1) The EPA does not require oxygenated fuels to be sold in rural environments, and as such, you were probably burning straight gasoline.
2) For normally aspirated engines at altitude, they are needing to deal with air that pilot types call "High Density Altitude" (i.e. the lower the barometric pressure, the higher the heat and the higher the humidity, the higher the Density Altitude). The higher the DA, the lower the requirement for detonation resistance by the fuel, and as such, the 86 AKI fuel (not to be confused with octane) was appropriate for the thinner air as the risk of detonation is all but nonexistent at any altitude over roughly 5,000 feet (keep in mind that this varies by engine, and blown engines never even feel the difference until MUCH higher altitudes are reached).
3) High DAs also equate to lower power output from normally aspirated engines (and even blown engines above a certain critical altitude), and as such, you were never able to get full power out of the engine. The good news here is that if you cannot really lean on it when climbing a grade, you were probably getting better gas mileage than you would have if you'd been going faster. Errr, this assumes that your truck was incapable of climbing as fast as you would otherwise have gone. Maybe a good assumption, maybe not.
There are several refineries in Alaska. Some small ones. They also have about the lowest tax on fuel. I don't think they are under the ULSD mandate yet either.
There has been a bubble forming over the last 18 months between CO prices and the price of fuel in the US/Canada.
From GasBuddy.com here is the historical chart; click 6 years then click on 'Show CO price' as an overlay. Note the really really sharp rise in CO prices as opposed to the more moderate but still sharp runup in fuel prices in the US and CA. Two scenarios can be seen.... a) CO prices are going to come down to some more moderate level, or b) fuel prices are going to jump sharply. "All bets down please" "Rien va plus" says the croupier.
From the discussion on fuel prices in the other long thread herein at Edmunds there was this reference to an Oil Drum: Europe discussion with some startling data. http://europe.theoildrum.com/
This IMO is why petro-fuel prices are NOT coming down soon.
Errr, this assumes that your truck was incapable of climbing as fast as you would otherwise have gone.
I usually keep it between 65 - 75 MPH. I did not feel like the truck was underpowered at all. I kind of assumed that the oxygenate was a part of reason for the lower mileage I get in CA. Thank you,
I got slightly better mileage in AZ as well at lower altitudes. Usually 17-18 MPG. A good reason for using diesel. You don't get the big variations in mileage. You can count on good mileage all the time.
For comparison purposes, you should also cite (average) RUG to PUG.
Averages usually are and can be a real world misnomer..., i.e., it would be advantageous to buy the "average" price when the real world price were higher and to buy the lowest price if the real world average price were higher.
What has gone almost totally unacknowledged is the car population which uses PUG is (almost exponentially) larger than the CAR passenger diesel fleet that uses D2. As you can see the PUG cost per mile driven is highest; 40% higher than RUG, 41% higher than D2.
Careful here, supposition only, this is not at all proven by fact.
Now the thing I have not seen on the internet is the population of PUG requiring vehicles and/or the average or range of MPG. I use 22/25 mph as 1 defacto US average 2. knowledge of a Z06 mpg.
Here is a guide. From every Toyota ( not Lexus ) owner's manual there is only one vehicle in the entire lineup that requires PUG and that's the FJ Cruiser ( possibly the new LC ). Specifrically stated, every other new vehicle only needs basic 87 RUG. I don't have specific knowledge but I'm assuming that Honda, Hyundai, and most Nissan's are the same.
It is about time for the truckers to block the Interstate highways in Los Angeles. CA has the highest tax on diesel of any state at 74 cents per gallon. The bright side is it will make biodiesel a viable option, if the production ever gets going. I know the one company I invested in cannot keep up with the demand for biodiesel.
"Careful here, supposition only, this is not at all proven by fact. "
As if you are saying it has been acknowledged? Really? Where? Cite your links!! I clearly stated that I was not able to locate them!??
I think you are NOT being CAREFUL about conceptualizing what I am being careful about!?
Even if you doubt that,
YOU even quote that I say
..."Now the thing I have not seen on the internet is the population of PUG requiring vehicles and/or the average or range of MPG. I use 22/25 mph as 1 defacto US average 2. knowledge of a Z06 mpg. "...
Your "guide"
..."Here is a guide. From every Toyota ( not Lexus ) owner's manual there is only one vehicle in the entire lineup that requires PUG and that's the FJ Cruiser ( possibly the new LC ). Specifically stated, every other new vehicle only needs basic 87 RUG. I don't have specific knowledge but I'm assuming that Honda, Hyundai, and most Nissan's are the same."...
would be laughable to even YOU, if I swagged a population of autos requiring PUG based on "YOUR GUIDE" !!
The original point is still intact. The system is defacto asserting operatively that it is ok to spend significantly more $'s per mile driven for fuel that yields significantly LESS mpg than D2 products. I just put percentages to that, based on corner store prices and mpg on a PUG product (D2 and RUG also).
shipo, my understanding is that it is the goal of designers/software/ECM to run the engine precisely at the edge of incipient detonatoin - this is where mpg is best. my point about 87 octane is that it is an urban myth that a USA car designed for 91+ octane can be "hurt" by 87 octane. performance/mpg *may* drop more than the % drop in price from 91+ to 87, but it will not hurt the engine, will not void the warranty. Also you may find that while performance drops with 87 octane, mpg might not drop! Especially in winter.
The 'guide' was for you. The facts are precise based on the No 2 vehicle seller in the US.
You have said that you've not seen anywhere on the internet.... Now you have.
I made no other SWAG's ( your favorite term ). I stated only the one fact. If you want a weighted average of fuel economy by model extended to an entire Manufacturer's fleet that can be done easily from the EPA website.
It was apparent "your guide" was for "me" . This only reinforces my above response. Even you could find no real world references. "Your guide" is far from being useful. Indeed if it were useful to you , YOU could SWAG the population of the passenger vehicle fleet percentage requiring PUG.
Let me put it another way, why would one buy a car ( VW Jetta 1.8T) which requires PUG and NOT use PUG? Sure one can use RUG in a pinch.
Really the whole point here is the system sanctions burning more fuel that less fuel (why D2 is not more prevalent, the population of PUG products being one example.
No, not buying. While occasional usage of 87 AKI fuel in a 2.0T may not hurt the engine over the long term, I absolutely believe that using it on a regular basis will. Why? Because the engine is not being operated as designed, and as such, the specific ignition maps that are laid out in the computer will always be wrong and then need to be corrected after detonation starts occurring.
FWIW, I've driven plenty of turbocharged cars (the 2.0T included) that for one reason or another were fueled with low AKI fuels (usually as a result of traveling through Colorado), and the engines run like crap. Every time (and I do mean every time) I get on the throttle, the boost builds and the engine falters as the OBC needs to step in and retard all of the maps to a point where the engine doesn't self-destruct. It is my opinion (which ain't worth a hill of beans to anybody but me) that prolonged use of Regular fuel in a high strung engine like the 2.0T is a recipe for premature engine failure. FWIW #2, I’ve also managed to get a couple of turbocharged cars into the mountains following a fill-up where I was able to get real premium gasoline, and the drivability difference was like night and day.
