiracy theory usually attributes the ultimate cause of an event or chain of events (usually political, social or historical events), or the concealment of such causes from public knowledge, to a secret, and often deceptive plot by a group of powerful or influential people or organizations. Many conspiracy theories imply that major events in history have been dominated by conspirators who manipulate political happenings from behind the scenes." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory
And yes, I am part of a secret anti-diesel group named ......oh wait, I cannot actual mention the name. If I did....well them would need to get rid of all people reading the post, and frankly, the paperwork is a pain in the neck. :shades:
Bluewater Network is a division of Friends of the Earth. Sounds pretty green to me.
Seems they took a lot of flack over a lawsuit against Toyota acting like they were a green car company. All the while pushing Tundras and Sequoias...
I personally think the oil companies will effectively curtail the sales of diesel cars in this country. They do not want to happen what has happened in the EU with massive diesel car sales. As long as they keep the price of diesel significantly higher than RUL, most people will not buy. I would, just because I like driving a diesel vehicle more than I do a gas one. I hate the constant downshifting with low torque gas engines. Even the V8 in my Sequoia is not great at low RPM. It downshifts going up Interstate 8 if I try to maintain the 70 MPH speed limit. That was not the case with that little 4 cylinder diesel in the Passat. Diesels are just better on the highway.
The proof is really not under rocks, etc. The proof is really as I said in the 2% of the vehicle fleet being diesel. So it is really out there. Not too many years ago there was a thread about SUV's and why they were hated. Even when fuel was much cheaper the SUV population grew in app 30 years from less than 2% of the population to 12% clearly a minority position. During this time growth was characterized by greenies as exponential growth, mongol hordes at the gates type of thing. But the math indicated growth at only.004% per year. Keep in mind new SUV's sales have never been banned in 5 states.
So if you count the 80's for diesel growth, growth for diesels is more like .0007% per year. The differences are HUGE. So if you do not wish to recognize that diesels are 2% of the passenger vehicle fleet vs SUV's @ 12% which were reviled by greenies, then I think denial is at work here.
What to me would not be systemic would be for oems to offer diesel options in models that made economic sense. Obviously stop changing the standards and banning them from new car sales.
I also agree with Gagrice that the oil companies will work very hard at keeping diesel cars off the road. I also think governments will also or find a way to replace a massive loss of income if diesels populations increase.
"What to me would not be systemic would be for oems to offer diesel options in models that made economic sense. Obviously stop changing the standards and banning them from new car sales."
The standards are not going to stop changing. People are concerned about emissions so the standards will most likely get more strict for all engines. And, to think that OEMs will offer diesels just because you think they make economic sense...well that is not going to happen.
The car makers look at what people want or think they want. Manufacturers will build what they think is right for the customer. People are not that crazy about diesels for a variety of reasons which is why they have been slow to catch on. That will make the car manufacturers cautious about introducing a diesel product. You also need to look at the capabilities and expertize GM, Ford and Toyota have to produce diesel engines. They cannot just turn a switch and produce diesel engines in quantity. The conspiracy theory that you folks are expounding is just the normal way the market (people) reacts to new or different products.
"I also agree with Gagrice that the oil companies will work very hard at keeping diesel cars off the road. I also think governments will also or find a way to replace a massive loss of income if diesels populations increase."
No. Oil companies sell both diesel and UG. They are not trying to limit diesel sales. As I mentioned in previous posts there is the issue of Europe.
"Europeans have a higher per capita demand for diesel. Since you get diesel and gasoline from the refining process, they can get rid of their excess gasoline by sending it to the U.S. That helps keep gasoline prices in check, but obviously does nothing for diesel prices. Take a look at recent diesel prices to see what gasoline prices might look like if not for the imports." http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3887#more http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_impcus_a2_nus_epm0f_im0_mbbl_a.htm
The second issue is that refineries are maxed out in some cases with diesel production. The ULSD fuel is difficult to produce. They would produce more if they could. Do you think that a refinery serving NY would want to hold back selling diesel at $4.594 (current average NY, AAA) to sell RUG at $3.736 (current average NY, AAA)????
