I sent an email enquiry to two local VW dealers requesting information on the arrival of the VW diesels. I got a call later that day and was told that they might arrive about Sept. He told me that training for the new TDI’s set for this week had been canceled. He said that VW has not been very forthcoming with specific information and details on availability and dates.
He did tell me he had a used TDI Jetta on the lot, but I didn’t request any details as I was driving at the time.
Yes through a lot of the published hype literally since 2004/5/6, about the upcoming 2009 CLEAN diesel, I think it has made oems (VW @ least anyway) gun shy of sorts. Nobody wants poor customer experiences. (VW in particular) The good news of course are European VW diesels already have long histories. However there are some US market idiocycracies (components made by US/other suppliers) that are of yet longitudinally tested. The good news is that seems to be indicative that they REALLY want to get this 2009 model RIGHT!
In that time they have continued to improve. Starting MY 2005.5 (model year, I believe) they bit the investment and sales bullet and became more "BMW like" holding the sales price down in the process, sans inflation. Additionally they tweaked the hp/torque ratings. So from what I have read and what I have seen in the real world are qualitative and quantitative improvements. Naturally I comb the information for 100,000, 200,000, 300,0000, 400,000, 500,000 miles reports. As you can imagine, they are rare to non existent. The 2009 will boast app 30% torque improvement- upwards of 250 # ft of torque !!! % wise this is absolutely HUGE.
One of the probable unintended benefits of the effective diesel "lock out" and % population shrinkage, is the very high resale value of USED diesels. The "lock out" almost single handily has created a whole segment of high to highest resale value vehicles. Edmunds.com for example did an article on the purchase of a used diesel, but I am unsure as to whether the diesel option is acknowledged in pricing,resale, and true cost to own, etc. information. The last checks I made on a TDI, It was as I remember 4,500 dollars more than like model but gasser. This was on an app $246 premium (if I recall correctly) A Craigslist query yield a selling price for 1,000 more than I paid new, with app 50,000 miles, 4 years later!!! This truly has been a pleasant surprise. Of course hind sight could emphasize regret for not buying at least a few more at the time.
"Also an increase in ULSD for passenger cars means in a decrease in RUG, so the proportions being cracked would be altered."
I guess the question is how easy is it for them to alter the mix. Everyone seems to have an opinion. Over time they may be able to make a bigger shift to diesel. How much time and how much will it cost? And, is there a limit?
"The net affect of more diesel passenger vehicles is less demand for crude since diesel is more efficient."
I would agree that there is less demand for crude. What I am interested in is how the change in demand will play out. As an example, let's say we use 100 barrels of gasoline in our car, later we switch to diesel. Let's also assume our diesel car only needs 60 barrels of diesel to go the same distance. We would see: the demand for gasoline decrease by 100 barrels the demand for diesel increase by 60 barrels the demand for crude oil decrease by 40 barrels.
I suspect that the ability to switch from one fuel to the other fuel will depend on a lot on the local refinery. What equipment do they have? How old is the equipment?
That was inevitable. Until they can produce any biofuel from NON food crops it will cause problems. If the mandates were not in place the market would control those prices. When the government sticks their nose in and says you will produce this much whatever, the Prices just go up and up.
Over time they may be able to make a bigger shift to diesel. How much time and how much will it cost? And, is there a limit?
Definitely out of my comfort zone, but I was recently re-educated by a couple of oil-guys regarding the process of converting crude to fuel. My lay-man's understanding is that while there are hard limits from crude in terms of things like parrafin, bunker fuel and jet-fuel, crude can be manipulated to vary the amount of diesel and the amount of gas that you yield. To make those changes would clearly require some expenses at the refineries but it is possible to alter the refining process to match consumer demand more closely.
Obviously there is still the dependency of anyone with the power to change actually wanting to make a change, but the chemistry is available.
It is increasingly clear IMO that there is so much vested interest in not bothering to really take meaningful action on our energy consumption, that I am starting to lose hope that we will ever make use of that 30% increase in energy that diesel has built in. :sick:
Right now as a look back, the numbers are not encouraging @ 2 % of the passenger vehicle fleet: down from less than 3% in the 5 years of diesel car ownership. On the other hand, a STRONG case can be made for the very effective lock out of diesel CAR products in the US markets!!! The passenger vehicle fleet is pegged (for discussion purposes) @ 251.4 M, of which 2% are diesel= 5.028 M , of which most diesels are light trucks. So in that sense 2@ of the population is saving anywhere from 20-40% vs a like gasser product.
Even if diesel cars were to be sold say @ 250,000 per year (which is overly AGGRESSIVELY ambitious given the current opposition, but let's weave Avalon02wh's figure in here) just to go to 12% of the passenger vehicle fleet (like SUV's) would take on the order of 121 years. So the "hidden up front" reality is the system is gear for (exponentially) higher prices to make up for ANY decrease in overall consumption. (as if I am the only one who is paying more per gal of fuel now a days!? ) . The business types know why this is so.
For me, driving a diesel car is utterly seamless, but on the other hand; I truly realize how much in the minority the segment REALLY is. If the overwhelming majority of diesel owner own light trucks, then out of 5.028 M (2% of the passenger vehicle fleet) , I am swagging max 2 M vehicles are diesel cars. In that sense, dieselers really have more in common with hybrid owners than gasser owners. The EIA.gov consumption figures really indicate both segments together have made almost no measurable inpact, let alone any statistically correlated effect. Lets put it this way, if hybrids and diesel cars were drugs and were being tested in accordance with FDA procedures as cures for the OVERALL consumption and emissions parameters during clinical trials, both would fail miserably. On the other hand because of that failure, it is almost not measureable and (oxymoronically) statistically valid to say they cause LESS pollution. But in the scheme of things, WHO REALLY CARES!!??
Now on a micro level, once you are in that minority group....nothing like it!!!!! Right now I pay app 30-40% per mile driven (fuel costs) LESS than the like model gasser. I also consume 42% LESS fuel. Less GHG's are also a given. Now if I switch to bio dieseI, emissions are even less than electric cars, again which almost NO ONE HAS !!! I can even get off the grid !!!!!!!!
I also realize ALL THIS has utterly NO meaning to ANYBODY, other than a Jetta TDI driver, which by the above paragraphs are almost non existent!!
I also realize ALL THIS has utterly NO meaning to ANYBODY, other than a Jetta TDI driver, which by the above paragraphs are almost non existent!!
2 years ago I was optimistic that diesel, with the incredible potential of bio-diesel, was going to go some way to reducing our dependency on oil. I am not only pessimistic on that front now, I am down-right pessimistic about our ability to do anything to 'fix' our situation of low-mpg, high oil dependency.
While gas prices rising certainly will impact many people, I believe that we will all make some kind of internal peace with $3.50/g and we will continue not to take positive action.
There is a location in downtown Austin that sells bio-diesel but it's still no good to me when the only diesels available weigh 8500 pounds and therefore carry no real savings for me (regular old weekend warrior with no towing need) or carry a Mercedes Benz price tag.
I try to remain hopeful that 2009 - 2010 will see some more useful products come to market (Subaru Outback diesel, Passat diesel, Honda Pilot diesel, Ford F-150 diesel etc) but honestly, I don't know if it will happen.
This just in from our fearless leaders: link title
Apparently our solution to record high gas prices (driven by speculation, African & Middle Eastern conflict, strikes in Scotland, too-high demand and surging demand in China and India) is to reduce taxes on gas and diesel in the summer.
Genius :sick: .
Instead of pushing funding for research into alternatives, removing the penalty on energy-rich sugar-cane ethanol from Brazil or, in fact, doing anything remotely long-sighted, we'll just give ourselves a quick helping-hand knowing full well that we'll continue to pay the penalty down the road.
Oh, and we won't have the use of those federal tax dollars for our infrastructure. The same infrastructure where bridges fall down. And the federal tax on gas and diesel is worth only pennies to you and I. Less than 5% of the cost of fuel.