Once again, with regard to this particular engine, altitude and the OAT have precious little to do with fuel economy (although all intercooled turbocharged engines will be far more powerful when the OAT is below say 40 degrees). Long story short, running regular fuel in the 2.0T will absolutely require the ignition timing to be retarded. Retarding the ignition absolutely means that the peak pressure point will be reached too late for the engine to take maximum advantage of what power the gasoline contains. Said another way, your fuel economy will suffer.
Have just returned from a near-3 week / 1700 mile cruise around part of mainland Europe in my '06 Volvo S60 D5 Geartronic. Most of the mileage was point-to-point stuff with just a little local touring - but some of it was at hard pushing and 110 - 120 mph cruising on the Autobahn's. Not a lot, I grant you, but maybe 150 miles total. Plus, of course the usual Swiss mountain passes and Black Forest twisty climbs.
Just done the fuel calculations and, after converting for US Gallons, the old girl gave me just on 33.3 MPG US, (i.e. 40mpg Imperial). That was two adults plus a decent amount of luggage, in D all the time and with the climate control firmly on.
For a car of it's type with the 185bhp 5-cyl engine and 6-spd Geartronic I'm quite happy with the figures, particularly as it did it all in real comfort................and not forgetting that Diesel over here is around $9 per US Gallon equiv, (over $9.50 in U.K.).
Watching the big German diesels flying down the derestricted bits of the Autobahns is a sight worth seeing; as is seeing the Porsche Cayenne's decisively pulling away from you when you're at 110mph. Presumably they're running at single-figure MPG's.
Not really on-topic, but some real world economy data on an ordinary car.
So much for idea that doubling the fuel prices will cut consumption and speed!!, etc etc, yada, yada, :lemon: :shades:
However we really do need (to let in and encourage domestic production of) vehicles like your 06 Volvo, (even at autobahn speeds of 110 to 120 mpg) getting 33/34 mpg!!!
It is still amazing to me (03 VW Jetta TDI) to be able to go 584 miles in app 6.25 hours @ altitude 6,515 ft to 2,000 ft) and fill with 12.1 gals for 48.26 mpg!!
Smaller diesel SUV are plenty on offer in Europe and clearly offer stronger mpg
BMW was excluded because they don't offer full size SUV as large as the Q7/GL.
The higher test consumption was recorded under German ways of driving. That they noticed the RR has a governed top speed (and consider it as a disadvantage) is a suggestion that those beasts weren't always driven at US pace.
All those models exist with smaller V6 Diesel engines, but the gain in consumption is not overwhelming.
I think the first clue that absolutely none of those diesels will hit these shores was the entire article not being translated from German.
Cars for US consumption and cars in the US are mediocre at BEST, even if they manage to survive the regulatory gauntlet which seems specifically designed to keep out cars that get better mpg.
The 03 VW Jetta (NB,Golf,) TDI is a good example (EPA 42/49 mpg) . Thanks to Alltorque, we find interesting anomolies, to name a few:
1. US model has smaller injectors, as if 90 hp is on the high side of the hp range. (European has a min of 100 hp) (US Z06 at the time 400 hp, Viper 450 hp)
2. US model had 5 speed manual, instead of 6 speed manual (European). The net effect not only was the hp and torque choked down, but it got 2 mpg less!!!!! (Internally the guts are less robust, but most to all non owners really do not care).
In other words, 3.85% less fuel mileage. Oyxmoronic in light of the emphasis on US fuel conservation. Again oyxmoronically as good as the Civic gasser fuel mileage is (38-42 mpg, which 95-98% of Civic owners do NOT report getting) and the fact it is an apples to oranges comparison, the TDI still gets 22% BETTER mpg.
( instead of getting 52 mpg I ONLY get 50 mpg. Yes, I can see real tears for the misfortune here.)
Sir, I am suitably chastened. The D5 version of the S60 was my choice for "economy" otherwise it would have been a T5 job. I can only plead old age and environmental myopia.
Whilst cruising through part of Switzerland at a 60mph limit I did notice that the reading on the "Miles To Empty Tank" display went to 710 miles. That was on a tank filled 120 miles previously so equalling 830 miles, (capacity 70 ltrs / 18.5 US Gallons), which runs out at close on 45mpg US.....................but at 60 you can get very bored; even with Swiss scenery. Still, shows what can be achieved if you're careful. The on-board computer is proving to be within 1 mpg (Imperial), of actual consumption over the last 6000+ miles so I now trust it implicitly(ish).
I do agree with you that the USA needs cars like this, no matter where they come from. Continually adding V8 and V10 megadiesels to the market is not doing anyone any favours. Yes, we have them in Europe - but it's the 2 to 3 ltr diesels that are the real sellers, for reasons that are self-evident.
If so, I would apologize, for it was really a comment to those that advocate ever increasing fuel prices in the US markets!! It was in no way intended or meant as a personal comment. Indeed I would go the limit, (no limit in some areas) when driving in Europe! :shades: Indeed what % of cars in the US markets can get 33/34 mpg @ 110-120 mph? :shades: :lemon: Most (%) would be lucky to get 33/34 mpg @ 55 mph!!!
I'm glad fuel prices are up. It promotes conservation of resources. I drive a hybrid and even I'M driving less.
The USA drivers drove 11 billion fewer miles in March 2008 versus March 2007.
There are unfortunate side effects (inflation on other items, trucking companies going bankrupt, etc) which come with that, but I think in the long run the USA will be a better place because of changes which were made during this fuel spike.
"I'm glad fuel prices are up. It promotes conservation of resources"
I am sure the oil companies would agree with your first sentence!! ?? :P Conservation of resources and less dependence on foreign oil? Europe has even MORE dependence on "foreign" oil than the US. France has the majority of its power coming from nuclear. Are you personally, is the country really ready for nuclear here in the US!? Please give me a break, they don't even want new refineries, let alone ONE new nuclear plant. Neither new ones have been built for at least a generation. World wide demand is UP (higher year over year) and percentage demand over 100% year to year is growing. So I guess that is "CODE" for "conservation of resources"? :lemon: :shades:
Well that is because you have ignored my prior posting on the subject. :lemon: But really you are just a mathmatical calculation to see why 11 B miles is literally a drop in the bucket. So try 251.4 M cars/11 billion miles in light of the yearly average of 12,000 to 15,000 miles per year. Using the defacto average mpg of 22 miles per gal. -44 miles tops/12=-4 miles per month: tops 2 gal a year savings!!
For me that is .88 gal.
Talk to me after upcoming summer vacation as folks drive more because the cost of plane flights goes into orbit.
