For those of US living close to the Mexican border we have an alternative to over priced diesel. It was listed yesterday on the fuel price tracker for San Diego. That is what our trucking industry is competing against. Now that Mexican trucks can deliver all over the country they can do it for about half the cost of fuel we are paying.
Does ethanol production increases diesel demand. To produce corn-ethanol we need a certain amount of diesel fuel to transport the corn, run the tractors and deliver the ethanol. If we assume that for every gallon of ethanol produced we need 1/10 of a gallon of diesel then we would need 1.5 billion gallons of diesel fuel for 15 billion gallons of ethanol (the limit that can be produced under the new law each year). So 1.5 billion gallons of diesel is needed to produce 15 billion gallons of ethanol which offsets the need to import 10.5 billion gallons of gasoline a year
I'm not sure of the exact numbers, but I think the logic is OK. Ethanol helps reduce UG prices but at the same time helps increase the price of diesel. This might explain some of the price difference between UG and diesel.
At this point I do not think that ethanol has reduced our oil imports by ONE gallon. It is closer to a one to one ratio. Not to mention 4-5 gallons of water to process one gallon of ethanol. That does not include water to irrigate the corn in the field. The highest ratio that I have read about for corn ethanol is 1.2 gallons of ethanol for every gallon of fossil fuel. Most is diesel and natural gas. Though some of the new ethanol stills are using coal to save money. The farmers use a lot of fertilizer that is made from natural gas. Most of the gas production in one Alaska field goes to anhydrous ammonia for growing corn.
"At this point I do not think that ethanol has reduced our oil imports by ONE gallon. "
As far as crude oil goes, ethanol has probably not made much of a difference. We might actually need to import an additional 100,000 barrels or so of crude oil to process into diesel. The U.S. does import a lot of gasoline. When ethanol production does reach 15 billion gallons a year it will offset about 10.5 billion gallons of UG. And if my math is right that works out to be 28.7 mgd or 685,000 barrels a day.
Fertilizer costs are going through the roof. It is not just the ammonia (nitrogen), phosphate prices have taken a jump too. The price price per tonne for DAP jumped from $150 or so a few years ago to $600 to $700 a tonne this January. http://www.unitedprairiellc.com/PDFs/phosphate_prices.pdf
The article might be of interest to some of you. I found the comment from a person in Denmark to be interesting. Here is part of his comment:
"These conditions are totally changed now. With diesel costing the same as regular (even with in-built tax relief for diesel), you need to drive a lot more than 15.000 miles pr. year before the equation makes it economically sensible to buy a diesel car. If ever."
This may actually be good for U.S. drivers of diesel vehicles. Maybe the folks in Europe will slow down their purchases of diesel. I suspect it will be a slow change. Relief at the pump may not come for a bit, but it does suggest that there is a maximum or limit to how many diesel cars will be sold in Europe. Maybe 55% will be the maximum. I do not see the trend reversing itself to where more cars are running on gasoline. That prediction could be wrong if the fuel price spread takes a big jump.
The article does suggest that U.S. diesel drivers should not expect any relief in the next few months. I did not double check his numbers.
If you search “diesel Stabilizer” you come up with a list of products that keep this from happening. The company I work for uses it in the fuel tanks of some of the larger tugs that carry 50,000 gallons of fuel or more to keep the bacteria from growing and plugging the fuel filters.
The same stuff should be added to filling station tanks to prevent this problem, but its a cost item and cuts into profits.
Sounds like the tanks were contaminated and dirty before the biodiesel was added. You can grow a form of Pseudomonas in diesel fuel with the proviso that some water is present. You get the same slimy blobs of goo if you give the bugs enough time. The same can occur in home heating oil too.
Yes, you can destroy an engine and it happen to me many years ago. I got the refiner, Exxon to pay up after I got the state involved.
I add water remover and bactericide to my home heating oil every spring fill up and add water remover to the fuel of my Jeep Liberty CRD three or four times per year to make sure. Unfortunately, Chrysler did not put in a fuel tank drain.
"In its latest price survey, the price of a litre of petrol rose 3.8c (3.1pc) between April and May, to an average of 124.9c -- while diesel prices surged ahead by 7.8c (6pc) to reach 132.4c a litre."....."This diesel mystery needs to be solved, and the Irish government and the European Commission need to make it their business to find out what is going on."
I think they need to call in Sherlock Holmes and that other guy what's his name.
... What about Charlie Conspiracy ??? I doubt that the sulphur removal process added more than 25 cents per US gallon. We have a twenty plus year history of D-2, on-highway, hovering about the same as regular unleaded. No more !!!
is it really a mystery?! USA cleaned up our diesel so nicely that most of the rest of the planet's consumers are now willing to outbid USA consumers for our diesel, apparently to $9/gallon already. Let's just blame President GWB - the dude is like the duct-tape of blame - he holds together the entire universe and history of blame singlehandedly - it is absolutely heroic!