We have no chance. It's time for the roaches to get their shot. :sick:
Oil dependence is a symptom. The problem is the starry eyed fantasy of the wide open road, the personal car, endless consumption, and avoiding social accountability for the choices made. Everything else is just rearranging the deck chairs of a sinking ship whether its diesel, hybrids, or hydrogen.
Not to be political in any way, but it seems a continuance of the principle of pay for play- just at the VOTER level.
Lets put some numbers to it. OK 12-15,000 mile per year, Summer= 25% or .25 of that=3.000-3750 miles/22 mpg (AVERAGE defacto fleet mpg) = 137 gals to 170 gals
..."The tax is 18.4 cents per gallon of gasoline and 24.4 cents on diesel fuel."... or 25.21to 31.20 MAX
diesel (dont forget JUST 2% of the population) @ 33.43 to 41.48. So in my case the government buys me .5 to .6 of a tank. Shoot I would not even get to DISNEY LAND !!!! (See Hypnosis- no fantasy here about the open road )
But really how many folks have a 3 month summer? Or what does summer mean in the article?
So if the personal vehicle could run on biodiesel (no sulphur in biodiesel and CO2 is virtually eliminated) produced by algae that feed off the CO2 (and creates oxygen as a bi-product) from power stations...
I think there are enough great options that we are choosing not to pursue that could move us from a 'consumption to waste' model to a use-to-reuse' model.
I think you are 100% correct on endless consumption being at the root.
I do not take issue with the word picture, as there are many ways of getting any particular point across. However I would hardly consider 12,000 to 15,000 miles per year per average driver "endless consumption" Indeed there are many ways to put the average yearly mileage per driver in SOLVABLE CONTEXT vs INSOLVABLE context.
..."So if the personal vehicle could run on biodiesel (no sulphur in biodiesel and CO2 is virtually eliminated) produced by algae that feed off the CO2 (and creates oxygen as a bi-product) from power stations...
I think there are enough great options that we are choosing not to pursue that could move us from a 'consumption to waste' model to a use-to-reuse' model. "...
So for example, there are SO many obstacles at so many levels to the whole logistical chain of bio diesel that truly it is a wonder bio diesel even hits the markets!!! Indeed most oems of diesel engines warn NOT to use bio diesel. Indeed it should start with law makers to make regulators mandating/crafting regulations so oem's can make engines bio diesel friendly. Indeed specifications are written like a game of "see if they can meet these sets impossible specifications" with more to come in subsequent model years.
To use basketball metaphors, there are full court defensive/ offensive presses on such a minority interest. To boot the fouls are only called on and against the bio diesel side!!!!!! Where the metaphor is way different is the whole basketball system from score keepers, refs, etc, are all on the opposing side (Team RUG to PUG) . They further can play more than 5 players up to the whole bench, while Team bio diesel can only play 1 to 2 guys. Keep in mind the DIESEL passenger vehicle fleet is ONLY 2%; with bio diesel being a WAY smaller subset of that!!! Yet according to the Harvard study I linked in a past post, bio diesel emits less GHG's than even ELECTRICAL CARS !!!!!!
Now if problems are phrased in lanuage designed to make the problem hopeless, there should not be much surprise when hopelessness IS the solution.
Indeed most oems of diesel engines warn NOT to use bio diesel. Indeed it should start with regulators mandating/crafting regulations so oem's can make engines bio diesel friendly.
What's interesting is that it does not take a whole lot to allow any diesel to run on bio-diesel.
If the Biodiesel is made 'correctly' no change is necessary. The problem that manufacturers are cautious of is that with so little regulation existing in the creation of biodiesel, they don't want to be liable for engine problems created by impure biodiesel. Without controls on quality for biodiesel, there can be no mandate to 'prepare' and engine for the fuel.
More caution suggests that you be ready to change out the fuel filter when starting to run Biodiesel as it cleans out old deposits in the engine. Changing out rubber tubes and O-rings for teflon-coated is also suggested as this counter-acts the cleaning action of biodiesel.
Popular Mechanics had an item on Guided-Spray Turbos. It said a gas engine would have fuel economy numbers within about 10 percent of a 1.8-liter turbodiesel, while still hitting 214 hp and 236 lb.-ft. torque. http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/new_cars/4261289.html
Trying to determine which technology is going to be the best is a bit of a challenge. Nothing is standing still, diesel engines get better and gas engines get better.. I suppose it doesn't matter since all of us will benefit.
I think VW is making a big mistake in not bringing over the Polo now. They would be flying off the shelf with todays fuel prices - even with the higher diesel prices. If they have the emissions set for the Jetta they could do the same for the Polo. Ideally they would make it in the U.S. to avoid the currency issues. VW seems to have lost their roots.
I'm not sure a Polo would make economical sense for me since I do not drive enough miles per year. Long distance commuters, on the other hand, would see a quicker payback.
30,000 miles a year / 74 mpg = 405 gallons @ $4.25 = $1,723 annual fuel cost 30,000 miles a year / 54 mpg = 556 gallons @ $3.62 = $2,013 annual fuel cost 30,000 miles a year / 35 mpg = 857 gallons @ $3.62 = $3,102 annual fuel cost
All this is theoretical since the payback time will depend on the price of the vehicle.
When I hit the libraries and doctors/dentists offices, I literally devour publications like Popular Mechanics, etc.
But to cut to the points you are making; trying to line up the considerable short and longer term investments with technology (and probably dwarfing this is being RIGHT) is usually at the heart of most matters. I say WAY overdue for those gas engine turbos, especially in light of the gasoline engines being the US market's dominate products (98% of the passenger vehicle fleet) and for so very many years. It should have been available on the US markets easily 10-15 -20 years (probably further back if one digs into it) ago. So as a practical matter, I personally would not pay extra for any of those features until a few model years have been in operation in the real world for easily 5/7 years. Conversely (or even oxymoronically) one of the reasons VW (among others) suffer in the US markets are the greater engineering complexities over (American) Japanese cars!!
European diesels are way ahead of any of those power curves, for in effect they are real world tested (in the WW and European markets, sans the US specific diesel applications) . Then the very few (diesels) that are allowed into the US markets are already proven. The 236 # ft of torque for YESTERDAYS'/TODAY'S 1.9 TDI (specifically a 2003 Jetta TDI) is a three item (procedure) upgrade. Indeed as a matter of fact it would have been CHEAPER to give it 236 # ft of torque from the factory than the 155# ft of torque it actually comes over to the US market with!!!!! The reason they did/do not in the past and currently come from the factor thus equipped (at really NO extra cost) was VW (for example ) was FORCED to "DE" tune them for the US markets. So the DE TUNING (for US markets) was MORE EXPENSIVE!!!!! So easily thes TDI mileages and power upgrades has been on the market 10 years. The TDI actually was designed to run on what we now call ULSD, years ago also, which as you probably know was mandated only since Oct 2006.
Interestingly if the US government wants better than electric car emissions, all they need do is make bio diesel easier and cheaper to use!!! This literally takes NO complex technology or MASSIVE investments to implement NOW!!!!! I really mean YOU (I) can do it with literally the very next tank full. With the diesel passenger vehicle fleet at 2%, one would seriously question if they REALLY want that!!?? One word answer? - NOT!!! Talka bout it!!? ABSOLUTELY VOLUMES!!!!!!!! . All they need do is to let diesels IN!!?? Again- NOT!! (we have discussed this in previous posts)
This of course gets us to the VW Polo and it is more than likely the regulatory agencies making it financially impossible to bring them in , as if the majority of gasser products GM, Ford, Chrysler produces for US markets are superior. Shoot if that were true, I think even more American's would buy them!!! Want a one word answer?..... :lemon:
As for VW losing their roots, they hardly sell to the US markets in comparison to the now almost ubiquitous "American" Japanese cars. So while folks are entitled to their opinions, the description really does not track with the realities.
Now if the goal is to become a seller like Toyota is in US markets, then yes, they should have gotten cracken 25 years ago!!!
I would ask then, in light of the fact that the so called "small" compact or whatever it is called is less than 25% of the passenger vehicle fleet; what are the implications?