The other thing to consider is that as diesel cars become more popular demand will go up. Higher demand will only increase the price. Can refineries upgrade fast enough to bring down prices? I'm not sure, but my guess is no. Keep in mind that refinery production is shifting to the Middle East and Asia in 2010-2013. We probably will see a worldwide glut of refineries. This may put some smaller refineries in the U.S., Australia and UK in trouble - which would not help local conditions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oil_refineries
... Av, the emission standards have to plateau. There is just not that much left that can be added on to an internal combustion engine. As a matter of fact, quite a bit of what is done, to reduce NOx, cost in fuel mileage/carbon output. I am looking for scientific improvements in how we reach current standards. For instance, I saw a particulate trap that also reduces NOx by nine percent. Some more improvement in that area and maybe we can get rid of the dreaded and counter-productive EGR systems. Of course that would be helped if there were incentives and an admission by reg bodies that maybe they are human.
Actually you are making the case for me!! All the gasser cars I do have have a diesel component somewhere else in the world. So it is not like these oems need to make risky NEW investments in making new diesel cars to market which are not already being made and a whole set of investments needs to be undertaken at great risk with little to no return. So the talk is of globalization, but the same old local antics apply, i.e., are still being employed.
So if a Ford, GM, Chysler does not want to produce diesel for the American market, hey I really do not have an issue with that. They do not need my help to fall further down the tank. They are doing a wonderful job all by themselves. BUT you really left out the fact that ALL of those above oems have been and will continue to make diesels for world wide markets. Indeed some diesel assembly plants are in the US !!! So your arguments do not hold up in that regard. All that really needs to happen is for those cars which are now available around the world to be let into the USA!!! Pretty simple stuff. But like I said and you confirm, we know it is not being done !!!
Sure, per gal D2 (ULSD by the way to address your concern) costs more than RUG to PUG. Pug is 4.9% more than Rug. D2 is 12.3% more than RUG and 7.7% more than PUG . The difference has always been in the structure (per mile driven) i.e., VW Jetta's: 2.0, 29 mpg/1.8T, 29 mpg/TDI, 49 mpg. Corner store prices of Rug- 3.85 Pug- 4.05 D2 -4.39. Per mile driven that is .1327586, .1396551, .0895918. So it seems you are saying gasser folks are ok with paying more per mile driven, I am ok with that. Do I think it is true overall? Heck no!! Your argument is either elitest or you you have just hit the planet with regard to the current oil situation. My own personal opinion is neither is true in your case. For one I'd rather be paying 32.5% to 35.8% less per mile driven. What I have been essentially saying is a fair amount of US market folks would also. Let me swag app 20% of the vehicle fleet! They would if they could, but can't, (for the reasons I have outlined) so they won't! Evidently there are a lots of regulatory/industry folks who really do not want to see that happen with any increase in percentages..
On a practical level getting and using D2 and/or bio diesel is utterly seamless. The truth is I should get on your bandwagon and tell folks not to get diesel cars !!!
There are literally laundry lists as to the advantages. For sure there are a few disadvantages.
I would not look to the US refineries to increase ULSD production. They are establishing a price that we will live with and that will limit the demand. We are at a crossroads until some enterprise starts producing biodiesel at a lower cost per gallon and or the diesel made from natural gas (GTL) comes in from places like Qatar or even an Alaskan gas pipeline.
That said. If Toyota were to bring their Land Cruiser with a 4 cylinder diesel engine that gets 30+ MPG or a V6 diesel in a Sequoia. It would be less cost per mile than my current Sequoia, unless diesel becomes twice the price of unleaded.
Currently RUL is $3.75 at the cheapo stations and diesel is holding at $4.25 at most locations. A diesel fullsized SUV will cost about 14 cents per mile while my Sequoia costs me 23 cents a mile. I don't believe diesel will ever be double the price of gasoline. So owning a diesel vehicle is a safe bet and a hedge against high priced fuel.
My TLC's get app 15 mpg and occasionally up to 18 mpg coming down out of tahoe to the silicon valley. So 30 mpg in a full sized SUV would be a min of 100% better!!!! 30 mpg is better right now in a fullsized SUV that a lot of so called "economy cars."
Using the same logic, it is probably pretty easy to see why despite so called opposition, that(GASSER) SUV's were sanctioned to grow to app 12% of the vehicle fleet. Diesel SUV's offer no such incentive.
the emission standards have to plateau. There is just not that much left that can be added on to an internal combustion engine.
I've made this statement to many people for over a decade. The new vehicles are not the polluters. It's the old ones that are the problem. People blame diesel buses for killing the air in metro areas. Buses are regularly replaced, however. If you stand behind a 2008 diesel bus, you will not see or smell any exhaust. The only way to get smoke from the stacks of a 2008 class-8 truck is to absolutely slam the go pedal from idle.