USA cleaned up our diesel so nicely that most of the rest of the planet's consumers are now willing to outbid USA consumers for our diesel, apparently to $9/gallon already.
The rest of the world doesn't buy our ULSD. They don't even require ULSD, the EU's requirements are for 50ppm not 15ppm until 2009. The EU did mandate that 10ppm be available from 2005 but ULSD would be too high for that. So ULSD is too low for regulations and too high for non-regulated. The rest of the world could give a flip about sulphur content.
It's that the US is competing with a far more active general market for diesel (China, India etc). Those guys are moving from wood-stoves to diesel-fired power.
It's that the US is competing with a far more active general market for diesel (China, India etc). Those guys are moving from wood-stoves to diesel-fired power.
I fully agree with that. EU is and has been refining its own diesel fuel. On the other hand, diesel and gas automotive consume have receded in EU along last months/year (numbers having been released by a British-seated office last week, though I don't remember the name now, I am sorry). Prices for gas and diesel are however going up steadily over here. :mad: The reason for that has to be the increase of demand in countries as China and India, if no high-price hidden agreement on the side of the producers has to be discarded.
Between the dollar's decline and its continued use as the main currency of trade for oil and the rising demand from fast-developing nations, the cost of fuel is going to keep climbing...
In the States we have seen prices go up by 30% this year, is it the same in Europe Jose?
In the States we have seen prices go up by 30% this year, is it the same in Europe?
Just about the same scenario. For instance, on May 2007 I would pay ,919 cents of Euro (€) per liter of diesel in Bilbao, Spain. Now I am paying €1.199 per liter. This means an increase of 30.5%. Put it in gallons, this increase has gone from €3.48 per gallon to €4.54 per gallon. Gas-price increase has been smaller nonetheless. About 20% along the last year. Diesel is still cheaper over here than 98 NO gas (€ 1.276 per liter, € 4.83 per gallon) but more expansive than 95 NO gas, both sorts of gas being unleaded.
Spain is one of the cheapest EU Countries regarding fuel. Britain, France, Italy, German are indeed more expansive. Any one interested in fuel prices in Europe may have a look at
Today the New York Times went on a diesel rampage...
link title Talks about VW, Mercedes, BMW, Audi, Honda, Subaru & Nissan bringing clean diesels to market through 2009 and 2010. Also incldues some stuff on why diesels can be more efficecient than gas.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/18/automobiles/collectibles/18SMOKE.html?ref=auto- - mobiles">link title Classic diesels and some of the reasons that public perception will be hard to break through in the U.S.. My favourite line: Consider the 1971 Mercedes 220D, as tested back then by Road & Track magazine: with only 65 horsepower to move a 3,500-pound sedan, acceleration was nearly imperceptible — zero-to-60 took an excruciating 27.5 seconds; top speed was only 84 miles an hour.
link title A very positive test drive of the Euro spec Honda Accord driven in the U.S. and returning 44mpg in combined driving. Sounds like Honda may be on to a winner, the article specifically mentions the 'clean diesel' version of Honda's 2.2l diesel having technology that generated its own ammonia to scrub the exhaust. No need for a urea tank.
Wow, months with nothing and then too much to read.
...Consider the 1971 Mercedes 220D, as tested back then by Road & Track magazine: with only 65 horsepower to move a 3,500-pound sedan, acceleration was nearly imperceptible — zero-to-60 took an excruciating 27.5 seconds; top speed was only 84 miles an hour."
My father in law had a 78 MB 300 D (sans turbo). At higher altitudes (0 to 6200 ft), you were luck if you could go 60 mph. Heaven help you if you had to come off the accelerator!! :sick: Turbo's in all fairness, REALLY make the diesel. (twin if they come out with them! WOO HOO!) the VW Jetta TDI can easily out accelerate most V8's. 80-85 is a can do easy (uphill) but the roads in the mountains are usually terrible at that speed. (any speed really)
The reporter on the Honda Accord diesel did a poor job of educating themselves.
Here are two mistakes I spotted:
The author says, "But nothing in the company’s current lineup, including its Civic Hybrid, can match the mileage of the diesel Accord that I recently tested in and around New York City."
Actually, factually, the Civic Hybrid can do that well. I did that well in mine. The 34 mpg in the city is particularly not that fantastic, but the 53 mpg highway is great. Having a 44 mpg combined falls below what my HCH gave me, with was 48 combined over the life of the car. I'm sure it's a fabulous car, but the author did make a mistake there by saying the HCH could not have done that. I beat all three of those numbers at times with my HCH.
And another snafu:
The author says, "And as more hybrid owners are discovering, their cars deliver little or no mileage gain on the highway. That’s because battery packs and electric motors add several hundred pounds, and the system also contributes negligible energy at freeway speeds."
That's wrong too. The TCH severely abuses the non-hybrid Camry in highway mpg. I generally get around 40 mpg on the hwy cycle in my TCH.
I'm looking forward to the clean Honda diesels when they come here. I'm gonna test drive each of them.