Now what would be real is the implementation of higher diesel populations which structually LESSENS demand ( get 20-40% better fuel mileage) per like model. But we all know why that is not happening. :lemon:
Greater DEMAND, aka, fuel consumption @ higher per gal/cost per mile driven costs, as if that were any secret??????
While 11 B miles is nothing to sneeze at, how much did NOT going 11 B miles REALLY COST? I really do not need someone picking my pockets to know that I do not want to pay for ANY unnecessary miles!!!??? Structually why should we tolerate or limit the choices to vehicles that structurally demand greater consumption!!??
Corner store today RUG $4.11, PUG $4.31, D2 $5.05,
You are either wildly optimistic or trying to torture people!?
Realistically you should look at the price of fuel at the same time frame one year ago and THIS year's time frame when the alledged savings happened to be able to factor in the delta (change) I bet you find the cost outweighs the alledged savings.
So since it is pretty simple really to put this now in perspective, it is as simple as a like model VW Jetta 29 mpg vs 49 mpg (41%)
A family can go broke saving all these miles -44 miles (1.80)
"For comparison purposes, you should also cite (average) RUG to PUG. "
That would be against the rules. This is a diesel forum.
You can determine the difference by comparing the two percentages. New Hampshire - price difference is 47.6 cents - 13.3% difference Nebraska - price difference is 20.0 cents - 5.8% difference.
State RUG/D2 PUG/D2 Difference Alaska 13.3% 1.3% 12.0% Alabama 21.7% 10.6% 11.1% Arkansas 22.9% 9.5% 13.4% Arizona 25.1% 13.4% 11.7% California 22.7% 13.4% 9.3% Colorado 20.3% 7.6% 12.7% Connecticut 18.0% 6.0% 12.1% District of Columbia 20.1% 9.5% 10.6% Delaware 22.7% 10.6% 12.1% Florida 20.7% 9.4% 11.3% Georgia 21.1% 7.9% 13.2% Hawaii 21.7% 13.0% 8.7% Iowa 21.2% 9.8% 11.3% Idaho 21.9% 12.4% 9.5% Illinois 16.7% 5.2% 11.5% Indiana 20.8% 9.2% 11.6% Kansas 22.4% 14.7% 7.7% Kentucky 18.7% 5.9% 12.8% Louisiana 21.1% 8.5% 12.6% Massachusetts 23.7% 10.8% 12.9% Maryland 22.0% 11.9% 10.1% Maine 22.2% 10.2% 12.0% Michigan 18.9% 7.9% 11.0% Minnesota 21.3% 13.7% 7.6% Missouri 22.1% 10.9% 11.3% Mississippi 21.3% 10.1% 11.2% Montana 19.3% 9.1% 10.1% North Carolina 20.6% 8.9% 11.7% North Dakota 18.5% 10.6% 7.9% Nebraska 19.7% 13.9% 5.8% New Hampshire 22.8% 9.4% 13.3% New Jersey 24.1% 11.6% 12.6% New Mexico 22.2% 10.0% 12.2% Nevada 22.7% 12.3% 10.4% New York 23.0% 12.6% 10.4% Ohio 19.7% 8.0% 11.8% Oklahoma 20.3% 10.2% 10.1% Oregon 19.5% 11.6% 7.9% Pennsylvania 25.0% 13.6% 11.5% Rhode Island 23.2% 12.1% 11.1% South Carolina 22.2% 9.6% 12.6% South Dakota 19.3% 7.7% 11.6% Tennessee 21.7% 9.7% 12.0% Texas 21.9% 11.2% 10.7% Utah 22.4% 11.2% 11.2% Virginia 20.9% 11.0% 9.9% Vermont 25.4% 11.7% 13.7% Washington 20.5% 10.8% 9.7% Wisconsin 19.3% 9.8% 9.5% West Virginia 20.3% 9.5% 10.7% Wyoming 21.3% 9.2% 12.1%
I will post the full set of numbers in the "are gas prices fueling your fun"...I mean "pain" forum.
In terms of per mile driven, D2 is still cheaper than a RUG like model. Indeed it is cheaper per mile driven than a Honda gasser, which is arguably one of the better economy cars on the market. In terms of PUG, same thing for like models.
Using your "D2 PAIN metric" since the over whelming majority of the passenger car fleet do NOT use D2; record RUG to PUG prices spread pain mainly to the RUG to PUG users.
D2 passenger cars I would swag are less than 1%, the other 1% or more actually are split between business machines and personal miles on business light trucks.
Overall D2 prices affect the economy as a whole so, since D2 transportation costs are the linchpin of our (others also) economy,
Me? My commute has been 50 ft per day for the last 6 /7 years. Client activity using IRS deduction figures are at 50.5 cents per mile. So even if I take an SUV to transport more clients I just make less money. But then when I transport more folks it totally justifies the SUV, as it would take 2 cars to transport the same number of folks. Oh well.... interesting ironies.
Mileage has been discretionary for a very long time.
Not taken as a personal comment in anything other than a lighthearted way; hence my tongue-in-cheek response.
I must make clear that the mighty Swede does not do 33mpg US at 110mph. 33+mpg was my average economy over the whole 1700 mile+ trip, which included periods of sustained high speed cruising and some plain hard work climbing switchbacks in the Alps and the Black Forest......as well as the usual stuff. The D5 is a fine engine but it's not a 5-cylinder miracle worker. Apologies if I gave a false impression.
ruking1 says, "Structually why should we tolerate or limit the choices to vehicles that structurally demand greater consumption!!??"
Ruking1, I know you are a 1 trick pony in regard to your diesel leanings.
But when you bring up in ALMOST EVERY situation that we are such dummies for not allowing diesel cars, it just starts to sound like sour grapes wrapped around a broken record while beating a dead horse.
There are perfectly good reasons why diesels have not been a success in the USA, and you know them as well as I do.
Just have hope for the future of clean diesels and stop bemoaning what we have not yet done. It does no one any good.
Um, it was March 2008......the average price was in the $3.50 range back then.....that's where the number came from.
P.S. I got 14 gallons at $3.259 last Sunday. Will get more gas this Sunday for around $3.409. Local Albertsons gives 50 cents off per gallon with every 100 dollars spent in the store.......
Being as how I only have 20% diesel is a hard case to make that I am the epitome of sour grapes, or as you say a one trick pony in regard to diesel leanings.
Dummies might be your characterization, but is certainly not mine. Yes there are perfectly good reasons why diesels have not been a success, one happens to be lower cost per mile driven.