Yearly vehicle sales are app 16-17M. So how does recent 1/5 small car sales differ in 1/8 small car sales historically.
Conversation over head at the FUEL station, while I was getting my 6 gals of diesel FUEL @ 50 mpg=300 miles. I heard one lady (Ford EXCURSION owner) to another lady (Ford Explorer owner)" ................. " I am sure you all can fill in the blanks. I had to bit my lip to keep from laughing.....I think I muttered something like: I feel your pain diesel, costs more than gas.....
Yearly vehicle sales are app 16-17M. So how does recent 1/5 small car sales differ in 1/8 small car sales historically.
Well, I guess that they go from selling 2,125,000 small vehicles to selling 3,400,000 small vehicles.
Can't really know what the impact is on the make-up of small cars as a total of the whole ownership without knowing how often said cars are turned over. But just to run with the idea, if they were previously only 12.5% of sales but making up 25% of market share (odd), now that they may be 20% of sales, it would suggest that within 5 years (if that's average ownership) they could make up 50% of the total.
The math is fuzzy but I think close enough. Of course, that assumes that folks keep up this panic buying of smaller cars. It is equally possible that people will become used to the idea of gas ~$4 and just stay away from the obvious gas hogs.
Yes for years we heard about SUV's takening over the world, when really they are at 12% of the passenger vehicle fleet. Any way you slice it despite all the bru ha ha 12% is still a small minority position, even after 20-30 years of characterized "MASSIVE GROWTH".
Here is SD the numbers are quite different. For example the local Ford dealer has 20-30 pickups and SUV's, 1 Focus and 1 Fusion. For the last 15 years they have been 4 or 5 SUV/Trucks to 1 car.
You mean that they 20-30 pickups on the lot compared to the cars in which case it sounds like they are selling their cars faster than their allotment of trucks.
Or,
They are actually selling 20-30 trucks compared to cars? If so, I wonder if high corn prices are adding to the buyer's available funds? I'm making the assumption that SD is primarily agriculture-driven.
The wife and I have been on a road trip to eastern Washington, ID and MT. RUG has been as low as $3.53 and as high as $3.59 Today we stopped at a Conoco Station in the little spot in the road called Benton, WA. Diesel was $4.44 a gallon and RUG was $3.69 a gallon. Gas was highest in Washington due to the tax.
"I literally devour publications like Popular Mechanics, etc."
I think you need to work on your diet.
"all they need do is make bio diesel easier and cheaper to use!!! "
I have been trying to get wastewater systems to look at turning algae into biodiesel. Even if the yield was only 1,000 gallons per year per acre we would be looking at 100,000 gallons for a 100 acre primary cell. Probably more than enough to run the city trucks during the summer. Some people suggest that 5,000 gallons per acre is possible. That might be possible in a controlled environment. Outdoor ponds would have a much lower yield due to variable weather conditions.
The interesting thing about converting the algae to biodiesel is that you are also reducing the nutrients in the pond. These nutrients are what cause the pollution problem (BOD & TSS). Reducing the pollution would be a huge benefit which would help offset the costs of creating the biodiesel.
This idea can be extended to any reservoir or lake that has excessive algae. Algae contain nitrogen and phosphorus. What causes the hypoxia zone in the Gulf of Mexico -- nitrogen and phosphorus! Remove the N & P and the hypoxia problem is reduced.
U.S. EPA putting its money to work, to clean up diesel engines
Release date: 04/09/2008
Contact Information: Mary Simms, (415) 947-4270, simms.mary@epa.gov
(4/9/2008 -- SAN FRANCISCO) The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Regions 9 and 10 have announced a regional competition through the West Coast Collaborative, for more than $5 million to deploy verified or certified clean diesel technologies. The EPA is encouraging all qualified applicants to submit proposals for funding now.
It’s part of an initiative to significantly reduce diesel emissions in Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, and the U.S. Pacific Islands.
"We have to accelerate air quality improvements,” said Deborah Jordan, Air Division director for the U.S. EPA’s Pacific Southwest region. “One of the most cost-effective ways to do that is by modernizing our legacy diesel fleet. Through this initiative, EPA hopes to deploy the latest and cleanest technologies to reduce emissions from diesel engines, which will result in significant benefits to public health.”
Through the National Clean Diesel Campaign, the EPA is awarding $49.2 million in grants nationwide, to assist its eligible partners in building diesel emissions reduction programs across the country.
Diesels are the economic workhorses of the nation, and over the past decade, the EPA has set stringent new particulate and nitrogen oxide standards for most types of new engines. These regulations will annually prevent more than 20,000 premature deaths and yield more than $150 billion in public health benefits when fully implemented. This funding is aimed at reducing emissions from the existing fleet of 11 million diesel engines that predate these standards. Addressing the existing fleet is important because diesels remain in use for decades.
You will notice that the cost to refine diesel has jumped from 50 cents a gallon to 78 cents a gallon in the last two years (ULSD). Diesel is also 3 times more expensive to refine, 26 cents to 78 cents, when compared to gasoline.
Gasoline March 08 Tax 12% $0.39 Dist & Mark 8% $0.26 Refining 8% $0.26 Crude Oil 72% $2.33 Total $3.24
Diesel March 08 Tax 12% $0.47 Dist & Mark 7% $0.27 Refining 20% $0.78 Crude Oil 60% $2.33 Total $3.88
A typical Silverado 5.3L getting 14/19 with the RUG motor would jump to 17.5/23.75 mpg with the 25% improvement suggested in the article. Using EPA annual costs the savings would be about $850 a year.
Bob did say' "And with the tough U.S. Bin 5 emissions requirements, it’s another 25 percent cost penalty, for an overall 45 percent cost increase for a 20 percent fuel improvement." http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16580894/
He must be just talking about the engine cost going up 45% not the whole truck. The article did say that the new 4.5L would be 25% not 20% better.
I wonder who to trust on those costs. I think there was a lot of foot dragging by the refiners in going to ULSD. I think the big difference is the crude supply. For example they say that Saudi crude is very low sulfur content right out of the ground. Where the oil from Iran has a very high sulfur content. I know one field that was just coming on line in the Arctic when I retired was what is considered sweet crude, could be run in a diesel truck right out of the well. We are getting a big percentage of our oil from Canada tar sands. I just wonder what the sulfur content is with that source? My understanding is that sulfur removal is the big cost in refining diesel.
The consistent premium on diesel will have an affect on diesel car sales for sure. I personally would buy one even if it was a financial wash between gas and diesel. I like driving a diesel vehicle better than gas. I hate the whiny sound of a 4 cylinder gas engine going up Interstate 8 grade when it has to down shift to stay at even 60 MPH. Let alone keeping up with the 70 MPH speed limit. Even with my weak V6 Ranger PU I get stuck at 40 MPH behind the trucks because it just does not have the torque to get out and pass in that traffic. My 2005 Passat TDI never down shifted at 70+ MPH going up the grade. Diesel is the Superior fuel for vehicle engines.
Gary says, "Diesel is the Superior fuel for vehicle engines."
Thanks for your opinion. That might be more correctly said, stating your examples, as "Diesel is the Superior fuel for people who don't like to hear whiny 4-cylinders struggling up a mountain and do a lot of 70+ mph hill climbing and are averse to hearing their vehicle downshifting."
And, like for every rule, there are exceptions.
For people who drive 99% of the time on flat roads and city travel, diesel right now loses much of it's advantage and is not a slam dunk with prices where they are. Especially in the form of heavy pickups that are not going to be towing anything.
For people comparing an E350 to an E320CDI - it they travel a lot on highways, then the CDI is the obvious choice. If they don't and they mostly travel city miles and have no mountains to climb at 70+ mph, then the diesel is not so much a no-brainer as you, the diesel advocate/lover, might think.
If the new clean diesel Passat hits USA shores and is comparable in overall mileage and price to the TCH, I will look into it. Having diesel prices so much higher, the Passat would probably have to average close to 41 mpg COMBINED to get my complete attention, and be priced around $30K.