"Let's just blame President GWB - the dude is like the duct-tape of blame - he holds together the entire universe and history of blame singlehandedly - it is absolutely heroic!"
" The TCH severely abuses the non-hybrid Camry in highway mpg. I generally get around 40 mpg on the hwy cycle in my TCH. "
A Civic for comparison gets 38-42 mpg. On the road app 40-42 mpg. In the exact commute the Jetta TDI gets 48-52 mpg. On the road I normally drive the TDI much harder for 50 mpg. When I drive it like a Honda Civic, more like 56-62 mpg.
A Civic for comparison gets 38-42 mpg. On the road app 40-42 mpg.
Which Civic is that? Not the hybrid for sure. I got a consistent 48 combined, and on a 9 hour hwy run from Phoenix to Van Horn TX, with a packed loaded full car, I got 56.7 mpg. On that same trip on the way home, averaging 75.77 miles per hour, I got 47.6 MPG for a 345 mile stretch.
Someone somewhere might be getting 42 mpg on the hwy in an HCH, but they would have to be driving it like a NASCAR.
I don't want to turn this into hybrid versus diesel, and that was not my intent. I had just wanted to point out (factually) that the author made a mistake when he said nothing in the Honda stable could beat the Accord diesel on the road. That's all. Not to start anything !!!
Just your run of the mill (gasser) Civic. I clearly did not say it WAS a hybrid, for sure. I think this is why Prius does not have a like gasser for comparison, even as the nearest comparisons are Camry and Corolla. While I did (at the time) and continue to like the concept of the hybrid Civic; the numbers did not justify the premium. I am glad to hear you do get between 47-57 mpg!! They really do not need to legislate higher mpg standards (aka 35 mpg @ 2012) , they just need to make and let into the country more of those vehicles that actually do get 35 mpg (and over of course) i.e., Honda Civic Civic Hybrid, Civic TDI, TDI's etc.
You have to be kidding. Our government has nothing better to do than sit around making up symbolic gestures that I’m sure are striking fear into the hearts of the countries of OPEC.
I don’t know what to say. Again our elected officials have exceeded all expectations in their ability to make fools of themselves. :sick:
I probably left out the most important part. So if I get 39 mpg vs your 48 mpg, (I also realize that our Civic results are better than 95-98% of a survey of 780 Civic owners) that over 100,000 miles that we use 481 gals more than you. Even at 4 per gal we are talking $1,924. Given a $7,436 premium (at the time) , a quick and dirty B/E is 3.86 x or app 386,000 miles. So given a yearly average driver mileage of between 12,000 to 15,000 miles that is 32 years to 25.73 years.
Don't look now, but the cost per mile driven is going up RADICALLY!! This is probably why they are trying to market out diesel products!!! They actually do cost radically LESS !!!
Having a 44 mpg combined falls below what my HCH gave me, with was 48 combined over the life of the car.
The new EPA rates the 2008 HCH at 42 combined and 45 Highway. Much worse than the diesel Accord with 53 MPG highway. Also do you cruise the speed limit with your Camry to get that mileage. I 10 is 75 MPH most places. My sis drives now from Casa Grande and says she gets passed at 85 MPH continually.
PS Your HCH was a stick that is no longer available. Only that horrible CVT. I would never buy a vehicle with CVT. They are only good for snowmachines. Too much slippage and loss. I will take the DSG with a TDI any day of the week.
I would agree! This secret has been around for literally generations, but the best for fuel mileage is a manual transmission; of which DSG is a variant.
1. It has less hp/torque parasitic drag than the automatic. (Dynos on Corvettes indicate 11% vs 20%)
2. The cost to acquire is usually cheaper.
3. Driven correctly, the manual lasts the longest.
4. The manual transmission is cheaper to replace. This becomes important if cars are kept beyond 225,000 miles.
5. The manual transmission will almost always get better mpg (among other things) than a like model automatic transmission, just as a diesel will get( 20-40% ) better mpg over a like model gasser engine. When you add up the better mpg, they (diesel mated to a manual transmission) are a relatively cheaper way to get better mpg.
6. This probably makes no sense to most of today's automatic transmission drivers but the manual transmission in almost every case is a better match.
7. Much cheaper fuel in the US that Europe hides the fact that the majority (over 95%) of the European passenger vehicle fleet (is) are manual/s. This is almost in REVERSE contrast that the majority of US passenger vehicles are automatic transmissions.
Overall Winner and Contenders The Toyota Prius was the overall winner, with victory in three rounds: best city roller, lowest fuel costs and greenest car. The Jetta snagged two rounds as the best back-roads cruiser and the best highway flier. Meanwhile, the Smart Fortwo scored two 2nd-place finishes for best city roller and lowest fuel costs. The Ford Focus, while undistinguished in any one category, performed surprisingly well on the highway with fuel economy up to 37.5 mpg, well above the EPA's estimated 35 mpg highway rating.