The problem? The newer vehicles are too expensive for a lot of people. The guy or gal making just over minimum wage who needs a car to get to the job isn't at the dealer checking out the latest and greatest. They're going through the local paper or scouring the BuyHerePayHere lots for something that will hold up for a couple of years without leaving them on the side of the road.
I've always liked diesels, and have owned them for the last 12 years. My next vehicle will also be a diesel. But that's because I'm in a position where I can afford them. Unless the government is going to hand out coupons, a la the digital TV antenna coupons for next year, so that everyone can go out and get a new "clean" car or truck, all the tightened emissions regs will do is cause new vehicles to be out of most people's reach.
I'm watching for a clean pre 1997 Ford Power stroke diesel F250. Last year I liked the looks. Those did not seem to have the little problems all the new ones have. With diesel prices high they are going for bargain prices here in San Diego. If I find one I will sell my 1999 Ford Ranger that is under powered and uses as much gas as a full sized gas truck.
The smog stuff on the post 2003 Ford diesels was nothing but trouble in the Arctic. They may work fine in warm weather. They were in the shop more than on the road in sub zero temperatures. The older Ford diesels were no problem. They sit idling 12 hours a day and go when you need them.
I agree. I probably should have said we will see some smaller changes. I think we are getting close to what can be done. The gas engines went through all the emission changes years ago... Everyone remember the switch from leaded to unleaded. :shades:
Since this is a diesel thread, as posted earlier, (per Harvard study) diesel emits less GHG's than RUG to PUG, ULSD is EVEN better by far than RUG to PUG. The latest incarnation ULSD is even better than diesel . BD 100 is even better than ELECTRIC CARS!!
Your spread is closer than ours. We are at $3.49 RUG and $4.15 diesel.
As to the question of adding more ULSD, I would think they will have to increase production even if it takes several years. Otherwise, the price will continue to soar. Are we not expecting more diesel cars in the future from VW, Honda and Subaru...That demand needs to be met or the price will go higher.
If in the next few years 250,000 diesel cars are sold we will see 250,000 less UG fueled cars. The demand for diesel will go up along with prices. There will be 250K less UG cars so gasoline prices will decline.
And, if diesel production does not go up we can kiss the economy goodbye. Trucks, farming, construction equipment, and trains all require diesel. Limiting diesel or taking it and putting in to fuel cars will mean less available for moving goods, farming and construction. GDP cannot grow without more diesel. Kind of like stagflation, or maybe we can call it dieselflation. :shades:
..."If in the next few years 250,000 diesel cars are sold we will see 250,000 less UG fueled cars. The demand for diesel will go up along with prices. There will be 250K less UG cars so gasoline prices will decline. "...
While this is logical, it really might be counter intuitively, not the case. While it is true the passenger diesel population HAS gone from less than 3% TO 2%, there has been an increase (16 M vehicles) in the overall ( "UG") population, from 235.4 to 251.4 M. In that same period, history has the price of RUG to PUG going UP!!!!
Another indicator, the population of Hybrids (Prius, Civic etc) is up to 350,000 highest it has ever been. The scuttle butt being it will reduce pollution and fuel demand. At the risk of repetition, again history has the price of RUG to PUG going UP!!!! ( Also overall consumption is UP, but that is not germane to your quote)
Correct, They can and do have severely different sulfur ppm. HUGE problems up to felonies, if off road D2 is sold as on road and vice versa also, but who would want to pay more when they can pay less?. Also I am not sure how to say this in industry speak, but the second off road diesel is earmarked, it is so called "contaminated" by red dye. So what this means is they have to carefully estimate and manage supplies. So off road aka red dye diesel can have a life of its own.
"Obviously all costs are going up but it's based on the barrel of crude not diesel per se."
I'm not sure I understand how your point relates to what I said. I was trying to point out that if more people demand diesel the price will rise without an increase in production.
There is only so much raw diesel to start with. Some of the diesel will be made into ULSD - 15 ppm and some will be LSD - 500 ppm. If more people demand ULSD diesel there will be less diesel on the LSD side. The EIA site does a good job of pointing out a few things.
I meant to say that not all diesel is created equally and that, contrary to what I used to believe was correct, the 'ingredients' of a barrel of crude are not set in terms of percentages. The diesel used for trains, construction and farming competes with RUG and ULSD, not ULSD alone.
Also an increase in ULSD for passenger cars means in a decrease in RUG, so the proportions being cracked would be altered. The net affect of more diesel passenger vehicles is less demand for crude since diesel is more efficient.
More fuel @ higher prices (higher crack spread),! Tersoro would be batty not to agree to refine more product?
