This is not MY belief!!! It is an operative FACT. So until the operative facts change (for example higher mileage diesel cars are now 1,2,3,4,5, etc. .% of the passenger vehicle fleet) , I will continue to cite the FACTS.
The fact is greater mpg gasser and diesel vehicles are available world wide. Diesel (has been repeated more than once) has a 20-40% advantage over like model gassers. The operative facts are diesel passenger cars are less than 1% of the passenger vehicle fleet. The government tracks and reports this!!!!!!!! It is truly an indicator their PRO ( anti :lemon: ) diesel policy WORKS!!!???
If you doubt what I am saying try to ship over a high mpg vehicle and report to us what roadblocks you run into. I will caution you that you will probably lose your entire "investment". At best you will have to make massive alterations which are euphemistically considered non economic.
So I do not see why you think there is a conspiracy, when the rules clearly prohibit higher mpg vehicles (diesels specifically for this discussion as they prohibit high mileage gassers also) from entering !!!????
This of course is consistent with higher acqusition prices, higher consumption, higher fuel prices, greater taxation, higher cost per mile driven, policies!!
As much money as the guvmint spends on promoting and monitoring fleet MPG, does it now sound reasonable to you that they, and particularly the carmakers (who spend untold dollars on R&D to try and make cars more fuel efficient - see hybrids) would welcome cars with higher mpg.
IF MPG was the only criteria, diesels would rule the world, no?
But it is not the only criteria. Public health (clean air) comes into play also. CARB, etc.
It's not just as simple as you would make it out to be, which you would state as:
"diesel cars get higher 20%-40% more mileage, so let them be available everywhere"
That cannot happen as long as diesel exhaust contains the pollution and chemical composition which it contains.
There must be a compromise in both clean and efficient. The AT-PZEV diesel has yet to be shown, has it?
So your push should be finding someone who will refine biodiesel at an astonishing daily rate and get it on at least one pump in every town in the USA.
I think Willie is working on that. Join his forces.
I certainly understand what you are saying and I am in agreement with you. It would be naive to think that forces are not at work to limit diesel availability here. As for who it is, it could be any of a number of special interest groups who have a financial interest in keeping the status quo. Thats the way politics works in this country like it or not.
"Forces are at work to limit diesel availability here"
I call Hog on the Wash on that one...................
First of all: This is not 1920. Nothing anywhere near that size and kind of conspiracy could even have a slight hope of being contained and not leaked.
Second of all: Who would be behind it? Not oil companies, because they get paid to deliver crude and fuel anyway. Not carmakers - they WANT better mileage to help them reach their CAFE goals. AHA - CAFE - Maybe they are behind it? Well, their stated goal is better fuel economy, so NO, they would not be behind it.
That leaves only two choices:
CARB
The EPA
Are either of those entities controlled by..........whomever it is you think might be behind the "ban diesel" conspiracy?
Does anyone have any concrete facts, or evidence, of such a conspiracy? Has any investigative reporter in the world been notified that this is a potential blockbuster story?
Someone blowing up something like the conspiracy you talk about would be the news story of the YEAR, maybe the DECADE.
You better put together your theories and contact the local news team and make them some money !!!!!!!!!
Don't be so fast to rule the oil interests out. While you may believe the line that no matter the price they just make a few cents a gal I don't. If that were true then why are they currently making such obscene dollar profits? Their profits certainly weren't that high a few years ago. Read some history.
Bush is an oil man. Colonel Sanders is a chicken man. If we had elected Col Sanders 8 years ago and the price of chicken had tripled wouldn't you be just a tad bit suspicious?
I'm not talking about the price of oil. Oil companies are still making about 10% profit to sales ratio, which is about right and not out of line for companies of that size.
I'm talking about some imaginary conspiracy to keep diesel cars out of America because they get better gas mileage. That (supposedly keeping diesel down) if it has happened at all (I doubt it) did not start with Bush - diesel has been the red-headed stepchild forever in the USA.
Congress has NEVER been able to really show the oil companies balance sheets were NOT accurate in their reporting of a few cents per gal. I have heard .10 cents on the dollar.