Post-Match Commentary Anyone thinking of buying one of these cars should take a look at this comparator and choose the car that suits their primary type of driving. (We included a 2008 VW Jetta for an apples-to-apples comparison.) If your driving is mainly around town, the Toyota Prius is a great choice — if you have the money. If you only do short hops and parking is tight, the Smart Fortwo is a nifty ride. The Ford Focus is another budget selection that gave us surprisingly good fuel economy on the open road. And finally, our used car contender, the 2005 VW Jetta TDI, gobbled up the open road while providing better-than-average around-town mpg.
Remember: Before buying, get a realistic picture of a car's fuel economy. Ideally, you should allow enough time for your own test-drive smackdown, since the winner will be your daily driver for years to come.
I usually drive about 80-82 mph in a 75 zone and still get close to 40 mpg on flat roads. I put a video on youtube showing my TCH getting around 48 mpg at 77 mph. go see it.
And I'm wondering what is taking the Jetta TDI so long to hit our shores. Aren't they later than they said?
Nice comparo, but those that have followed this thread and others, have known these things all along. Articles like this might become more in vogue as a result of higher fuel prices.
As for ..." usually drive about 80-82 mph in a 75 zone and still get close to 40 mpg on flat roads. I put a video on youtube showing my TCH getting around 48 mpg at 77 mph."...
@ 75 mph with bursts to 80 mph, the Jetta TDI got 59 mpg. .
As for..."And I'm wondering what is taking the Jetta TDI so long to hit our shores. Aren't they later than they said? "...
The 5,500 plus posts on this thread and others might offer a few longitudinal hints.
To be able to get 59 mpg at 75+ mpg in a jetta tdi, you must be a hypermiler. It's not rated anywhere near that. Like you told me: you must be in the top 2% among Jetta TDI owners.
Here is why I say that. Here are some quotes from a popular TDI blog/forum/usergroup site:
2006 VW Jetta TDI 5 Speed Manual Stock! Average around 40-42 mixed driving Best ever: 47 driving like a grandma on a Sunday drive.
'00 Jetta. 5-spd. Stock. Average 47-48 mpg in mixed driving. I've seen as low as 45 before the intake was cleaned out. I get 48-49 on the highway (80 mph cruising speed). I've topped 50, but only a few times. My previous Jetta ('01 5-spd.) would routinely get 51-52 mpg.
01 Jetta Auto, stock, 124k miles 41mpg in mixed driving Best of 52mpg all highway at roughly the speedlimit.
I travel 38 miles one way to work (Edgewood to Albuquerque). It is downhill most of the way to work, uphill most of the way back. Elevation is about 5500 in Abq, and 6800 in Edgewood. I averaged over 47 in the winter, and have risen to over 50 on the last two fillups. Once out of traffic in the city, cruise is set just below 70. 2001 Jetta GLS TDi all stock
So you see, most people are not doing nearly as well as you are.
Thanks, but my 75 mph is the same as YOUR 75 mph!!!??? Both of us are JUST snapshotting (not sure if there is such a word) the mph in the comparo vehicles.
In our back and forth posts, I admit it would be interesting to put a Prius or a Civic hybrid through the same drivers and conditions and take a snapshot. We did have the 2004 Prius for 24 hour period and the time frame was good to form an impression.
Having said that, the thing that is really hard to see is that driving the diesel a slight bit ahead of the torque curve is the key to keeping the diesel happy and counter intuitively, the key to the results I am snapshotting! So I do not baby it at all!!
But really, what I am/have been saying about the Civic gasser and VW TDI was formed over 172,000 miles (65k Civic 107,000 TDI). So instinctively I take what those Prius and Civic hybrid drivers say to be true.
The new Jetta will be able to get up to 60mpg when cruising on the highway, a boost of 12-percent over the last US-market Jetta TDI from 2006. The Jetta BlueTDI should be the first of the new round of diesels to come to market when it arrives later this summer. The first batch of cars should actually start arriving at US dealers in June, where they will be available for test drives through the summer before going on sale in September.
I guess the cheap cost of gasoline over the past 20-30 years has gotten American out of the shifting habit.. I used to always buy stick shift vehicles because of the better mileage but have gotten out of the habit and now they are all automatics. Heck the Chevy diesel PU doesn't even come in a stick (06 anyway).
The only problem I ever saw with a stick shift was when two of my friends broke their legs... they couldn't get around as they couldn't shift their cars and if they had automatics they would have been mobile months earlier.
..."V-dub is probably disappointed in the new 2009 Jetta TDI only hitting an EPA rating of 30/41, after saying they expected much higher. "...
Definitely a victim of their own sucess!!
The 2009 is a WAY different car than the 2003 TDI. For example (A4 vs A5 generation) they have kept the costs BELOW the 2003 Jetta TDI, SANS the cost of inflation (5.6% per year for 6 years) So yes the price IS more. So not paying the cost of inflation (as a min) for a number of years is a benefit of keeping the old TDI 500,000 to hopefully longer miles!!
Indeed I would rate it close to a miracle if the 2009 would have penned a EPA of 42/49 (as is the EPA for the 03 Jetta TDI)
First off the car is WAY more BMW like.