You might be interested in the upcoming VW Sportwagon link title which should have 'clean diesel' (CARB approved) by the end of this year. Take a look at the 'Features and specs link, it talks about the diesel option in the lower end of the page. VW projects it at 40mpg city and 50+ highway. I have heard approximately $2k premium over the RUG version which is considerably less than any hybrid premium.
That might be more correctly said, stating your examples, as "Diesel is the Superior fuel for people who don't like to hear whiny 4-cylinders struggling up a mountain and do a lot of 70+ mph hill climbing and are averse to hearing their vehicle downshifting."
Sorry, I don't see what small 4-Cylinder engines have to do with it. Like for like, engines will either pull in a high gear or down shift to a lower one regardless of the fuel the engine uses. When I say "like for like", I'm talking about two similarly powered engine such as the two E-Class engines you referred to or say the two 2.0 liter turbocharged engines available in the Jetta later this year. In those instances, the gasoline engines have the slight edge in overall acceleration, however the diesel variants provide any given amount of power at a lower RPM. Said another way, unless you're driving a manual transmission version of the Jetta, I'd bet that you couldn't tell the difference when "...struggling up a mountain and do a lot of 70+ mph hill climbing..."
For people who drive 99% of the time on flat roads and city travel, diesel right now loses much of it's advantage and is not a slam dunk with prices where they are.
You seem to like to toss out data that doesn't support your arguments. This time last year Diesel was more expensive than gasoline, however, by mid summer the reverse was true. Will that happen again this year? The trends support that conclusion, however, only time will tell. Either way, until you've driven a modern diesel, you have absolutely no basis to claim that diesels loose much of their advantage for the folks that drive on flat roads and in the city 99% of the time.
My post was a direct response to Gary saying this:
I like driving a diesel vehicle better than gas. I hate the whiny sound of a 4 cylinder gas engine going up Interstate 8 grade when it has to down shift to stay at even 60 MPH. Let alone keeping up with the 70 MPH speed limit. Even with my weak V6 Ranger PU I get stuck at 40 MPH behind the trucks because it just does not have the torque to get out and pass in that traffic. My 2005 Passat TDI never down shifted at 70+ MPH going up the grade. Diesel is the Superior fuel for vehicle engines.
NOW, since you have the CONTEXT of what I said, maybe you can understand my point.
And my point about diesels NECESSARILY not being the best vehicle for city, flat-road driving stands on it's own feet. It's a correct statement.
Show me a comparable model year 2009 clean diesel vehicle, available anywhere in the USA, that outperforms the Prius in city driving......OOPS, there is not one.
Show me a comparable model year 2009 clean diesel vehicle, available anywhere in the USA, that outperforms the TCH at comparable size in city driving......OOPS, there is not one.
Now, on the other side, I can say, show me a comparable gas or gas/hybrid vehicle which pulls better on a 30% grade and gets better highway mileage than a 2008 Jetta or a 2008 E320 CDI, and there is probably not one.
So both types of vehicles have their Pros and their Cons. No ONE vehicle, or vehicle fuel, is perfect for every car, every owner, every situation. That's why there are multiple choices available.
Believe me, if Ford could make ONE car and ONE truck and ONE SUV and have them fit every situation for every driver on the road, they would. They would make a killing.
Show me a comparable model year 2009 clean diesel vehicle, available anywhere in the USA, that outperforms the TCH at comparable size in city driving......OOPS, there is not one.
Those examples are a little self-serving.
You could equally say "Show me a comparable year 2009 Hybrid, available anywhere in the world, the outperforms the E320d in luxurious driving in city or highway....OOPS, there is not one. "
We could talk about the hybrid Lexus LShybrid but that gets considerably worse mileage than the E320d.... :P
I kind of did say that....did you see when I said:
Now, on the other side, I can say, show me a comparable gas or gas/hybrid vehicle which pulls better on a 30% grade and gets better highway mileage than a 2008 Jetta or a 2008 E320 CDI, and there is probably not one. So both types of vehicles have their Pros and their Cons. No ONE vehicle, or vehicle fuel, is perfect for every car, every owner, every situation. That's why there are multiple choices available.
So, yes, I gave the E320 CDI it's "props" as you were.........Did you miss it?
Show me a comparable model year 2009 clean diesel vehicle, available anywhere in the USA, that outperforms the Prius in city driving......OOPS, there is not one.
Show me a comparable model year 2009 clean diesel vehicle, available anywhere in the USA, that outperforms the TCH at comparable size in city driving......OOPS, there is not one.
"Outperforms" is a relative term. Using my yard stick, a 2009 Jetta TDI will flat suck the doors off of either of the hybrid alternatives you mentioned in the city.
You had some qualifiers in there..I was thrown by the 30% grade I think..
Did you see my eatlier post on the Jetta Sportwagon? More functionality than a prius, 40+ mpg in city, 50+ on highway, meets CARB regs for 50 states. Available late this year.
That is not a bad looking vehicle. I could be interested in test driving the diesel version.
For Shipo. There is a HUGE difference in torque between a 2.0 L diesel and gas engine. When traveling on a hill at 70 MPH in high gear the RPMs depending on the vehicle will be in the 2200 range. A gas engine at that RPM has very little torque. So it down shifts and kicks up to an RPM range that it has some power for pulling a hill. My example of the Passat Diesel with the 2.0 L engine does not down shift at 70+ MPH pulling the grades we have in East San Diego county. Diesel engines are just superior liter per liter for that kind of driving. Now if you do not mind your engine screaming up to 5000 RPM to pass a big rig in the right lane of the freeway, then a gas engine is fine. After owning 2 diesel vehicles in the last 3 years I prefer them over any gas engines I have owned. I would trade my Sequoia for a diesel version in a heartbeat.
"For Shipo. There is a HUGE difference in torque between a 2.0 L diesel and gas engine."
If you remember I said, "I'm talking about two similarly powered engine such as the two E-Class engines you referred to or say the two 2.0 liter turbocharged engines available in the Jetta later this year", and as such, I'm thinking, "not so much" in regards to the HUGE difference in torque you referred to. Why? The new VW/Audi EA 888 2.0T gasoline engine that is being released this fall is supposed to produce something like 210 HP and 250 lb-ft of torque, meanwhile, the new 2.0 TDI is supposed to produce 140 HP and 235 lb-ft of torque. While I have yet to see the final numbers, my bet is that the torque curve of the diesel will peak at a bit lower of an RPM reading than the torque curve of the gasser, but my statement still stands,
"We are getting a big percentage of our oil from Canada tar sands. I just wonder what the sulfur content is with that source?"
"The specifications for the bit blend (heavy oil) are 21.5 API and a 3.3% sulfur content and for the SCO (light oil) are 36 API and a 0.015% sulfur content." http://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL34258.pdf
"My understanding is that sulfur removal is the big cost in refining diesel."
I would agree and that is likely why the cost of refining diesel jumped from 06 to 08. As time goes on the cost may drop as the engineers figure out ways to improve the process.
Refiners amp up diesel output, limit gasoline flows Diesel prices outpace gasoline as demand increases from Europe, elsewhere By Moming Zhou, MarketWatch Last update: 6:12 p.m. EDT May 7, 2008
..."While the production costs are almost the same, diesel prices are typically cheaper than gasoline due to less demand. "... link title
I agree with you. If the new gas engines will deliver the torque needed to keep a vehicle in high gear going up a long grade I could enjoy driving it. It down shifts due to lack of low RPM torque and it is off my list. For me an engine needs to develop its peak torque under 2500 RPMs. Most 4C diesel engines do, most 4C gas engines do not. One other thing. Many of the turbo gas engines require premium gas. That ends up costing even more. A lot of stations here in San Diego are selling Premium and diesel for the same price around $4.25 per gallon. With a minimum 25% better mileage the diesel is the winner.
I am looking forward to that new VW Sportwagen diesel coming this fall. If diesel prices stay high many buyers will pass. Makes it easier to deal on one. Though CA has a lot of diesel buyers willing to pay a premium for any diesel vehicle.