So if I understand what the state ,by way of UK???? Or that you are implying by the second link: is asking; instead of 1 to 1.5 km restrictions on red dye fuel used to travel "on road" They want an "on road" km extention so you can... say take a red dyed diesel vehicle like a combine down to the local Piggly Wiggly? Or a normal argricultural work truck can travel on road for non related reasons???
I bought red dye diesel for my little tractor the first tank. It is only 10 cents less than the good stuff. The ARCO/BP station was starting to sell ULSD for less than I paid for Red Dye Diesel. So my tractor has run on ULSD after the first tank.
I think they are both ULSD in San Diego now. They add the red dye and take the Federal tax off. Something like that.
I do think it will be several years before we see 250k diesel cars sold in a year. One thing going for diesel is we are in a price range that biodiesel becomes profitable. I read one company in Utah was making money at $1.90 per gallon with the 51 cent subsidy added. With corn for ethanol competing for land it is not likely to see much crop land dedicated to rape or soy for biodiesel.
... In the USA the red dye is primarily related to road tax. The dye is a quick check that the road tax has not been paid. It so happens in some areas that the PPM of sulfur could be higher in the red dyed "off road" product.
Comments
It sort of follows the other clue, you/me say : full torque comes on @ 1900 rpm. Well does that mean a diesel has no guts?! Or like you tell a gasser guy this diesel has 350 hp. They will say no big deal most hi po rigs have at least 375 hp. ...BUT detuned it has 620 #ft of torque......!!??
I hear Chrysler may put a diesel in their Grand Cherokee,but I am looking for a mid-sized sedan with 'guts'.
They are available in most of the USA now. They came out as a 2007 model. They seem to be deeply discounted along with all the SUVs. As long as diesel is high priced it will dissuade buyers. When I bought my 2005 Passat TDI diesel was more than unleaded. I paid under invoice. When I sold a year later diesel was cheaper than gas. I sold for $3000 more than I paid brand new. People are silly about fuel prices. They sell a big rig to save on gas. Not looking at the $1000s they lose on the deal.
Now is a good time to buy that Grand Cherokee Diesel.
Conversely while dismal, regulated against and BANNED since the 2005 model year in notably CA, the diesel passenger vehicle fleet has come down from less than 3% to 2%.
http://www.canadiandriver.com/articles/pw/2009-volkswagen-jetta-wagon.htm
It appears that the diesel version will be $2,300 loonies more.
On a related diesel note, diesel is still hovering around $4.56 in NY according to AAA. And, for the first time every state is over $4 per gallon. RUG is also up.
http://www.fuelgaugereport.com/sbsavg.asp
The high diesel prices still surprise me. There must be refinery issues preventing them from increasing the diesel supply beyond the demand in Europe and heating oil needs in the NE. I think the EIA is scheduled to release a new report in May which may explain this in greater detail.
The EIA is predicting a diesel price of $3.39 in 2009 and a RUG price of $3.24. A 15 cent a gallon difference in price would certainly help diesel cars make some good headway in the market. Of course this is all based on oil at $92.50 a barrel. Time will tell.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/steo/pub/contents.html
So for example, most times when I go to fill, the real world prices are HIGHER than the published "AVERAGES" at the time. Most times I wish I could pay (at max )the average and find those stations that really throw off the averages. (aka CHEAPEST)
So corner store prices today 3.83 RUG, 4.03 PUG, D2 4.39. (northern left coast)
GHG Emissions / Mile for a Passenger Car
Grams CO2 equivalent / mile
PG 10 slide
link title
The 6.1 V8 in the Chrysler 300C churns out a mighty 528 gmCO2/mile.
All the figures are based on conversion from European gmCO2/km figures.
Only one query : Where did they get a Diesel Hybrid to play with, or is this a theoretical number ?
1. I have no author ship in the link, so I do not know where the data on a "non existent" (on the market) product came from. I am swagging there are specifications pages/links for those who are in the business of diesel/hybrid oem ing. It would seem an even less than sophomoric oversight for Harvard lass'/laddies to overlook footnotes on something so obviously "non existent".
2. After 42 years of driving (my nexus) we are just getting around to numbering our highway and roads entry and exit signs. Perhaps that is indicative of how future important changes will be dealt with. It amazes me that despite the internet availability of information and concern about GHG's, C02 data that for the US market models goes unpublished. It is literally like looking for a small needle in a HUGE haystack to get the data that is freely published (as you have noted) in the European market!? :lemon:
3. You probably also noted (by its absence) the authors did not include a gasser hybrids category, (otto cycle? aka Prius,Civic), being as how they put a non existent diesel hybrid- why not an exisiting gasser/hybrid?