As for hope for the future of clean diesels? I think even the skeptics have skin in this game!?
hi ruking. a reason why to use 87 octane in a car for which 91+ is recommended is when one's own empirical results show that the performance loss is unimportant and there is a cost savings. with my 05 GTO, i swear the mpg is *better* on 87 octane in the winter compared to premium, and any power-loss is actually a benefit for traction-control. shipo, I understand that gasser car engines in USA *are* designed to run on 87 octane, even if are optimized for best performance with 91+ . I've had similar results with Volvos that have low-pressure turbos - no observable mpg loss with 87 octane, at least during new england winter. Also similar results with about 5 Z28s over a couple decades... maybe all those engines failed just after i traded them in (usually between 80k & 100k miles) ! :shades: btw, these results might be affected by different gas formulations for different regions in winter. and "cold" to you might not be the same as for me: One morning in my back yard it was about -15F, and on Mars it was about -10F, according to one of the mars rovers. btw, another benefiit of running 87-octane during winter: engine starts easier.
Trust me, it gets plenty cold here in New Hampshire.
While many cars sold in the U.S. have their electronics set up to effectively emasculate the engine if lower grade fuels are run in it, there are also a number of cars, even low cost ones that "Require" premium fuel, the Honda Civic Si comes to mind immediately.
Regarding your low pressure Volvo, I'm not terribly surprised that those cars were able to easily injest Regular, I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, but they didn't typically have compression ratios that were any higher than 9.0:1 and the low pressure blowers typically didn't pump much more than five or six psi. The 2.0T is way higher in both regards, either one of which typically requires Premium.
I travel to Europe on a regular basis and am quite amazed on what car companies are offering in the European Market and not here in the States (diesel models). It is criminal to say the least. When toyota has a1.4 liter diesel corrolla that has 94 .brake HP and is getting up 72 miles per gallon or ford has a minivan similar to the Mazda 5-diesel that is getting 38 mpg city and 50 hwy miles per gallon. The same goes for KIA and CHrysler both offering diesel powered minivans. However, compared to Europe, AMericans haven't been big on conserving natural resources. Perhaps now we've learned our lesson.
..."When toyota has a1.4 liter diesel corrolla that has 94 .brake HP and is getting up 72 miles per gallon "...
This is absolutely mini MONSTER! (sort of a backward JUMBO shrimp) With (probably) over 180 #ft of torque, why would anyone even consider a Prius hybrid? My guess at LESS than half the cost of a Prius!!! It gets 33% better fuel mileage. These results also make my absolutely excellent (over here anyway) Civic @ 38-42 mpg look like a gas guzzler. I would also bet that that 1.4 liter Corolla can cruise all day at 100 + mph (probably would not get 72 mph)
WHy do both AMerican and US car manufactures offer diesel products in Europe and not in the states?
That is an excellent question. It is one that many of us on Edmund's have been asking for 10 years or more. The answer is Federal and State Regulators. They have an agenda.
First: and foremost they think they can get rid of the internal combustion engine by regulating it out of existence. Second: Congress that is controlled by big business see high mileage vehicles cutting into the profits of Oil companies, automakers and tax revenues. Third: and specific to diesel. There are some people in California that have been given too much authority. They do not like diesel because the exhaust has some elements they would like to eliminate from the air, NOX being the major one left.
This all adds up to giving the manufacturers an easy out. It is a two edged sword. Diesel, because it is a SUPERIOR fuel has less of several exhaust elements than a comparable gas engine. The pressure is on from the people for more high mileage vehicles. Either the regulators ease up on NOX and cut GHG or face the voters that are hopping mad over high energy cost. So far over the last 30 years all attempts to come up with a better propulsion system for our vehicles has been a failure. Honda and a couple other automakers were able to get as much as 50 MPG in very light weight cars running on gas engines. Several automakers had diesel cars and small PU trucks in the late 1970s and early 1980s. They were soon abandoned due to our high sulfur diesel fuel. Personally I don't think we will get any real high mileage cars in the US for at least another 10 years, if ever. There will have to be a REAL oil shortage to get Congress to ease regulations on diesel cars. Of course you can always buy a big huge PU truck with a diesel engine.
" However, compared to Europe, AMericans haven't been big on conserving natural resources. Perhaps now we've learned our lesson. "
Time will tell. America is a different car market from Europe. People in Europe have no option but to buy subcompacts when the fuel costs are double. In Europe they give diesel a tax break. In the U.S. ethanol gets the big break.
Right now the only people learning a lesson are the folks that are not making a lot of money.
The second major issue is that U.S. emission policy is different than Europe. Diesels had a higher hurdle in the U.S. to overcome when compared to Europe. Several folks on this forum like to point out that it is a conspiracy theory and that the evil regulators are out to get diesels. Gasoline engines had their emission hurdles to overcome, so the idea that diesel engines are being unfairly treated is not true from an overall perspective.
People fail to understand that environmental policies vary from country to country and even state to state. There is no perfect standard.
Another major hurdle for diesel in the market place is simply the way the people or market react. In the past people have associated diesels with big smoky trucks and construction equipment. It will take many years of clean diesels to change that perception. I once read that it takes 17 years for a new medical procedure to be adopted by the medical community. It takes time for a new thing to get accepted. It is called the adoption curve. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffusion_of_innovations
It has taken 15 plus years of higher fuel prices and diesel tax breaks to increase the diesel sales in Europe up to about 55%.
And there is the extra 50 to 100 cents more for diesel that will scare a lot of people away. They are not going to whip out a calculator to see that they still may get a small savings in fuel by going to diesel. If nothing else the higher diesel price creates uncertainty. Faced with this kind of uncertainty people will stick with RUG.
The auto executives know this from their surveys. Most are going to stay with what they know until someone else makes diesel work in cars in the U.S. History is rich with people that tried things in a different market and got slaughtered doing so.
What can I say..., According to Avalon02wh, I am at least 22 years ahead of the times! :shades: The rest of his explanations really sweeps the realities under a rug that doesn't even hide the dirt mounds or the real stint, emissions wise. Gagrice's take is way closer to the real truth.
The US market has been WAY ready for literally years (23 to put numbers to it) for diesel options. What Avalon02 analogous reasoning would hold that we should have gotten rid of RUG products because of the Corvair !!!! Completely and utterly preposterous!!
While everybody talks about conserving fuel, folks with diesels are ACTUALLY doing it. (41% better fuel mileage that like models) :confuse: Since the diesel car population is really much less than 2%, the numbers really speak to the fact is US fuel conservation will be in the TALK stages for @ least another 22 years. To me, this is totally pathetic and sad in light of all the "GREEN" rhetoric.
What I can tell you after running 108,000 miles, is running a diesel car in the US market is utterly seamless.The resale value after 5 years has exceeded even my BEST projections. My own mitigation to this situation is a min of another 400,000 miles. By then, I truly hope there will be a greater % and vol of diesels, more models and competition on the market.
I am hopeful GM sees the light and does a twin turbo diesel V8 with 45 mpg on race day and 70 mph @ 65 mph!!! Yes I realize Corvette purists might like to organize a burn at the stake BBQ, but really a car like that will really showcase diesels here to fore hidden abilities.