I am sure if we look the car is more porked also.
The hp/torque is way higher (38%) . For example 03 Torque is at 155 vs 250 for the new Jetta
Common rail injection is now standard.
The new particulate emissions control systems adds cost (more importantly weight).
So despite this a(nd more)it is a milestone to get 60 mpg at legal speeds!
Seems to me that the article really supports everything we already know. If you tend to be predominantly in urban areas the Prius is a great choice, if not the Jetta tdi is a great choice. If you want a manual you only have one choice right now.
I am not sure why the us vs. them thing has to be perpetuated (I understand that's how the article was themed, I am blaming the article). It's just a good thing that we are finally getting strong choices that get around the 35's-40's.
Personally I am looking forward to being able to evaluate the Jetta Sportwagon tdi, that would have a lot of strong positives for me- I mostly do highway and byway driving, stick shift, good amount of room.
I would also agree! I would get the Prius in an absolute heartbeat if Toyota would cover the cost of the battery array/s going down when it goes down. Same with the Civic Hybrid.
Yes I can probably understand the wagon commanding a slight to larger premium if the dynamics are the same with the 03 wagon product.
Lars, you are either exaggerating quite a bit here or you were taking extraordinary measures. Not so with the Honda diesel.
The official EPA combined rating for the Civic hybrid is only 42 mpg, and we all know there can only be one official rating. The official combined EPA for the Honda diesel is 44 mpg, which beats the hybrid. So the author did not make a mistake, you did by comparing unofficial numbers to official numbers.
I did not exaggerate one single bit. Send me a CarSpace e-mail and I will send you my Excel spreadsheet with every single tank listed.
And when driving on the highway at 75+ mph, there are no "extraordinary measures" which you can perform, other than planting yourself 10 feet behind a semi truck, which I did not do.
The author made the mistakes I mentioned. Go read my post again. Nothing I said is wrong. What he said wrong and I pointed out is correct.
Once again - no disrespect to the Honda diesel - I love that car. I just hate it when reporters make mistakes.
Part of the bias against diesel actually has been the "educated" gasser car reporters not really understanding the differences between diesels and gassers.
Actually the EPA rates your 2004 HCH with manual transmission at 40 Combined unless you have the lean burn, then it is 41 MPG. Of course we know that they are never wrong in those EPA tests. While the average consumer on the EPA site gets 49.9 MPG in real driving. We could save billions by just getting rid of the EPA. That would be one less item for debate.
Comments
So
1.5 billion gallons of diesel is needed to produce
15 billion gallons of ethanol which offsets the need to import
10.5 billion gallons of gasoline a year
I'm not sure of the exact numbers, but I think the logic is OK. Ethanol helps reduce UG prices but at the same time helps increase the price of diesel. This might explain some of the price difference between UG and diesel.
As far as crude oil goes, ethanol has probably not made much of a difference. We might actually need to import an additional 100,000 barrels or so of crude oil to process into diesel. The U.S. does import a lot of gasoline. When ethanol production does reach 15 billion gallons a year it will offset about 10.5 billion gallons of UG. And if my math is right that works out to be 28.7 mgd or 685,000 barrels a day.
Fertilizer costs are going through the roof. It is not just the ammonia (nitrogen), phosphate prices have taken a jump too. The price price per tonne for DAP jumped from $150 or so a few years ago to $600 to $700 a tonne this January.
http://www.unitedprairiellc.com/PDFs/phosphate_prices.pdf
What a mess!
"These conditions are totally changed now. With diesel costing the same as regular (even with in-built tax relief for diesel), you need to drive a lot more than 15.000 miles pr. year before the equation makes it economically sensible to buy a diesel car. If ever."
This may actually be good for U.S. drivers of diesel vehicles. Maybe the folks in Europe will slow down their purchases of diesel. I suspect it will be a slow change. Relief at the pump may not come for a bit, but it does suggest that there is a maximum or limit to how many diesel cars will be sold in Europe. Maybe 55% will be the maximum. I do not see the trend reversing itself to where more cars are running on gasoline. That prediction could be wrong if the fuel price spread takes a big jump.
The article does suggest that U.S. diesel drivers should not expect any relief in the next few months. I did not double check his numbers.
http://www.fcnp.com/national_commentary/the_peak_oil_crisis_diesel_20080515.html-
http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/news/autoexpressnews/221658/biofuel_bacteria_wrecks- _engines.html
http://www.honestjohn.co.uk/forum/post/index.htm?t=62963
Sounds like this has been a known issue for a bit.
http://www.mindfully.org/Energy/2005/Biodiesel-Fuel-Berkeley18mar05.htm
Nothing is ever simple is it? Every fuel has advantages and disadvantages.
The same stuff should be added to filling station tanks to prevent this problem, but its a cost item and cuts into profits.
Yes, you can destroy an engine and it happen to me many years ago. I got the refiner, Exxon to pay up after I got the state involved.