4. It might be related to the "electrical". This to me was the visual SHOCKER!! If the graphs are representitively correct, electrical vehicles (non gasser/diesel, etc) emit ALMOST to over 2x more GHG's than BD100 !!!!!!!!!!!!! (please pardon my obvious over use of the ex clam point!!!!)
The ramifications are literally enormous!
So in the context of your response, those (European ) DIESEL CO2 figures drop off a MINIMUM of 68% just by the use of BD100 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ..."Current European Jetta 2.0 TDi actually puts out 237 gmCO2/mile - CO2 figures are manadatory over here."...
So on BD100, it would put out 76 gmCO2/mile and or LESS !!
(SWAGGED #'s (D2, 375 grams CO2 equivalent mile- BD 100, 120 grams CO2 equivalent mile= 255/375= 68% min )
For electrical vs BD 100 it is more like 43%!!! This is still HUGE. It is especially so as electrical was/is being touted as the MOST GREEN (least CO2 emitting) of all the current solutions. As one can see, definitely NOT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
..
... YES, total carbon output should be as ubiquitous as the three measurments above and there should even be some incentives built into the regs for better grades in this area.
Non one is refining biodiesel, certainly not Shell, in the kind of volume you would need for four pumps in a name-brand gas station.
Biodiesel is not officially regulated in any way shape or form (ULSD is required by law) so maybe you need to get a better answer from the guy that owns the gas station.
If it is a blend you should count yourself lucky. Biodiesel acts as a cleaning agent with no negative side affect if the blend is low enough.
I would guess the manufacturers give them an engine for certification purposes or maybe just their data to start.
SsangYong to Launch 20 New Models Over Next Five Years; Diesel Hybrid Included
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2008/04/ssangyong-to-la.html
Revealed: Volkswagen's 69.9-MPG Diesel Hybrid
http://blog.wired.com/cars/2008/03/revealed-volksw.html
"According to Auto Bild, the hybrid Golf will get 69.9 mpg and emit 90 g/km of carbon dioxide."
Since the study indicates diesel (LSD= 500 ppm, with CA mandating 140 ppm) and does not indicate ULSD (15 ppm) , the recent mandated switch (Oct 2006) to ULSD (15 ppm) would further decrease GHG and NOX emissions. So if ULD (500 ppm) was way better than RUG to PUG @ 30 ppm) then (500-15= 97% LESS emissions) is even better (LESS)
I think the environmentalis loath to put these types of data in visual graphic form because the MASSIVE difference between ULSD/BD20/BD100 and RUG to PUG which they advocate is massively WORSE!! and by their own definitions!!!!
So what do you think would happen now to the price of RUG to PUG to get the sulfur ppm from 30 to match ULSD @ 15 ppm????????
by Kimberley Kindy
link title
..."When the department bought $17 million in flex-fuel vehicles in 2006 and 2007, there was just one ethanol station, in San Diego,"...
Let's see a trip to the one lone flex fuel station in CA- San Diego from Sacramento to FLEX-FUEL fill state legislature vehicles is a minimum of 506 miles one way/ 1012 miles R/T
I have just read (Spring issue of BMW Magazine over here) that BMW is launching Advanced Diesel with BluePerformance in the USA next Fall. Reportedly they will sell 335d sedans and X5's. On BMW Magazine on-line there is already some promotional video. Interested posters may have a look at:
link title
Regards,
Jose
At 46 miles per gallon on the US scale, this would be a SCHWWEEEEEETTTTT replacement for my TCH.
"...and emissions of 136g/km of CO2. "...
Using bio diesel would knock 68% off an already impressive 136g/km or 43.52 g/km.
In contrast the Prius is "104g/km for Toyota's version".
Small wonder why the greenies do not like diesel and bio diesel with the system conspiring to keep diesel @ 2% of the passenger vehicle fleet population.
(computer shifted clutch type operation, with two "modes" 1. automatic-like 2. row /roll your own! )
I am watching the DSG reliability, longevity issues. Even a less than ideal dual plate (Jetta TDI) clutch has 300,000 to 400,000 miles expectations. R/R costs are less than 1,000.
I know that automatic repairs are app 2000-3000. DSG? Who really knows at this time?!!
The following discussion has been cut and pasted from a stock recommendation so I have CUT all but the references to refining efficiencies.