Gasoline engines had their emission hurdles to overcome, so the idea that diesel engines are being unfairly treated is not true from an overall perspective.
If you look at it honestly the gas emissions most dangerous to our health was lead. They got it out of gasoline 30+ years ago. They have known sulfur in diesel was a major pollutant for at least that long and the EPA is just now getting it out.
As far as a curve to buy diesels. I will have to disagree. In the late 1970s when VW started selling their diesel Rabbits and Dashers to the USA. It was over one year waiting list to get one. Mercedes during the same time sold more diesels in the USA than gassers. In 1978 I wanted a Dasher diesel and could not wait to get a high mileage car. So I ended up with a POC Honda Accord. For all those crying about VW reliability, they obviously did not own a Honda at the time I did. Sadly the dealer was used to servicing Honda motorcycles and was really clueless how to solve all the problems with the Accord he sold me. A friend paid cash in 1979 for a Dasher Diesel Wagon at a Florida dealer. It came in a year later and the dealer offered him $1,000 over what he paid. He was working with me in Alaska and was not going to be to his home in FL for 6 more months so he sold it. Pretty good return on investment.
Truly the Honda's marginally stated getting better with the 1982 MY. Up until that time you literally could not pay me to own a Japanese car. My then signifcant other owned a 1978 Honda Accord. I would bore you to tears just listing the defects and problems a scant 3 years later.
... Evidently there is some rumblings about putting the new Duramax in the Corvette. I thought the high center exhaust and turbo would scare the engineers because of the plastic hood / bonnet, but a carbon or alloy hood might solve this. The MPG would be amazing with their six-speed; kind of amazing on gas now.
In 2007, there were reports that Honda would make an Accord diesel in 2009. Recently, Acura announced a new TSX diesel that same year. Will Honda still make an Accord diesel around then? If not, when?
While I don't know if this holds true for the Automotive industry, in the General Aviation sector, the new generation if small blown diesels that are starting to come out have a MUCH lower (as in hundreds of degrees lower, errr, if I'm not mistaken) Turbo Inlet Temperature than blown gasoline engines. That could be why GM isn't worried about the plastic hood on the Vette.
Gassers that run turbo's are indeed much more finicky and less reliable (higher heat issues) than diesels. Indeed twin turbo's on diesel are less of a problem on diesels than on gassers. I would have to research arcane locations to get a good comparison graphic between turbos on diesels vs gassers exhaust temperatures. Suffice to say turbo diesels are far less finicky and MORE reliable than turbos on gassers.
Comments
1) The EPA does not require oxygenated fuels to be sold in rural environments, and as such, you were probably burning straight gasoline.
2) For normally aspirated engines at altitude, they are needing to deal with air that pilot types call "High Density Altitude" (i.e. the lower the barometric pressure, the higher the heat and the higher the humidity, the higher the Density Altitude). The higher the DA, the lower the requirement for detonation resistance by the fuel, and as such, the 86 AKI fuel (not to be confused with octane) was appropriate for the thinner air as the risk of detonation is all but nonexistent at any altitude over roughly 5,000 feet (keep in mind that this varies by engine, and blown engines never even feel the difference until MUCH higher altitudes are reached).
3) High DAs also equate to lower power output from normally aspirated engines (and even blown engines above a certain critical altitude), and as such, you were never able to get full power out of the engine. The good news here is that if you cannot really lean on it when climbing a grade, you were probably getting better gas mileage than you would have if you'd been going faster. Errr, this assumes that your truck was incapable of climbing as fast as you would otherwise have gone. Maybe a good assumption, maybe not.
Best Regards,
Shipo
Best Regards,
Shipo
Has anyone seen diesel above $6 yet?
There has been a bubble forming over the last 18 months between CO prices and the price of fuel in the US/Canada.
From GasBuddy.com here is the historical chart; click 6 years then click on 'Show CO price' as an overlay. Note the really really sharp rise in CO prices as opposed to the more moderate but still sharp runup in fuel prices in the US and CA. Two scenarios can be seen.... a) CO prices are going to come down to some more moderate level, or b) fuel prices are going to jump sharply. "All bets down please" "Rien va plus" says the croupier.
From the discussion on fuel prices in the other long thread herein at Edmunds there was this reference to an Oil Drum: Europe discussion with some startling data.
http://europe.theoildrum.com/
This IMO is why petro-fuel prices are NOT coming down soon.
I usually keep it between 65 - 75 MPH. I did not feel like the truck was underpowered at all. I kind of assumed that the oxygenate was a part of reason for the lower mileage I get in CA. Thank you,
I got slightly better mileage in AZ as well at lower altitudes. Usually 17-18 MPG. A good reason for using diesel. You don't get the big variations in mileage. You can count on good mileage all the time.
Averages usually are and can be a real world misnomer..., i.e., it would be advantageous to buy the "average" price when the real world price were higher and to buy the lowest price if the real world average price were higher.
Careful here, supposition only, this is not at all proven by fact.
Now the thing I have not seen on the internet is the population of PUG requiring vehicles and/or the average or range of MPG. I use 22/25 mph as 1 defacto US average 2. knowledge of a Z06 mpg.
Here is a guide. From every Toyota ( not Lexus ) owner's manual there is only one vehicle in the entire lineup that requires PUG and that's the FJ Cruiser ( possibly the new LC ). Specifrically stated, every other new vehicle only needs basic 87 RUG. I don't have specific knowledge but I'm assuming that Honda, Hyundai, and most Nissan's are the same.
It is about time for the truckers to block the Interstate highways in Los Angeles. CA has the highest tax on diesel of any state at 74 cents per gallon. The bright side is it will make biodiesel a viable option, if the production ever gets going. I know the one company I invested in cannot keep up with the demand for biodiesel.
As if you are saying it has been acknowledged? Really? Where? Cite your links!! I clearly stated that I was not able to locate them!??
I think you are NOT being CAREFUL about conceptualizing what I am being careful about!?
Even if you doubt that,
YOU even quote that I say
..."Now the thing I have not seen on the internet is the population of PUG requiring vehicles and/or the average or range of MPG. I use 22/25 mph as 1 defacto US average 2. knowledge of a Z06 mpg. "...
Your "guide"
..."Here is a guide. From every Toyota ( not Lexus ) owner's manual there is only one vehicle in the entire lineup that requires PUG and that's the FJ Cruiser ( possibly the new LC ). Specifically stated, every other new vehicle only needs basic 87 RUG. I don't have specific knowledge but I'm assuming that Honda, Hyundai, and most Nissan's are the same."...
would be laughable to even YOU, if I swagged a population of autos requiring PUG based on "YOUR GUIDE" !!