I add water remover and bactericide to my home heating oil every spring fill up and add water remover to the fuel of my Jeep Liberty CRD three or four times per year to make sure. Unfortunately, Chrysler did not put in a fuel tank drain.
7 times
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhLKUFTUSTk
"In its latest price survey, the price of a litre of petrol rose 3.8c (3.1pc) between April and May, to an average of 124.9c -- while diesel prices surged ahead by 7.8c (6pc) to reach 132.4c a litre."....."This diesel mystery needs to be solved, and the Irish government and the European Commission need to make it their business to find out what is going on."
I think they need to call in Sherlock Holmes and that other guy what's his name.
USA cleaned up our diesel so nicely that most of the rest of the planet's consumers are now willing to outbid USA consumers for our diesel, apparently to $9/gallon already.
Let's just blame President GWB - the dude is like the duct-tape of blame - he holds together the entire universe and history of blame singlehandedly - it is absolutely heroic!
The rest of the world doesn't buy our ULSD. They don't even require ULSD, the EU's requirements are for 50ppm not 15ppm until 2009. The EU did mandate that 10ppm be available from 2005 but ULSD would be too high for that. So ULSD is too low for regulations and too high for non-regulated. The rest of the world could give a flip about sulphur content.
It's that the US is competing with a far more active general market for diesel (China, India etc). Those guys are moving from wood-stoves to diesel-fired power.
I fully agree with that. EU is and has been refining its own diesel fuel. On the other hand, diesel and gas automotive consume have receded in EU along last months/year (numbers having been released by a British-seated office last week, though I don't remember the name now, I am sorry). Prices for gas and diesel are however going up steadily over here. :mad: The reason for that has to be the increase of demand in countries as China and India, if no high-price hidden agreement on the side of the producers has to be discarded.
Regards,
Jose
In the States we have seen prices go up by 30% this year, is it the same in Europe Jose?
Just about the same scenario. For instance, on May 2007 I would pay ,919 cents of Euro (€) per liter of diesel in Bilbao, Spain. Now I am paying €1.199 per liter. This means an increase of 30.5%. Put it in gallons, this increase has gone from €3.48 per gallon to €4.54 per gallon. Gas-price increase has been smaller nonetheless. About 20% along the last year. Diesel is still cheaper over here than 98 NO gas (€ 1.276 per liter, € 4.83 per gallon) but more expansive than 95 NO gas, both sorts of gas being unleaded.
Spain is one of the cheapest EU Countries regarding fuel. Britain, France, Italy, German are indeed more expansive. Any one interested in fuel prices in Europe may have a look at
link title
Regards,
Jose
link title
Talks about VW, Mercedes, BMW, Audi, Honda, Subaru & Nissan bringing clean diesels to market through 2009 and 2010. Also incldues some stuff on why diesels can be more efficecient than gas.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/18/automobiles/18PRICE.html?ref=automobiles">link title
Goes into the cost pressures on diesel.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/18/automobiles/collectibles/18SMOKE.html?ref=auto- - mobiles">link title
Classic diesels and some of the reasons that public perception will be hard to break through in the U.S.. My favourite line:
Consider the 1971 Mercedes 220D, as tested back then by Road & Track magazine: with only 65 horsepower to move a 3,500-pound sedan, acceleration was nearly imperceptible — zero-to-60 took an excruciating 27.5 seconds; top speed was only 84 miles an hour.
link title
Diesel race cars.
link title
Blames the failure of diesels in the U.S. on GM's 1978-1985 diesels. No wonder Lutz is so reluctant...
link title
A bio-diesel article.
link title
A very positive test drive of the Euro spec Honda Accord driven in the U.S. and returning 44mpg in combined driving. Sounds like Honda may be on to a winner, the article specifically mentions the 'clean diesel' version of Honda's 2.2l diesel having technology that generated its own ammonia to scrub the exhaust. No need for a urea tank.
Wow, months with nothing and then too much to read.
My father in law had a 78 MB 300 D (sans turbo). At higher altitudes (0 to 6200 ft), you were luck if you could go 60 mph. Heaven help you if you had to come off the accelerator!! :sick: Turbo's in all fairness, REALLY make the diesel. (twin if they come out with them! WOO HOO!) the VW Jetta TDI can easily out accelerate most V8's. 80-85 is a can do easy (uphill) but the roads in the mountains are usually terrible at that speed. (any speed really)
By Tom Doggett
link title
Here are two mistakes I spotted:
The author says, "But nothing in the company’s current lineup, including its Civic Hybrid, can match the mileage of the diesel Accord that I recently tested in and around New York City."
Actually, factually, the Civic Hybrid can do that well. I did that well in mine. The 34 mpg in the city is particularly not that fantastic, but the 53 mpg highway is great. Having a 44 mpg combined falls below what my HCH gave me, with was 48 combined over the life of the car. I'm sure it's a fabulous car, but the author did make a mistake there by saying the HCH could not have done that. I beat all three of those numbers at times with my HCH.