"The key ... is the “crack spread,” or the difference between the selling price of all the products that come out of a barrel of oil and the cost of that barrel. But when the price of oil is shooting up, product prices tend to lag and the crack spread and refining margins get squeezed.
The New York Mercantile Exchange crack spread is [around] the $12 area. I expect the summer driving season to drive it to $20 or more."... .
..."... first advantage is that it can process "heavy" or "sour" crude oil, which sells for $10 to $30 a barrel less than sweet crude. Its advanced technology [can] handle these harder-to-process oils, including bitumen from Canadian tar sands.
Second, X recently upgraded its refineries by investing in hydrocrackers that can convert 90% of a barrel of oil to gasoline or diesel, while their competitors can convert only 50% to 70%. Heavy crude sells at an average 20% discount to light sweet crude, yet Holly can get more barrels of gasoline out of a barrel of heavy crude than their competitors can out of light sweet crude!
So when you add up:
1. a 10-30% discount a barrel
2. add to that a 20-40% efficiency
3. that the majority of oil IS OTHER than light sweet crude.
4. diesel easier to refine
5. diesel burning products have a 20-40% efficiency over like RUG to PUG products
the advantages of D2 over RUG to PUG are huge
(Below are the references so one does not think I am making this stuff up, it is more known in the industry, but I am NOT an industry insider- just a curious consumer like most other folks.)
link title
D2 product burners are also a PATHWAY to alternative fuels like BIODIESEL in its forms bd5,bd20,bd100, etc.
The idea that all greenies do not like biodiesel is not true.
http://www.biodiesel.org/aboutnbb/alliance/alliance_members_healthenviro.shtm
Bluewater Network is a division of Friends of the Earth. Sounds pretty green to me.
"A conspiracy theory usually attributes the ultimate cause of an event or chain of events (usually political, social or historical events), or the concealment of such causes from public knowledge, to a secret, and often deceptive plot by a group of powerful or influential people or organizations. Many conspiracy theories imply that major events in history have been dominated by conspirators who manipulate political happenings from behind the scenes."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory
And yes, I am part of a secret anti-diesel group named ......oh wait, I cannot actual mention the name. If I did....well them would need to get rid of all people reading the post, and frankly, the paperwork is a pain in the neck. :shades:
Seems they took a lot of flack over a lawsuit against Toyota acting like they were a green car company. All the while pushing Tundras and Sequoias...
I personally think the oil companies will effectively curtail the sales of diesel cars in this country. They do not want to happen what has happened in the EU with massive diesel car sales. As long as they keep the price of diesel significantly higher than RUL, most people will not buy. I would, just because I like driving a diesel vehicle more than I do a gas one. I hate the constant downshifting with low torque gas engines. Even the V8 in my Sequoia is not great at low RPM. It downshifts going up Interstate 8 if I try to maintain the 70 MPH speed limit. That was not the case with that little 4 cylinder diesel in the Passat. Diesels are just better on the highway.
The proof is really not under rocks, etc. The proof is really as I said in the 2% of the vehicle fleet being diesel. So it is really out there. Not too many years ago there was a thread about SUV's and why they were hated. Even when fuel was much cheaper the SUV population grew in app 30 years from less than 2% of the population to 12% clearly a minority position. During this time growth was characterized by greenies as exponential growth, mongol hordes at the gates type of thing. But the math indicated growth at only.004% per year. Keep in mind new SUV's sales have never been banned in 5 states.
So if you count the 80's for diesel growth, growth for diesels is more like .0007% per year. The differences are HUGE. So if you do not wish to recognize that diesels are 2% of the passenger vehicle fleet vs SUV's @ 12% which were reviled by greenies, then I think denial is at work here.
What to me would not be systemic would be for oems to offer diesel options in models that made economic sense. Obviously stop changing the standards and banning them from new car sales.
I also agree with Gagrice that the oil companies will work very hard at keeping diesel cars off the road. I also think governments will also or find a way to replace a massive loss of income if diesels populations increase.
The standards are not going to stop changing. People are concerned about emissions so the standards will most likely get more strict for all engines. And, to think that OEMs will offer diesels just because you think they make economic sense...well that is not going to happen.
The car makers look at what people want or think they want. Manufacturers will build what they think is right for the customer. People are not that crazy about diesels for a variety of reasons which is why they have been slow to catch on. That will make the car manufacturers cautious about introducing a diesel product. You also need to look at the capabilities and expertize GM, Ford and Toyota have to produce diesel engines. They cannot just turn a switch and produce diesel engines in quantity. The conspiracy theory that you folks are expounding is just the normal way the market (people) reacts to new or different products.