The original point is still intact. The system is defacto asserting operatively that it is ok to spend significantly more $'s per mile driven for fuel that yields significantly LESS mpg than D2 products. I just put percentages to that, based on corner store prices and mpg on a PUG product (D2 and RUG also).
my point about 87 octane is that it is an urban myth that a USA car designed for 91+ octane can be "hurt" by 87 octane. performance/mpg *may* drop more than the % drop in price from 91+ to 87, but it will not hurt the engine, will not void the warranty.
Also you may find that while performance drops with 87 octane, mpg might not drop! Especially in winter.
You have said that you've not seen anywhere on the internet.... Now you have.
I made no other SWAG's ( your favorite term ). I stated only the one fact. If you want a weighted average of fuel economy by model extended to an entire Manufacturer's fleet that can be done easily from the EPA website.
Really the whole point here is the system sanctions burning more fuel that less fuel (why D2 is not more prevalent, the population of PUG products being one example.
FWIW, I've driven plenty of turbocharged cars (the 2.0T included) that for one reason or another were fueled with low AKI fuels (usually as a result of traveling through Colorado), and the engines run like crap. Every time (and I do mean every time) I get on the throttle, the boost builds and the engine falters as the OBC needs to step in and retard all of the maps to a point where the engine doesn't self-destruct. It is my opinion (which ain't worth a hill of beans to anybody but me) that prolonged use of Regular fuel in a high strung engine like the 2.0T is a recipe for premature engine failure. FWIW #2, I’ve also managed to get a couple of turbocharged cars into the mountains following a fill-up where I was able to get real premium gasoline, and the drivability difference was like night and day.
Once again, with regard to this particular engine, altitude and the OAT have precious little to do with fuel economy (although all intercooled turbocharged engines will be far more powerful when the OAT is below say 40 degrees). Long story short, running regular fuel in the 2.0T will absolutely require the ignition timing to be retarded. Retarding the ignition absolutely means that the peak pressure point will be reached too late for the engine to take maximum advantage of what power the gasoline contains. Said another way, your fuel economy will suffer.
Best Regards,
Shipo
Just done the fuel calculations and, after converting for US Gallons, the old girl gave me just on 33.3 MPG US, (i.e. 40mpg Imperial). That was two adults plus a decent amount of luggage, in D all the time and with the climate control firmly on.
For a car of it's type with the 185bhp 5-cyl engine and 6-spd Geartronic I'm quite happy with the figures, particularly as it did it all in real comfort................and not forgetting that Diesel over here is around $9 per US Gallon equiv, (over $9.50 in U.K.).
Watching the big German diesels flying down the derestricted bits of the Autobahns is a sight worth seeing; as is seeing the Porsche Cayenne's decisively pulling away from you when you're at 110mph. Presumably they're running at single-figure MPG's.
Not really on-topic, but some real world economy data on an ordinary car.
However we really do need (to let in and encourage domestic production of) vehicles like your 06 Volvo, (even at autobahn speeds of 110 to 120 mpg) getting 33/34 mpg!!!
It is still amazing to me (03 VW Jetta TDI) to be able to go 584 miles in app 6.25 hours @ altitude 6,515 ft to 2,000 ft) and fill with 12.1 gals for 48.26 mpg!!
BMW was excluded because they don't offer full size SUV as large as the Q7/GL.
The higher test consumption was recorded under German ways of driving. That they noticed the RR has a governed top speed (and consider it as a disadvantage) is a suggestion that those beasts weren't always driven at US pace.
All those models exist with smaller V6 Diesel engines, but the gain in consumption is not overwhelming.
Cars for US consumption and cars in the US are mediocre at BEST, even if they manage to survive the regulatory gauntlet which seems specifically designed to keep out cars that get better mpg.
The 03 VW Jetta (NB,Golf,) TDI is a good example (EPA 42/49 mpg) . Thanks to Alltorque, we find interesting anomolies, to name a few:
1. US model has smaller injectors, as if 90 hp is on the high side of the hp range. (European has a min of 100 hp) (US Z06 at the time 400 hp, Viper 450 hp)
2. US model had 5 speed manual, instead of 6 speed manual (European). The net effect not only was the hp and torque choked down, but it got 2 mpg less!!!!! (Internally the guts are less robust, but most to all non owners really do not care).
In other words, 3.85% less fuel mileage. Oyxmoronic in light of the emphasis on US fuel conservation.
( instead of getting 52 mpg I ONLY get 50 mpg. Yes, I can see real tears for the misfortune here.)
Whilst cruising through part of Switzerland at a 60mph limit I did notice that the reading on the "Miles To Empty Tank" display went to 710 miles. That was on a tank filled 120 miles previously so equalling 830 miles, (capacity 70 ltrs / 18.5 US Gallons), which runs out at close on 45mpg US.....................but at 60 you can get very bored; even with Swiss scenery. Still, shows what can be achieved if you're careful. The on-board computer is proving to be within 1 mpg (Imperial), of actual consumption over the last 6000+ miles so I now trust it implicitly(ish).
I do agree with you that the USA needs cars like this, no matter where they come from. Continually adding V8 and V10 megadiesels to the market is not doing anyone any favours. Yes, we have them in Europe - but it's the 2 to 3 ltr diesels that are the real sellers, for reasons that are self-evident.
If so, I would apologize, for it was really a comment to those that advocate ever increasing fuel prices in the US markets!! It was in no way intended or meant as a personal comment.
The USA drivers drove 11 billion fewer miles in March 2008 versus March 2007.
There are unfortunate side effects (inflation on other items, trucking companies going bankrupt, etc) which come with that, but I think in the long run the USA will be a better place because of changes which were made during this fuel spike.
I am sure the oil companies would agree with your first sentence!! ?? :P Conservation of resources and less dependence on foreign oil? Europe has even MORE dependence on "foreign" oil than the US. France has the majority of its power coming from nuclear. Are you personally, is the country really ready for nuclear here in the US!? Please give me a break, they don't even want new refineries, let alone ONE new nuclear plant. Neither new ones have been built for at least a generation. World wide demand is UP (higher year over year) and percentage demand over 100% year to year is growing. So I guess that is "CODE" for "conservation of resources"? :lemon: :shades:
For me that is .88 gal.
Talk to me after upcoming summer vacation as folks drive more because the cost of plane flights goes into orbit.
Because.....................there IS NOTHING that would EVER convince me that driving 11 billion fewer miles per month is a bad thing.
As I said - NICE TRY however...........
Greater DEMAND, aka, fuel consumption @ higher per gal/cost per mile driven costs, as if that were any secret??????
While 11 B miles is nothing to sneeze at, how much did NOT going 11 B miles REALLY COST? I really do not need someone picking my pockets to know that I do not want to pay for ANY unnecessary miles!!!??? Structually why should we tolerate or limit the choices to vehicles that structurally demand greater consumption!!??
So, about $1.80 per USA person for the month.
You are right - that's not much money. But it is a lot of pollution saved.