And another snafu:
The author says, "And as more hybrid owners are discovering, their cars deliver little or no mileage gain on the highway. That’s because battery packs and electric motors add several hundred pounds, and the system also contributes negligible energy at freeway speeds."
That's wrong too. The TCH severely abuses the non-hybrid Camry in highway mpg. I generally get around 40 mpg on the hwy cycle in my TCH.
I'm looking forward to the clean Honda diesels when they come here. I'm gonna test drive each of them.
=========================================================
All that, and he is not finished yet!
Tick Tock!
A Civic for comparison gets 38-42 mpg. On the road app 40-42 mpg. In the exact commute the Jetta TDI gets 48-52 mpg. On the road I normally drive the TDI much harder for 50 mpg. When I drive it like a Honda Civic, more like 56-62 mpg.
Which Civic is that? Not the hybrid for sure. I got a consistent 48 combined, and on a 9 hour hwy run from Phoenix to Van Horn TX, with a packed loaded full car, I got 56.7 mpg. On that same trip on the way home, averaging 75.77 miles per hour, I got 47.6 MPG for a 345 mile stretch.
Someone somewhere might be getting 42 mpg on the hwy in an HCH, but they would have to be driving it like a NASCAR.
I don't want to turn this into hybrid versus diesel, and that was not my intent. I had just wanted to point out (factually) that the author made a mistake when he said nothing in the Honda stable could beat the Accord diesel on the road. That's all. Not to start anything !!!
No disrespect at all to the diesel !!!
You have to be kidding. Our government has nothing better to do than sit around making up symbolic gestures that I’m sure are striking fear into the hearts of the countries of OPEC.
I don’t know what to say. Again our elected officials have exceeded all expectations in their ability to make fools of themselves. :sick:
EPA has the 2009 fuel numbers for the Diesel Jetta. The automatic is listed as getting 29 city and 40 highway.
Don't look now, but the cost per mile driven is going up RADICALLY!! This is probably why they are trying to market out diesel products!!! They actually do cost radically LESS !!!
The new EPA rates the 2008 HCH at 42 combined and 45 Highway. Much worse than the diesel Accord with 53 MPG highway. Also do you cruise the speed limit with your Camry to get that mileage. I 10 is 75 MPH most places. My sis drives now from Casa Grande and says she gets passed at 85 MPH continually.
PS
Your HCH was a stick that is no longer available. Only that horrible CVT. I would never buy a vehicle with CVT. They are only good for snowmachines. Too much slippage and loss. I will take the DSG with a TDI any day of the week.
1. It has less hp/torque parasitic drag than the automatic. (Dynos on Corvettes indicate 11% vs 20%)
2. The cost to acquire is usually cheaper.
3. Driven correctly, the manual lasts the longest.
4. The manual transmission is cheaper to replace. This becomes important if cars are kept beyond 225,000 miles.
5. The manual transmission will almost always get better mpg (among other things) than a like model automatic transmission, just as a diesel will get( 20-40% ) better mpg over a like model gasser engine. When you add up the better mpg, they (diesel mated to a manual transmission) are a relatively cheaper way to get better mpg.
6. This probably makes no sense to most of today's automatic transmission drivers but the manual transmission in almost every case is a better match.
7. Much cheaper fuel in the US that Europe hides the fact that the majority (over 95%) of the European passenger vehicle fleet (is) are manual/s. This is almost in REVERSE contrast that the majority of US passenger vehicles are automatic transmissions.
Gas Sipper Smackdown
Overall Winner and Contenders
The Toyota Prius was the overall winner, with victory in three rounds: best city roller, lowest fuel costs and greenest car. The Jetta snagged two rounds as the best back-roads cruiser and the best highway flier. Meanwhile, the Smart Fortwo scored two 2nd-place finishes for best city roller and lowest fuel costs. The Ford Focus, while undistinguished in any one category, performed surprisingly well on the highway with fuel economy up to 37.5 mpg, well above the EPA's estimated 35 mpg highway rating.
Post-Match Commentary
Anyone thinking of buying one of these cars should take a look at this comparator and choose the car that suits their primary type of driving. (We included a 2008 VW Jetta for an apples-to-apples comparison.) If your driving is mainly around town, the Toyota Prius is a great choice — if you have the money. If you only do short hops and parking is tight, the Smart Fortwo is a nifty ride. The Ford Focus is another budget selection that gave us surprisingly good fuel economy on the open road. And finally, our used car contender, the 2005 VW Jetta TDI, gobbled up the open road while providing better-than-average around-town mpg.
Remember: Before buying, get a realistic picture of a car's fuel economy. Ideally, you should allow enough time for your own test-drive smackdown, since the winner will be your daily driver for years to come.
And I'm wondering what is taking the Jetta TDI so long to hit our shores. Aren't they later than they said?
As for ..." usually drive about 80-82 mph in a 75 zone and still get close to 40 mpg on flat roads. I put a video on youtube showing my TCH getting around 48 mpg at 77 mph."...