"I also agree with Gagrice that the oil companies will work very hard at keeping diesel cars off the road. I also think governments will also or find a way to replace a massive loss of income if diesels populations increase."
No. Oil companies sell both diesel and UG. They are not trying to limit diesel sales. As I mentioned in previous posts there is the issue of Europe.
"Europeans have a higher per capita demand for diesel. Since you get diesel and gasoline from the refining process, they can get rid of their excess gasoline by sending it to the U.S. That helps keep gasoline prices in check, but obviously does nothing for diesel prices. Take a look at recent diesel prices to see what gasoline prices might look like if not for the imports."
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3887#more
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_impcus_a2_nus_epm0f_im0_mbbl_a.htm
The second issue is that refineries are maxed out in some cases with diesel production. The ULSD fuel is difficult to produce. They would produce more if they could. Do you think that a refinery serving NY would want to hold back selling diesel at $4.594 (current average NY, AAA) to sell RUG at $3.736 (current average NY, AAA)????
The other thing to consider is that as diesel cars become more popular demand will go up. Higher demand will only increase the price. Can refineries upgrade fast enough to bring down prices? I'm not sure, but my guess is no. Keep in mind that refinery production is shifting to the Middle East and Asia in 2010-2013. We probably will see a worldwide glut of refineries. This may put some smaller refineries in the U.S., Australia and UK in trouble - which would not help local conditions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oil_refineries
"However, a series of massive new refineries is steadily coming on-stream throughout Asia - an example is the new Reliance Petroleum refinery at Jamnagar in north-west India, with a capacity about equal to the total of all Australia's seven refineries - and these benefit from production costs that are substantially lower than in Australia. They have the potential to undercut Australian refiners with a flood of cheap product."
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/news/investment/feel-the-energy/2008/04/21/12087- 42855440.html
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/11/07/bloomberg/sxrefiners.php
So if a Ford, GM, Chysler does not want to produce diesel for the American market, hey I really do not have an issue with that. They do not need my help to fall further down the tank. They are doing a wonderful job all by themselves. BUT you really left out the fact that ALL of those above oems have been and will continue to make diesels for world wide markets. Indeed some diesel assembly plants are in the US !!! So your arguments do not hold up in that regard. All that really needs to happen is for those cars which are now available around the world to be let into the USA!!! Pretty simple stuff. But like I said and you confirm, we know it is not being done !!!
Sure, per gal D2 (ULSD by the way to address your concern) costs more than RUG to PUG. Pug is 4.9% more than Rug. D2 is 12.3% more than RUG and 7.7% more than PUG . The difference has always been in the structure (per mile driven) i.e., VW Jetta's: 2.0, 29 mpg/1.8T, 29 mpg/TDI, 49 mpg. Corner store prices of Rug- 3.85 Pug- 4.05 D2 -4.39. Per mile driven that is .1327586, .1396551, .0895918. So it seems you are saying gasser folks are ok with paying more per mile driven, I am ok with that. Do I think it is true overall? Heck no!! Your argument is either elitest or you you have just hit the planet with regard to the current oil situation. My own personal opinion is neither is true in your case. For one I'd rather be paying 32.5% to 35.8% less per mile driven. What I have been essentially saying is a fair amount of US market folks would also. Let me swag app 20% of the vehicle fleet! They would if they could, but can't, (for the reasons I have outlined) so they won't! Evidently there are a lots of regulatory/industry folks who really do not want to see that happen with any increase in percentages..
On a practical level getting and using D2 and/or bio diesel is utterly seamless. The truth is I should get on your bandwagon and tell folks not to get diesel cars !!!
There are literally laundry lists as to the advantages. For sure there are a few disadvantages.
That said. If Toyota were to bring their Land Cruiser with a 4 cylinder diesel engine that gets 30+ MPG or a V6 diesel in a Sequoia. It would be less cost per mile than my current Sequoia, unless diesel becomes twice the price of unleaded.
Currently RUL is $3.75 at the cheapo stations and diesel is holding at $4.25 at most locations. A diesel fullsized SUV will cost about 14 cents per mile while my Sequoia costs me 23 cents a mile. I don't believe diesel will ever be double the price of gasoline. So owning a diesel vehicle is a safe bet and a hedge against high priced fuel.
Using the same logic, it is probably pretty easy to see why despite so called opposition, that(GASSER) SUV's were sanctioned to grow to app 12% of the vehicle fleet. Diesel SUV's offer no such incentive.