Corner store today RUG $4.11, PUG $4.31, D2 $5.05,
You are either wildly optimistic or trying to torture people!?
Realistically you should look at the price of fuel at the same time frame one year ago and THIS year's time frame when the alledged savings happened to be able to factor in the delta (change) I bet you find the cost outweighs the alledged savings.
So since it is pretty simple really to put this now in perspective, it is as simple as a like model VW Jetta 29 mpg vs 49 mpg (41%)
A family can go broke saving all these miles -44 miles (1.80)
That would be against the rules. This is a diesel forum.
You can determine the difference by comparing the two percentages. New Hampshire - price difference is 47.6 cents - 13.3% difference
Nebraska - price difference is 20.0 cents - 5.8% difference.
State RUG/D2 PUG/D2 Difference
Alaska 13.3% 1.3% 12.0%
Alabama 21.7% 10.6% 11.1%
Arkansas 22.9% 9.5% 13.4%
Arizona 25.1% 13.4% 11.7%
California 22.7% 13.4% 9.3%
Colorado 20.3% 7.6% 12.7%
Connecticut 18.0% 6.0% 12.1%
District of Columbia 20.1% 9.5% 10.6%
Delaware 22.7% 10.6% 12.1%
Florida 20.7% 9.4% 11.3%
Georgia 21.1% 7.9% 13.2%
Hawaii 21.7% 13.0% 8.7%
Iowa 21.2% 9.8% 11.3%
Idaho 21.9% 12.4% 9.5%
Illinois 16.7% 5.2% 11.5%
Indiana 20.8% 9.2% 11.6%
Kansas 22.4% 14.7% 7.7%
Kentucky 18.7% 5.9% 12.8%
Louisiana 21.1% 8.5% 12.6%
Massachusetts 23.7% 10.8% 12.9%
Maryland 22.0% 11.9% 10.1%
Maine 22.2% 10.2% 12.0%
Michigan 18.9% 7.9% 11.0%
Minnesota 21.3% 13.7% 7.6%
Missouri 22.1% 10.9% 11.3%
Mississippi 21.3% 10.1% 11.2%
Montana 19.3% 9.1% 10.1%
North Carolina 20.6% 8.9% 11.7%
North Dakota 18.5% 10.6% 7.9%
Nebraska 19.7% 13.9% 5.8%
New Hampshire 22.8% 9.4% 13.3%
New Jersey 24.1% 11.6% 12.6%
New Mexico 22.2% 10.0% 12.2%
Nevada 22.7% 12.3% 10.4%
New York 23.0% 12.6% 10.4%
Ohio 19.7% 8.0% 11.8%
Oklahoma 20.3% 10.2% 10.1%
Oregon 19.5% 11.6% 7.9%
Pennsylvania 25.0% 13.6% 11.5%
Rhode Island 23.2% 12.1% 11.1%
South Carolina 22.2% 9.6% 12.6%
South Dakota 19.3% 7.7% 11.6%
Tennessee 21.7% 9.7% 12.0%
Texas 21.9% 11.2% 10.7%
Utah 22.4% 11.2% 11.2%
Virginia 20.9% 11.0% 9.9%
Vermont 25.4% 11.7% 13.7%
Washington 20.5% 10.8% 9.7%
Wisconsin 19.3% 9.8% 9.5%
West Virginia 20.3% 9.5% 10.7%
Wyoming 21.3% 9.2% 12.1%
I will post the full set of numbers in the "are gas prices fueling your fun"...I mean "pain" forum.
Using your "D2 PAIN metric" since the over whelming majority of the passenger car fleet do NOT use D2; record RUG to PUG prices spread pain mainly to the RUG to PUG users.
D2 passenger cars I would swag are less than 1%, the other 1% or more actually are split between business machines and personal miles on business light trucks.
Overall D2 prices affect the economy as a whole so, since D2 transportation costs are the linchpin of our (others also) economy,
Me? My commute has been 50 ft per day for the last 6 /7 years. Client activity using IRS deduction figures are at 50.5 cents per mile. So even if I take an SUV to transport more clients I just make less money. But then when I transport more folks it totally justifies the SUV, as it would take 2 cars to transport the same number of folks. Oh well.... interesting ironies.
Mileage has been discretionary for a very long time.
Not taken as a personal comment in anything other than a lighthearted way; hence my tongue-in-cheek response.
I must make clear that the mighty Swede does not do 33mpg US at 110mph. 33+mpg was my average economy over the whole 1700 mile+ trip, which included periods of sustained high speed cruising and some plain hard work climbing switchbacks in the Alps and the Black Forest......as well as the usual stuff. The D5 is a fine engine but it's not a 5-cylinder miracle worker. Apologies if I gave a false impression.
Ruking1, I know you are a 1 trick pony in regard to your diesel leanings.
But when you bring up in ALMOST EVERY situation that we are such dummies for not allowing diesel cars, it just starts to sound like sour grapes wrapped around a broken record while beating a dead horse.
There are perfectly good reasons why diesels have not been a success in the USA, and you know them as well as I do.
Just have hope for the future of clean diesels and stop bemoaning what we have not yet done. It does no one any good.
P.S. I got 14 gallons at $3.259 last Sunday. Will get more gas this Sunday for around $3.409. Local Albertsons gives 50 cents off per gallon with every 100 dollars spent in the store.......
Dummies might be your characterization, but is certainly not mine. Yes there are perfectly good reasons why diesels have not been a success, one happens to be lower cost per mile driven.
As for hope for the future of clean diesels? I think even the skeptics have skin in this game!?
shipo, I understand that gasser car engines in USA *are* designed to run on 87 octane, even if are optimized for best performance with 91+ .
I've had similar results with Volvos that have low-pressure turbos - no observable mpg loss with 87 octane, at least during new england winter. Also similar results with about 5 Z28s over a couple decades... maybe all those engines failed just after i traded them in (usually between 80k & 100k miles) ! :shades:
btw, these results might be affected by different gas formulations for different regions in winter. and "cold" to you might not be the same as for me:
One morning in my back yard it was about -15F, and on Mars it was about -10F,
according to one of the mars rovers.
btw, another benefiit of running 87-octane during winter: engine starts easier.
While many cars sold in the U.S. have their electronics set up to effectively emasculate the engine if lower grade fuels are run in it, there are also a number of cars, even low cost ones that "Require" premium fuel, the Honda Civic Si comes to mind immediately.
Regarding your low pressure Volvo, I'm not terribly surprised that those cars were able to easily injest Regular, I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, but they didn't typically have compression ratios that were any higher than 9.0:1 and the low pressure blowers typically didn't pump much more than five or six psi. The 2.0T is way higher in both regards, either one of which typically requires Premium.