"One other thing. Many of the turbo gas engines require premium gas. That ends up costing even more. A lot of stations here in San Diego are selling Premium and diesel for the same price around $4.25 per gallon."
Yup, and the VW/Audi engines are no exception. That said, around here our prices are a bit more moderate for gasoline $3.45, $3.57, $3.67, and $4.21 (RUG, MUG, PUG, Diesel). While Diesel is still quite high, I'm thinking that it will drop back down to Regular prices by mid summer, just like it did last summer.
When I can see, drive, and evaluate the 2009 Jetta TDI, then I will be in position to modify my statement. Right now, in the USA, that car is "vaporware."
And I have a buddy with a 2008 Prius, and he's getting 53 MPG regularly on a 32 mile commute. I can't see how the Jetta would "blow the doors" off 53 MPG. Time will tell.
SAN FRANCISCO (MarketWatch) -- U.S. refiners have been increasing their diesel production in recent weeks while limiting gasoline output, responding to an unusual price gap between the two fuels. But more diesel output can hardly dampen record-high diesel prices in the short term, analysts said. Data from the Department of Energy showed Wednesday that motor gasoline production fell last week from a month ago, while distillates production, which is made up mostly of diesel and heating oil, increased. Driving diesel output higher, retail diesel prices have climbed to more than 60 cents higher than gasoline prices, stoked by strong global demand, especially from Europe, where diesel use for autos is more common than in the U.S. While the production costs are almost the same, diesel prices are typically cheaper than gasoline due to less demand. Higher prices for diesel and heating oil have encouraged refiners to produce more of these distillate fuels. A barrel of crude yields a certain amount of petroleum products, and refiners can replace some of their gasoline output with diesel, although in a limited range.
Synopsis BMW is the first, with a well-earned position. not only does it brake better than the others, it displays hardly any weakness. The Audi impresses by its good price /performance offer for a second place (first in price/peformance ratio) The Mercedes is not a strong performer as the others, but offers an unbeatable combination of fuel efficiency and clean exhausts.
The Jaguar, although an interesting outsider in any case with its outstanding details, is not quicker, not more comfortable, not more economic, which warrants the last place regretfully. The author concludes by a small hint of his taste : I would like it though
Comments
I got a call later that day and was told that they might arrive about Sept. He told me that training for the new TDI’s set for this week had been canceled. He said that VW has not been very forthcoming with specific information and details on availability and dates.
He did tell me he had a used TDI Jetta on the lot, but I didn’t request any details as I was driving at the time.
If dealer #2 calls, I’ll post his version.
In that time they have continued to improve. Starting MY 2005.5 (model year, I believe) they bit the investment and sales bullet and became more "BMW like" holding the sales price down in the process, sans inflation. Additionally they tweaked the hp/torque ratings. So from what I have read and what I have seen in the real world are qualitative and quantitative improvements. Naturally I comb the information for 100,000, 200,000, 300,0000, 400,000, 500,000 miles reports. As you can imagine, they are rare to non existent. The 2009 will boast app 30% torque improvement- upwards of 250 # ft of torque !!! % wise this is absolutely HUGE.
One of the probable unintended benefits of the effective diesel "lock out" and % population shrinkage, is the very high resale value of USED diesels. The "lock out" almost single handily has created a whole segment of high to highest resale value vehicles. Edmunds.com for example did an article on the purchase of a used diesel, but I am unsure as to whether the diesel option is acknowledged in pricing,resale, and true cost to own, etc. information. The last checks I made on a TDI, It was as I remember 4,500 dollars more than like model but gasser. This was on an app $246 premium (if I recall correctly) A Craigslist query yield a selling price for 1,000 more than I paid new, with app 50,000 miles, 4 years later!!! This truly has been a pleasant surprise. Of course hind sight could emphasize regret for not buying at least a few more at the time.
I guess the question is how easy is it for them to alter the mix. Everyone seems to have an opinion. Over time they may be able to make a bigger shift to diesel. How much time and how much will it cost? And, is there a limit?
"The net affect of more diesel passenger vehicles is less demand for crude since diesel is more efficient."
I would agree that there is less demand for crude. What I am interested in is how the change in demand will play out. As an example, let's say we use 100 barrels of gasoline in our car, later we switch to diesel. Let's also assume our diesel car only needs 60 barrels of diesel to go the same distance. We would see:
the demand for gasoline decrease by 100 barrels
the demand for diesel increase by 60 barrels
the demand for crude oil decrease by 40 barrels.
I suspect that the ability to switch from one fuel to the other fuel will depend on a lot on the local refinery. What equipment do they have? How old is the equipment?
$4.50 - $1.00 tax credit = $3.50 before transportation, distribution and marketing costs.
Biodiesel plants idled by rising soybean prices
http://www.news.com/8301-11128_3-9930000-54.html
Definitely out of my comfort zone, but I was recently re-educated by a couple of oil-guys regarding the process of converting crude to fuel. My lay-man's understanding is that while there are hard limits from crude in terms of things like parrafin, bunker fuel and jet-fuel, crude can be manipulated to vary the amount of diesel and the amount of gas that you yield.
To make those changes would clearly require some expenses at the refineries but it is possible to alter the refining process to match consumer demand more closely.
Obviously there is still the dependency of anyone with the power to change actually wanting to make a change, but the chemistry is available.
It is increasingly clear IMO that there is so much vested interest in not bothering to really take meaningful action on our energy consumption, that I am starting to lose hope that we will ever make use of that 30% increase in energy that diesel has built in. :sick:
Even if diesel cars were to be sold say @ 250,000 per year (which is overly AGGRESSIVELY ambitious given the current opposition, but let's weave Avalon02wh's figure in here) just to go to 12% of the passenger vehicle fleet (like SUV's) would take on the order of 121 years. So the "hidden up front" reality is the system is gear for (exponentially) higher prices to make up for ANY decrease in overall consumption. (as if I am the only one who is paying more per gal of fuel now a days!?
For me, driving a diesel car is utterly seamless, but on the other hand; I truly realize how much in the minority the segment REALLY is. If the overwhelming majority of diesel owner own light trucks, then out of 5.028 M (2% of the passenger vehicle fleet) , I am swagging max 2 M vehicles are diesel cars. In that sense, dieselers really have more in common with hybrid owners than gasser owners. The EIA.gov consumption figures really indicate both segments together have made almost no measurable inpact, let alone any statistically correlated effect. Lets put it this way, if hybrids and diesel cars were drugs and were being tested in accordance with FDA procedures as cures for the OVERALL consumption and emissions parameters during clinical trials, both would fail miserably. On the other hand because of that failure, it is almost not measureable and (oxymoronically) statistically valid to say they cause LESS pollution. But in the scheme of things, WHO REALLY CARES!!??
Now on a micro level, once you are in that minority group....nothing like it!!!!! Right now I pay app 30-40% per mile driven (fuel costs) LESS than the like model gasser. I also consume 42% LESS fuel. Less GHG's are also a given. Now if I switch to bio dieseI, emissions are even less than electric cars, again which almost NO ONE HAS !!! I can even get off the grid !!!!!!!!
I also realize ALL THIS has utterly NO meaning to ANYBODY, other than a Jetta TDI driver, which by the above paragraphs are almost non existent!!
2 years ago I was optimistic that diesel, with the incredible potential of bio-diesel, was going to go some way to reducing our dependency on oil. I am not only pessimistic on that front now, I am down-right pessimistic about our ability to do anything to 'fix' our situation of low-mpg, high oil dependency.
While gas prices rising certainly will impact many people, I believe that we will all make some kind of internal peace with $3.50/g and we will continue not to take positive action.
There is a location in downtown Austin that sells bio-diesel but it's still no good to me when the only diesels available weigh 8500 pounds and therefore carry no real savings for me (regular old weekend warrior with no towing need) or carry a Mercedes Benz price tag.