I've made this statement to many people for over a decade. The new vehicles are not the polluters. It's the old ones that are the problem. People blame diesel buses for killing the air in metro areas. Buses are regularly replaced, however. If you stand behind a 2008 diesel bus, you will not see or smell any exhaust. The only way to get smoke from the stacks of a 2008 class-8 truck is to absolutely slam the go pedal from idle.
The problem? The newer vehicles are too expensive for a lot of people. The guy or gal making just over minimum wage who needs a car to get to the job isn't at the dealer checking out the latest and greatest. They're going through the local paper or scouring the BuyHerePayHere lots for something that will hold up for a couple of years without leaving them on the side of the road.
I've always liked diesels, and have owned them for the last 12 years. My next vehicle will also be a diesel. But that's because I'm in a position where I can afford them. Unless the government is going to hand out coupons, a la the digital TV antenna coupons for next year, so that everyone can go out and get a new "clean" car or truck, all the tightened emissions regs will do is cause new vehicles to be out of most people's reach.
kcram - Pickups Host
The smog stuff on the post 2003 Ford diesels was nothing but trouble in the Arctic. They may work fine in warm weather. They were in the shop more than on the road in sub zero temperatures. The older Ford diesels were no problem. They sit idling 12 hours a day and go when you need them.
I agree. I probably should have said we will see some smaller changes. I think we are getting close to what can be done. The gas engines went through all the emission changes years ago... Everyone remember the switch from leaded to unleaded. :shades:
link title
As to the question of adding more ULSD, I would think they will have to increase production even if it takes several years. Otherwise, the price will continue to soar. Are we not expecting more diesel cars in the future from VW, Honda and Subaru...That demand needs to be met or the price will go higher.
If in the next few years 250,000 diesel cars are sold we will see 250,000 less UG fueled cars. The demand for diesel will go up along with prices. There will be 250K less UG cars so gasoline prices will decline.
And, if diesel production does not go up we can kiss the economy goodbye. Trucks, farming, construction equipment, and trains all require diesel. Limiting diesel or taking it and putting in to fuel cars will mean less available for moving goods, farming and construction. GDP cannot grow without more diesel. Kind of like stagflation, or maybe we can call it dieselflation. :shades:
While this is logical, it really might be counter intuitively, not the case. While it is true the passenger diesel population HAS gone from less than 3% TO 2%, there has been an increase (16 M vehicles) in the overall ( "UG") population, from 235.4 to 251.4 M. In that same period, history has the price of RUG to PUG going UP!!!!
Another indicator, the population of Hybrids (Prius, Civic etc) is up to 350,000 highest it has ever been. The scuttle butt being it will reduce pollution and fuel demand. At the risk of repetition, again history has the price of RUG to PUG going UP!!!! ( Also overall consumption is UP, but that is not germane to your quote)
Farming, construction and trains don't use the same grade. Obviously all costs are going up but it's based on the barrel of crude not diesel per se.
I'm not sure I understand how your point relates to what I said. I was trying to point out that if more people demand diesel the price will rise without an increase in production.
There is only so much raw diesel to start with. Some of the diesel will be made into ULSD - 15 ppm and some will be LSD - 500 ppm. If more people demand ULSD diesel there will be less diesel on the LSD side. The EIA site does a good job of pointing out a few things.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/bookshelf/brochures/diesel/index.html
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0CYH/is_/ai_90331895
LSD isn't that Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds.
http://www.governor.state.nd.us/media/news-releases/2007/10/071003.html
http://www.fwi.co.uk/Articles/2005/08/12/88510/dissecting-red-diesel-rules.html
Also an increase in ULSD for passenger cars means in a decrease in RUG, so the proportions being cracked would be altered. The net affect of more diesel passenger vehicles is less demand for crude since diesel is more efficient.
So if I understand what the state ,by way of UK???? Or that you are implying by the second link: is asking; instead of 1 to 1.5 km restrictions on red dye fuel used to travel "on road" They want an "on road" km extention so you can... say take a red dyed diesel vehicle like a combine down to the local Piggly Wiggly?
I think they are both ULSD in San Diego now. They add the red dye and take the Federal tax off. Something like that.
I do think it will be several years before we see 250k diesel cars sold in a year. One thing going for diesel is we are in a price range that biodiesel becomes profitable. I read one company in Utah was making money at $1.90 per gallon with the 51 cent subsidy added. With corn for ethanol competing for land it is not likely to see much crop land dedicated to rape or soy for biodiesel.