@ 75 mph with bursts to 80 mph, the Jetta TDI got 59 mpg. .
As for..."And I'm wondering what is taking the Jetta TDI so long to hit our shores. Aren't they later than they said? "...
The 5,500 plus posts on this thread and others might offer a few longitudinal hints.
Here is why I say that. Here are some quotes from a popular TDI blog/forum/usergroup site:
2006 VW Jetta TDI 5 Speed Manual Stock!
Average around 40-42 mixed driving Best ever: 47 driving like a grandma on a Sunday drive.
'00 Jetta. 5-spd. Stock. Average 47-48 mpg in mixed driving. I've seen as low as 45 before the intake was cleaned out. I get 48-49 on the highway (80 mph cruising speed). I've topped 50, but only a few times. My previous Jetta ('01 5-spd.) would routinely get 51-52 mpg.
01 Jetta Auto, stock, 124k miles 41mpg in mixed driving Best of 52mpg all highway at roughly the speedlimit.
I travel 38 miles one way to work (Edgewood to Albuquerque). It is downhill most of the way to work, uphill most of the way back. Elevation is about 5500 in Abq, and 6800 in Edgewood. I averaged over 47 in the winter, and have risen to over 50 on the last two fillups. Once out of traffic in the city, cruise is set just below 70. 2001 Jetta GLS TDi all stock
So you see, most people are not doing nearly as well as you are.
In our back and forth posts, I admit it would be interesting to put a Prius or a Civic hybrid through the same drivers and conditions and take a snapshot. We did have the 2004 Prius for 24 hour period and the time frame was good to form an impression.
Having said that, the thing that is really hard to see is that driving the diesel a slight bit ahead of the torque curve is the key to keeping the diesel happy and counter intuitively, the key to the results I am snapshotting! So I do not baby it at all!!
But really, what I am/have been saying about the Civic gasser and VW TDI was formed over 172,000 miles (65k Civic 107,000 TDI). So instinctively I take what those Prius and Civic hybrid drivers say to be true.
Oops we overspoke the mpg
The new Jetta will be able to get up to 60mpg when cruising on the highway, a boost of 12-percent over the last US-market Jetta TDI from 2006. The Jetta BlueTDI should be the first of the new round of diesels to come to market when it arrives later this summer. The first batch of cars should actually start arriving at US dealers in June, where they will be available for test drives through the summer before going on sale in September.
The only problem I ever saw with a stick shift was when two of my friends broke their legs... they couldn't get around as they couldn't shift their cars and if they had automatics they would have been mobile months earlier.
Definitely a victim of their own sucess!!
The 2009 is a WAY different car than the 2003 TDI. For example (A4 vs A5 generation) they have kept the costs BELOW the 2003 Jetta TDI, SANS the cost of inflation (5.6% per year for 6 years) So yes the price IS more. So not paying the cost of inflation (as a min) for a number of years is a benefit of keeping the old TDI 500,000 to hopefully longer miles!!
Indeed I would rate it close to a miracle if the 2009 would have penned a EPA of 42/49 (as is the EPA for the 03 Jetta TDI)
First off the car is WAY more BMW like.
I am sure if we look the car is more porked also.
The hp/torque is way higher (38%) . For example 03 Torque is at 155 vs 250 for the new Jetta
Common rail injection is now standard.
The new particulate emissions control systems adds cost (more importantly weight).
So despite this a(nd more)it is a milestone to get 60 mpg at legal speeds!
I am not sure why the us vs. them thing has to be perpetuated (I understand that's how the article was themed, I am blaming the article). It's just a good thing that we are finally getting strong choices that get around the 35's-40's.
Personally I am looking forward to being able to evaluate the Jetta Sportwagon tdi, that would have a lot of strong positives for me- I mostly do highway and byway driving, stick shift, good amount of room.
Yes I can probably understand the wagon commanding a slight to larger premium if the dynamics are the same with the 03 wagon product.
The official EPA combined rating for the Civic hybrid is only 42 mpg, and we all know there can only be one official rating. The official combined EPA for the Honda diesel is 44 mpg, which beats the hybrid. So the author did not make a mistake, you did by comparing unofficial numbers to official numbers.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
http://www.8thcivic.com/forums/civic-coupe-sedan/22302-dx-lx-ex-your-gas-mileage- - .html
It was also posted on Honda Civic Real World MPG MSG # 1416.
Two points:
that whatever you get the diesel model will PROBABLY give you anywhere from 20-40% better fuel mileage.
But when everything is said and down all ANYONE cares about is what THEY happen to get under their environment, driving style, conditions.
And when driving on the highway at 75+ mph, there are no "extraordinary measures" which you can perform, other than planting yourself 10 feet behind a semi truck, which I did not do.
The author made the mistakes I mentioned. Go read my post again. Nothing I said is wrong. What he said wrong and I pointed out is correct.
Once again - no disrespect to the Honda diesel - I love that car. I just hate it when reporters make mistakes.