I try to remain hopeful that 2009 - 2010 will see some more useful products come to market (Subaru Outback diesel, Passat diesel, Honda Pilot diesel, Ford F-150 diesel etc) but honestly, I don't know if it will happen.
link title
Apparently our solution to record high gas prices (driven by speculation, African & Middle Eastern conflict, strikes in Scotland, too-high demand and surging demand in China and India) is to reduce taxes on gas and diesel in the summer.
Genius :sick: .
Instead of pushing funding for research into alternatives, removing the penalty on energy-rich sugar-cane ethanol from Brazil or, in fact, doing anything remotely long-sighted, we'll just give ourselves a quick helping-hand knowing full well that we'll continue to pay the penalty down the road.
Oh, and we won't have the use of those federal tax dollars for our infrastructure. The same infrastructure where bridges fall down.
And the federal tax on gas and diesel is worth only pennies to you and I. Less than 5% of the cost of fuel.
We have no chance. It's time for the roaches to get their shot.
Lets put some numbers to it. OK 12-15,000 mile per year, Summer= 25% or .25 of that=3.000-3750 miles/22 mpg (AVERAGE defacto fleet mpg) = 137 gals to 170 gals
..."The tax is 18.4 cents per gallon of gasoline and 24.4 cents on diesel fuel."...
or 25.21to 31.20 MAX
diesel (dont forget JUST 2% of the population) @ 33.43 to 41.48. So in my case the government buys me .5 to .6 of a tank.
But really how many folks have a 3 month summer? Or what does summer mean in the article?
I think there are enough great options that we are choosing not to pursue that could move us from a 'consumption to waste' model to a use-to-reuse' model.
I think you are 100% correct on endless consumption being at the root.
..."So if the personal vehicle could run on biodiesel (no sulphur in biodiesel and CO2 is virtually eliminated) produced by algae that feed off the CO2 (and creates oxygen as a bi-product) from power stations...
I think there are enough great options that we are choosing not to pursue that could move us from a 'consumption to waste' model to a use-to-reuse' model. "...
So for example, there are SO many obstacles at so many levels to the whole logistical chain of bio diesel that truly it is a wonder bio diesel even hits the markets!!! Indeed most oems of diesel engines warn NOT to use bio diesel. Indeed it should start with law makers to make regulators mandating/crafting regulations so oem's can make engines bio diesel friendly. Indeed specifications are written like a game of "see if they can meet these sets impossible specifications" with more to come in subsequent model years.
To use basketball metaphors, there are full court defensive/ offensive presses on such a minority interest. To boot the fouls are only called on and against the bio diesel side!!!!!! Where the metaphor is way different is the whole basketball system from score keepers, refs, etc, are all on the opposing side (Team RUG to PUG) . They further can play more than 5 players up to the whole bench, while Team bio diesel can only play 1 to 2 guys. Keep in mind the DIESEL passenger vehicle fleet is ONLY 2%; with bio diesel being a WAY smaller subset of that!!! Yet according to the Harvard study I linked in a past post, bio diesel emits less GHG's than even ELECTRICAL CARS !!!!!!
Now if problems are phrased in lanuage designed to make the problem hopeless, there should not be much surprise when hopelessness IS the solution.
What's interesting is that it does not take a whole lot to allow any diesel to run on bio-diesel.
If the Biodiesel is made 'correctly' no change is necessary. The problem that manufacturers are cautious of is that with so little regulation existing in the creation of biodiesel, they don't want to be liable for engine problems created by impure biodiesel. Without controls on quality for biodiesel, there can be no mandate to 'prepare' and engine for the fuel.
More caution suggests that you be ready to change out the fuel filter when starting to run Biodiesel as it cleans out old deposits in the engine. Changing out rubber tubes and O-rings for teflon-coated is also suggested as this counter-acts the cleaning action of biodiesel.
Dont miss the video!!
link title
http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/new_cars/4261289.html
Trying to determine which technology is going to be the best is a bit of a challenge. Nothing is standing still, diesel engines get better and gas engines get better.. I suppose it doesn't matter since all of us will benefit.
The Case for Diesel: Clean, Efficient, Fast Cars (Hybrids Beware!)
http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/new_cars/4237945.html?series=19
I think VW is making a big mistake in not bringing over the Polo now. They would be flying off the shelf with todays fuel prices - even with the higher diesel prices. If they have the emissions set for the Jetta they could do the same for the Polo. Ideally they would make it in the U.S. to avoid the currency issues. VW seems to have lost their roots.
I'm not sure a Polo would make economical sense for me since I do not drive enough miles per year. Long distance commuters, on the other hand, would see a quicker payback.
30,000 miles a year / 74 mpg = 405 gallons @ $4.25 = $1,723 annual fuel cost
30,000 miles a year / 54 mpg = 556 gallons @ $3.62 = $2,013 annual fuel cost
30,000 miles a year / 35 mpg = 857 gallons @ $3.62 = $3,102 annual fuel cost
All this is theoretical since the payback time will depend on the price of the vehicle.
But to cut to the points you are making; trying to line up the considerable short and longer term investments with technology (and probably dwarfing this is being RIGHT) is usually at the heart of most matters. I say WAY overdue for those gas engine turbos, especially in light of the gasoline engines being the US market's dominate products (98% of the passenger vehicle fleet) and for so very many years. It should have been available on the US markets easily 10-15 -20 years (probably further back if one digs into it) ago. So as a practical matter, I personally would not pay extra for any of those features until a few model years have been in operation in the real world for easily 5/7 years. Conversely (or even oxymoronically) one of the reasons VW (among others) suffer in the US markets are the greater engineering complexities over (American) Japanese cars!!
European diesels are way ahead of any of those power curves, for in effect they are real world tested (in the WW and European markets, sans the US specific diesel applications) . Then the very few (diesels) that are allowed into the US markets are already proven. The 236 # ft of torque for YESTERDAYS'/TODAY'S 1.9 TDI (specifically a 2003 Jetta TDI) is a three item (procedure) upgrade. Indeed as a matter of fact it would have been CHEAPER to give it 236 # ft of torque from the factory than the 155# ft of torque it actually comes over to the US market with!!!!! The reason they did/do not in the past and currently come from the factor thus equipped (at really NO extra cost) was VW (for example ) was FORCED to "DE" tune them for the US markets. So the DE TUNING (for US markets) was MORE EXPENSIVE!!!!! So easily thes TDI mileages and power upgrades has been on the market 10 years. The TDI actually was designed to run on what we now call ULSD, years ago also, which as you probably know was mandated only since Oct 2006.
Interestingly if the US government wants better than electric car emissions, all they need do is make bio diesel easier and cheaper to use!!! This literally takes NO complex technology or MASSIVE investments to implement NOW!!!!! I really mean YOU (I) can do it with literally the very next tank full. With the diesel passenger vehicle fleet at 2%, one would seriously question if they REALLY want that!!?? One word answer? - NOT!!! Talka bout it!!? ABSOLUTELY VOLUMES!!!!!!!! . All they need do is to let diesels IN!!?? Again- NOT!! (we have discussed this in previous posts)
This of course gets us to the VW Polo and it is more than likely the regulatory agencies making it financially impossible to bring them in , as if the majority of gasser products GM, Ford, Chrysler produces for US markets are superior.
As for VW losing their roots, they hardly sell to the US markets in comparison to the now almost ubiquitous "American" Japanese cars. So while folks are entitled to their opinions, the description really does not track with the realities.
Now if the goal is to become a seller like Toyota is in US markets, then yes, they should have gotten cracken 25 years ago!!!
Those are pretty staggering numbers and there is frequent reference in the article to a permanent change to buying habits being possible.
Now it really makes you wonder about VW bringing the Rabbit or Polo over in diesel, the potential would be huge!
link title
Yearly vehicle sales are app 16-17M. So how does recent 1/5 small car sales differ in 1/8 small car sales historically.
Conversation over head at the FUEL station, while I was getting my 6 gals of diesel FUEL @ 50 mpg=300 miles. I heard one lady (Ford EXCURSION owner) to another lady (Ford Explorer owner)" ................. " I am sure you all can fill in the blanks. I had to bit my lip to keep from laughing.....I think I muttered something like: I feel your pain diesel, costs more than gas.....