Best Regards,
Shipo
This is absolutely mini MONSTER! (sort of a backward JUMBO shrimp) With (probably) over 180 #ft of torque, why would anyone even consider a Prius hybrid? My guess at LESS than half the cost of a Prius!!! It gets 33% better fuel mileage. These results also make my absolutely excellent (over here anyway) Civic @ 38-42 mpg look like a gas guzzler. I would also bet that that 1.4 liter Corolla can cruise all day at 100 + mph (probably would not get 72 mph)
That is an excellent question. It is one that many of us on Edmund's have been asking for 10 years or more. The answer is Federal and State Regulators. They have an agenda.
First: and foremost they think they can get rid of the internal combustion engine by regulating it out of existence.
Second: Congress that is controlled by big business see high mileage vehicles cutting into the profits of Oil companies, automakers and tax revenues.
Third: and specific to diesel. There are some people in California that have been given too much authority. They do not like diesel because the exhaust has some elements they would like to eliminate from the air, NOX being the major one left.
This all adds up to giving the manufacturers an easy out. It is a two edged sword. Diesel, because it is a SUPERIOR fuel has less of several exhaust elements than a comparable gas engine. The pressure is on from the people for more high mileage vehicles. Either the regulators ease up on NOX and cut GHG or face the voters that are hopping mad over high energy cost. So far over the last 30 years all attempts to come up with a better propulsion system for our vehicles has been a failure. Honda and a couple other automakers were able to get as much as 50 MPG in very light weight cars running on gas engines. Several automakers had diesel cars and small PU trucks in the late 1970s and early 1980s. They were soon abandoned due to our high sulfur diesel fuel. Personally I don't think we will get any real high mileage cars in the US for at least another 10 years, if ever. There will have to be a REAL oil shortage to get Congress to ease regulations on diesel cars. Of course you can always buy a big huge PU truck with a diesel engine.
Welcome to the forum
http://www.carpages.co.uk/guide/toyota/toyota-auris-t2-1.4-d-4d-3dr-fuel-consump- tion.asp
Actual fuel consumption is
Urban Fuel 48.7 mpg
Extra Urban 62.8 mpg
Combined 56.5 mpg
Also, the gallon is different in the UK.
For US liquid gallons:
* 1 L/100km = 0.00425 MPG
* 1 MPG = 235.21458 L/100km
* 1 km/L = 2.3521458 MPG
* 1 MPG = 0.425 km/L
For Imperial gallons (UK):
* 1 L/100km = 0.00354 MPG
* 1 MPG = 282.4809 L/100km
* 1 km/L = 2.8248 MPG
* 1 MPG = 0.354 km/L
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miles_per_gallon
" However, compared to Europe, AMericans haven't been big on conserving natural resources. Perhaps now we've learned our lesson. "
Time will tell. America is a different car market from Europe. People in Europe have no option but to buy subcompacts when the fuel costs are double. In Europe they give diesel a tax break. In the U.S. ethanol gets the big break.
Right now the only people learning a lesson are the folks that are not making a lot of money.
The U.S. tried diesels. The GM Olds diesel probably did more to set back diesels than anything.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oldsmobile_Diesel_V6_engine
The second major issue is that U.S. emission policy is different than Europe. Diesels had a higher hurdle in the U.S. to overcome when compared to Europe. Several folks on this forum like to point out that it is a conspiracy theory and that the evil regulators are out to get diesels. Gasoline engines had their emission hurdles to overcome, so the idea that diesel engines are being unfairly treated is not true from an overall perspective.
People fail to understand that environmental policies vary from country to country and even state to state. There is no perfect standard.
Another major hurdle for diesel in the market place is simply the way the people or market react. In the past people have associated diesels with big smoky trucks and construction equipment. It will take many years of clean diesels to change that perception. I once read that it takes 17 years for a new medical procedure to be adopted by the medical community. It takes time for a new thing to get accepted. It is called the adoption curve.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffusion_of_innovations
It has taken 15 plus years of higher fuel prices and diesel tax breaks to increase the diesel sales in Europe up to about 55%.
And there is the extra 50 to 100 cents more for diesel that will scare a lot of people away. They are not going to whip out a calculator to see that they still may get a small savings in fuel by going to diesel. If nothing else the higher diesel price creates uncertainty. Faced with this kind of uncertainty people will stick with RUG.
The auto executives know this from their surveys. Most are going to stay with what they know until someone else makes diesel work in cars in the U.S. History is rich with people that tried things in a different market and got slaughtered doing so.
The US market has been WAY ready for literally years (23 to put numbers to it) for diesel options. What Avalon02 analogous reasoning would hold that we should have gotten rid of RUG products because of the Corvair !!!! Completely and utterly preposterous!!
While everybody talks about conserving fuel, folks with diesels are ACTUALLY doing it. (41% better fuel mileage that like models) :confuse: Since the diesel car population is really much less than 2%, the numbers really speak to the fact is US fuel conservation will be in the TALK stages for @ least another 22 years. To me, this is totally pathetic and sad in light of all the "GREEN" rhetoric.
What I can tell you after running 108,000 miles, is running a diesel car in the US market is utterly seamless.The resale value after 5 years has exceeded even my BEST projections. My own mitigation to this situation is a min of another 400,000 miles. By then, I truly hope there will be a greater % and vol of diesels, more models and competition on the market.
I am hopeful GM sees the light and does a twin turbo diesel V8 with 45 mpg on race day and 70 mph @ 65 mph!!! Yes I realize Corvette purists might like to organize a burn at the stake BBQ, but really a car like that will really showcase diesels here to fore hidden abilities.
If you look at it honestly the gas emissions most dangerous to our health was lead. They got it out of gasoline 30+ years ago. They have known sulfur in diesel was a major pollutant for at least that long and the EPA is just now getting it out.
As far as a curve to buy diesels. I will have to disagree. In the late 1970s when VW started selling their diesel Rabbits and Dashers to the USA. It was over one year waiting list to get one. Mercedes during the same time sold more diesels in the USA than gassers. In 1978 I wanted a Dasher diesel and could not wait to get a high mileage car. So I ended up with a POC Honda Accord. For all those crying about VW reliability, they obviously did not own a Honda at the time I did. Sadly the dealer was used to servicing Honda motorcycles and was really clueless how to solve all the problems with the Accord he sold me. A friend paid cash in 1979 for a Dasher Diesel Wagon at a Florida dealer. It came in a year later and the dealer offered him $1,000 over what he paid. He was working with me in Alaska and was not going to be to his home in FL for 6 more months so he sold it. Pretty good return on investment.
Recently, Acura announced a new TSX diesel that same year.
Will Honda still make an Accord diesel around then? If not, when?
While I don't know if this holds true for the Automotive industry, in the General Aviation sector, the new generation if small blown diesels that are starting to come out have a MUCH lower (as in hundreds of degrees lower, errr, if I'm not mistaken) Turbo Inlet Temperature than blown gasoline engines. That could be why GM isn't worried about the plastic hood on the Vette.
Best Regards,
Shipo