Well, I guess that they go from selling 2,125,000 small vehicles to selling 3,400,000 small vehicles.
Can't really know what the impact is on the make-up of small cars as a total of the whole ownership without knowing how often said cars are turned over. But just to run with the idea, if they were previously only 12.5% of sales but making up 25% of market share (odd), now that they may be 20% of sales, it would suggest that within 5 years (if that's average ownership) they could make up 50% of the total.
The math is fuzzy but I think close enough.
Of course, that assumes that folks keep up this panic buying of smaller cars. It is equally possible that people will become used to the idea of gas ~$4 and just stay away from the obvious gas hogs.
You mean that they 20-30 pickups on the lot compared to the cars in which case it sounds like they are selling their cars faster than their allotment of trucks.
Or,
They are actually selling 20-30 trucks compared to cars?
If so, I wonder if high corn prices are adding to the buyer's available funds? I'm making the assumption that SD is primarily agriculture-driven.
Today we stopped at a Conoco Station in the little spot in the road called Benton, WA.
Diesel was $4.44 a gallon and RUG was $3.69 a gallon.
Gas was highest in Washington due to the tax.
I think you need to work on your diet.
"all they need do is make bio diesel easier and cheaper to use!!! "
I have been trying to get wastewater systems to look at turning algae into biodiesel. Even if the yield was only 1,000 gallons per year per acre we would be looking at 100,000 gallons for a 100 acre primary cell. Probably more than enough to run the city trucks during the summer. Some people suggest that 5,000 gallons per acre is possible. That might be possible in a controlled environment. Outdoor ponds would have a much lower yield due to variable weather conditions.
The interesting thing about converting the algae to biodiesel is that you are also reducing the nutrients in the pond. These nutrients are what cause the pollution problem (BOD & TSS). Reducing the pollution would be a huge benefit which would help offset the costs of creating the biodiesel.
This idea can be extended to any reservoir or lake that has excessive algae. Algae contain nitrogen and phosphorus. What causes the hypoxia zone in the Gulf of Mexico -- nitrogen and phosphorus! Remove the N & P and the hypoxia problem is reduced.
http://www.leftlanenews.com/gm-releases-details-on-upcoming-duramax-45l-diesel.h- tml
U.S. EPA putting its money to work, to clean up diesel engines
Release date: 04/09/2008
Contact Information: Mary Simms, (415) 947-4270, simms.mary@epa.gov
(4/9/2008 -- SAN FRANCISCO) The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Regions 9 and 10 have announced a regional competition through the West Coast Collaborative, for more than $5 million to deploy verified or certified clean diesel technologies. The EPA is encouraging all qualified applicants to submit proposals for funding now.
It’s part of an initiative to significantly reduce diesel emissions in Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, and the U.S. Pacific Islands.
"We have to accelerate air quality improvements,” said Deborah Jordan, Air Division director for the U.S. EPA’s Pacific Southwest region. “One of the most cost-effective ways to do that is by modernizing our legacy diesel fleet. Through this initiative, EPA hopes to deploy the latest and cleanest technologies to reduce emissions from diesel engines, which will result in significant benefits to public health.”
Through the National Clean Diesel Campaign, the EPA is awarding $49.2 million in grants nationwide, to assist its eligible partners in building diesel emissions reduction programs across the country.
Diesels are the economic workhorses of the nation, and over the past decade, the EPA has set stringent new particulate and nitrogen oxide standards for most types of new engines. These regulations will annually prevent more than 20,000 premature deaths and yield more than $150 billion in public health benefits when fully implemented. This funding is aimed at reducing emissions from the existing fleet of 11 million diesel engines that predate these standards. Addressing the existing fleet is important because diesels remain in use for decades.
Gasoline March 08
Tax 12% $0.39
Dist & Mark 8% $0.26
Refining 8% $0.26
Crude Oil 72% $2.33
Total $3.24
Diesel March 08
Tax 12% $0.47
Dist & Mark 7% $0.27
Refining 20% $0.78
Crude Oil 60% $2.33
Total $3.88
Diesel 2006
Tax 20% $0.50
Dist & Mark 7% $0.17
Refining 20% $0.50
Crude Oil 53% $1.32
Total $2.49
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/oog/info/gdu/gasdiesel.asp
Bob did say' "And with the tough U.S. Bin 5 emissions requirements, it’s another 25 percent cost penalty, for an overall 45 percent cost increase for a 20 percent fuel improvement."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16580894/
He must be just talking about the engine cost going up 45% not the whole truck. The article did say that the new 4.5L would be 25% not 20% better.
The consistent premium on diesel will have an affect on diesel car sales for sure. I personally would buy one even if it was a financial wash between gas and diesel. I like driving a diesel vehicle better than gas. I hate the whiny sound of a 4 cylinder gas engine going up Interstate 8 grade when it has to down shift to stay at even 60 MPH. Let alone keeping up with the 70 MPH speed limit. Even with my weak V6 Ranger PU I get stuck at 40 MPH behind the trucks because it just does not have the torque to get out and pass in that traffic. My 2005 Passat TDI never down shifted at 70+ MPH going up the grade. Diesel is the Superior fuel for vehicle engines.
Thanks for your opinion. That might be more correctly said, stating your examples, as "Diesel is the Superior fuel for people who don't like to hear whiny 4-cylinders struggling up a mountain and do a lot of 70+ mph hill climbing and are averse to hearing their vehicle downshifting."
And, like for every rule, there are exceptions.
For people who drive 99% of the time on flat roads and city travel, diesel right now loses much of it's advantage and is not a slam dunk with prices where they are. Especially in the form of heavy pickups that are not going to be towing anything.
For people comparing an E350 to an E320CDI - it they travel a lot on highways, then the CDI is the obvious choice. If they don't and they mostly travel city miles and have no mountains to climb at 70+ mph, then the diesel is not so much a no-brainer as you, the diesel advocate/lover, might think.
If the new clean diesel Passat hits USA shores and is comparable in overall mileage and price to the TCH, I will look into it. Having diesel prices so much higher, the Passat would probably have to average close to 41 mpg COMBINED to get my complete attention, and be priced around $30K.
VW projects it at 40mpg city and 50+ highway. I have heard approximately $2k premium over the RUG version which is considerably less than any hybrid premium.
That might be more correctly said, stating your examples, as "Diesel is the Superior fuel for people who don't like to hear whiny 4-cylinders struggling up a mountain and do a lot of 70+ mph hill climbing and are averse to hearing their vehicle downshifting."
Sorry, I don't see what small 4-Cylinder engines have to do with it. Like for like, engines will either pull in a high gear or down shift to a lower one regardless of the fuel the engine uses. When I say "like for like", I'm talking about two similarly powered engine such as the two E-Class engines you referred to or say the two 2.0 liter turbocharged engines available in the Jetta later this year. In those instances, the gasoline engines have the slight edge in overall acceleration, however the diesel variants provide any given amount of power at a lower RPM. Said another way, unless you're driving a manual transmission version of the Jetta, I'd bet that you couldn't tell the difference when "...struggling up a mountain and do a lot of 70+ mph hill climbing..."
For people who drive 99% of the time on flat roads and city travel, diesel right now loses much of it's advantage and is not a slam dunk with prices where they are.
You seem to like to toss out data that doesn't support your arguments. This time last year Diesel was more expensive than gasoline, however, by mid summer the reverse was true. Will that happen again this year? The trends support that conclusion, however, only time will tell. Either way, until you've driven a modern diesel, you have absolutely no basis to claim that diesels loose much of their advantage for the folks that drive on flat roads and in the city 99% of the time.
My post was a direct response to Gary saying this:
I like driving a diesel vehicle better than gas. I hate the whiny sound of a 4 cylinder gas engine going up Interstate 8 grade when it has to down shift to stay at even 60 MPH. Let alone keeping up with the 70 MPH speed limit. Even with my weak V6 Ranger PU I get stuck at 40 MPH behind the trucks because it just does not have the torque to get out and pass in that traffic. My 2005 Passat TDI never down shifted at 70+ MPH going up the grade. Diesel is the Superior fuel for vehicle engines.
NOW, since you have the CONTEXT of what I said, maybe you can understand my point.
And my point about diesels NECESSARILY not being the best vehicle for city, flat-road driving stands on it's own feet. It's a correct statement.
Show me a comparable model year 2009 clean diesel vehicle, available anywhere in the USA, that outperforms the Prius in city driving......OOPS, there is not one.
Show me a comparable model year 2009 clean diesel vehicle, available anywhere in the USA, that outperforms the TCH at comparable size in city driving......OOPS, there is not one.
Now, on the other side, I can say, show me a comparable gas or gas/hybrid vehicle which pulls better on a 30% grade and gets better highway mileage than a 2008 Jetta or a 2008 E320 CDI, and there is probably not one.
So both types of vehicles have their Pros and their Cons. No ONE vehicle, or vehicle fuel, is perfect for every car, every owner, every situation. That's why there are multiple choices available.
Believe me, if Ford could make ONE car and ONE truck and ONE SUV and have them fit every situation for every driver on the road, they would. They would make a killing.
Those examples are a little self-serving.
You could equally say "Show me a comparable year 2009 Hybrid, available anywhere in the world, the outperforms the E320d in luxurious driving in city or highway....OOPS, there is not one. "
We could talk about the hybrid Lexus LShybrid but that gets considerably worse mileage than the E320d.... :P
Now, on the other side, I can say, show me a comparable gas or gas/hybrid vehicle which pulls better on a 30% grade and gets better highway mileage than a 2008 Jetta or a 2008 E320 CDI, and there is probably not one. So both types of vehicles have their Pros and their Cons. No ONE vehicle, or vehicle fuel, is perfect for every car, every owner, every situation. That's why there are multiple choices available.
So, yes, I gave the E320 CDI it's "props" as you were.........Did you miss it?
Show me a comparable model year 2009 clean diesel vehicle, available anywhere in the USA, that outperforms the TCH at comparable size in city driving......OOPS, there is not one.
"Outperforms" is a relative term. Using my yard stick, a 2009 Jetta TDI will flat suck the doors off of either of the hybrid alternatives you mentioned in the city.
Did you see my eatlier post on the Jetta Sportwagon? More functionality than a prius, 40+ mpg in city, 50+ on highway, meets CARB regs for 50 states. Available late this year.
For Shipo. There is a HUGE difference in torque between a 2.0 L diesel and gas engine. When traveling on a hill at 70 MPH in high gear the RPMs depending on the vehicle will be in the 2200 range. A gas engine at that RPM has very little torque. So it down shifts and kicks up to an RPM range that it has some power for pulling a hill. My example of the Passat Diesel with the 2.0 L engine does not down shift at 70+ MPH pulling the grades we have in East San Diego county. Diesel engines are just superior liter per liter for that kind of driving. Now if you do not mind your engine screaming up to 5000 RPM to pass a big rig in the right lane of the freeway, then a gas engine is fine. After owning 2 diesel vehicles in the last 3 years I prefer them over any gas engines I have owned. I would trade my Sequoia for a diesel version in a heartbeat.
If you remember I said, "I'm talking about two similarly powered engine such as the two E-Class engines you referred to or say the two 2.0 liter turbocharged engines available in the Jetta later this year", and as such, I'm thinking, "not so much" in regards to the HUGE difference in torque you referred to. Why? The new VW/Audi EA 888 2.0T gasoline engine that is being released this fall is supposed to produce something like 210 HP and 250 lb-ft of torque, meanwhile, the new 2.0 TDI is supposed to produce 140 HP and 235 lb-ft of torque. While I have yet to see the final numbers, my bet is that the torque curve of the diesel will peak at a bit lower of an RPM reading than the torque curve of the gasser, but my statement still stands,
Best Regards,
Shipo
I would agree that the crude supply makes a difference. It probably explains why some regions have very different diesel prices.
"For example they say that Saudi crude is very low sulfur content right out of the ground. Where the oil from Iran has a very high sulfur content."
According to energyintel the Arab Super Light oil is very low sulfur. The other four Saudi crude oils are comparable to the Iranian oils.
http://energyintel.com/DocumentDetail.asp?document_id=200017
"We are getting a big percentage of our oil from Canada tar sands. I just wonder what the sulfur content is with that source?"
"The specifications for the bit blend (heavy oil) are 21.5 API and a 3.3%
sulfur content and for the SCO (light oil) are 36 API and a 0.015% sulfur content."
http://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL34258.pdf
http://www.altanet.or.jp/OilsandsMarketability.pdf Slide 14
"My understanding is that sulfur removal is the big cost in refining diesel."
I would agree and that is likely why the cost of refining diesel jumped from 06 to 08. As time goes on the cost may drop as the engineers figure out ways to improve the process.
Diesel prices outpace gasoline as demand increases from Europe, elsewhere
By Moming Zhou, MarketWatch
Last update: 6:12 p.m. EDT May 7, 2008
..."While the production costs are almost the same, diesel prices are typically cheaper than gasoline due to less demand. "...
link title
That was before ULSD. :shades:
I am looking forward to that new VW Sportwagen diesel coming this fall. If diesel prices stay high many buyers will pass. Makes it easier to deal on one. Though CA has a lot of diesel buyers willing to pay a premium for any diesel vehicle.
Well, if the current 2.0T is any indication, the new engine will probably beat your criteria by a comfortable margin. Consider the following:
2008 VW/Audi 2.0T
200 HP @ 5,100-6,000 RPMs
207 lb-ft @ 1,800-5,000 RPMs
"One other thing. Many of the turbo gas engines require premium gas. That ends up costing even more. A lot of stations here in San Diego are selling Premium and diesel for the same price around $4.25 per gallon."
Yup, and the VW/Audi engines are no exception. That said, around here our prices are a bit more moderate for gasoline $3.45, $3.57, $3.67, and $4.21 (RUG, MUG, PUG, Diesel). While Diesel is still quite high, I'm thinking that it will drop back down to Regular prices by mid summer, just like it did last summer.
Best Regards,
Shipo
"available anywhere in the USA...."
Meaning RIGHT NOW, May 8th, 2008.
There is not one.
When I can see, drive, and evaluate the 2009 Jetta TDI, then I will be in position to modify my statement. Right now, in the USA, that car is "vaporware."
And I have a buddy with a 2008 Prius, and he's getting 53 MPG regularly on a 32 mile commute. I can't see how the Jetta would "blow the doors" off 53 MPG. Time will tell.
SAN FRANCISCO (MarketWatch) -- U.S. refiners have been increasing their diesel production in recent weeks while limiting gasoline output, responding to an unusual price gap between the two fuels. But more diesel output can hardly dampen record-high diesel prices in the short term, analysts said.
Data from the Department of Energy showed Wednesday that motor gasoline production fell last week from a month ago, while distillates production, which is made up mostly of diesel and heating oil, increased.
Driving diesel output higher, retail diesel prices have climbed to more than 60 cents higher than gasoline prices, stoked by strong global demand, especially from Europe, where diesel use for autos is more common than in the U.S. While the production costs are almost the same, diesel prices are typically cheaper than gasoline due to less demand.
Higher prices for diesel and heating oil have encouraged refiners to produce more of these distillate fuels. A barrel of crude yields a certain amount of petroleum products, and refiners can replace some of their gasoline output with diesel, although in a limited range.
Synopsis
BMW is the first, with a well-earned position. not only does it brake better than the others, it displays hardly any weakness.
The Audi impresses by its good price /performance offer for a second place (first in price/peformance ratio)
The Mercedes is not a strong performer as the others, but offers an unbeatable combination of fuel efficiency and clean exhausts.
The Jaguar, although an interesting outsider in any case with its outstanding details, is not quicker, not more comfortable, not more economic, which warrants the last place regretfully.
The author concludes by a small hint of his taste : I would like it though
Myself : me too.