However there is a lot of truth to what you say. As has been repeatedly mentioned there are a host of fractional "raw" products from a barrel of oil. What has been almost a needle in a haystack quest is what is the ultimate cost or sales of the aggregate fractional portions of a barrel of oil. It is better than a state secret!! Those in the know are really not talking!!!
Given the general anti-regulation thread here, this may not go over well...
The issue with Biodiesel is the lack of over-sight and regulation.
Biodiesel does not have defined and testable attributes regarding purity and energy content right now so it is a little 'wild west'. Since there is no over-sight in place no auto manufacturer or gas station can feel confident to stand behind the product.
The key to Biodiesel is controls. It has to be testable so that all the interest parties can sign off that it will work in the manner expected and so that they can stand behind their product guarantees if their customers use it.
Until those controls are in place, we will never biodiesel playing a major part.
FWIW, I believe Biodiesel is a great end-solution. Particularly from algae in an industrial application.
No actually to me the issue with biodiesel (ethanol for that matter) is that machines are NOT specifically made with running 100% bio diesel (again ethanol) in mind!! Right now an even smaller portion of that less than 1% of passenger diesel cars are adapted to running bio diesel and other oils. Again an EXTREME minority position from an already EXTREME minority position.
So what happens are absolutely known sources of productions go absolutely underutilized.
Most folks do not even have the slightest clue at the enormous and exponential WASTE from FOOD production that can be recaptured and recycled for FUEL production for example.
One example is up to 15,000 gals per acre and more (hydroponically even more) biodiesel from algae. No real subtraction from food streams. Indeed it has the dual capability to ADD to both food streams AND energy streams.
Another is no bio diesel production from known and STABLE yearly production from sewage treatment plants. Another no real substraction from food streams ( :sick: :lemon: :shades: In addition this is a perfect example of when life gives you lemons make lemonade These processes are biologically cyclical and SOUND and in a manner of speaking naturally unavoidable.hence why would you NEED sewage treatment plants to begin with?? :shades: Sure recycling areas produce compost, but why not bio diesel, methane, etc.
Another is the non saleable beer and wine products that can be further "stilled" into 180 proof alcohol "burnable" as fuel.
I'm talking about some imaginary conspiracy to keep diesel cars out of America because they get better gas mileage.
Don't you find it a bit strange that every major country in the world has small diesel PU trucks, while we do not? Don't you think it is strange that EPA and CARB look the other way on diesel PU trucks that are over 7500 GVW? In fact that was the loop hole that allowed the VW Touareg V10 diesel into CA. It has a GVW of 7700 lbs.
Now from a logical point of view. If given the option of a modern diesel PU Truck that gets 40+ MPG or a monster diesel truck that gets maybe 15 MPG which would you as a regulator prefer running around on our streets? You say because you work for the EPA or CARB you do not have an IQ of 100 so you really cannot say? That your boss who was appointed by the guy that likes big lobby investment in his party told you what to say because you are too stupid to tie your own shoes? The automakers, oil companies and the gas tax people are all hurt by higher mileage vehicles. They are not good money makers for anyone.
I know you think all is wonderful in Congress because of a tax credit for hybrids. They have to allow a few hybrids to slip through to appease the wacko environmentalist element hanging around Congress. It looks good at the Oscars so it must be good.
At this point in my life I don't give a rat's patutee. I am going to drive what I like and if I use up the gas you needed to get somewhere. Too bad, so sad. I just don't care. I keep 3 vehicles filled with gas. I always have something to drive including my tractor. If gas is $10 per gallon I will be so happy out on the highway without a bunch of schmucks darting in and out in their little rice rockets.
"According to the latest Kelley Blue Book Marketing Research study, only six percent of new-car shoppers in the US think that diesel is most likely to succeed in becoming a mainstream vehicle powertrain type, compared to 40% identifying hybrids, 20% selecting hydrogen fuel cell vehicles and 17% citing flexible-fuel systems." http://www.greencarcongress.com/2008/01/survey-us-new-c.html
So you can see that you IS in the minority.
"..the latest study shows that shoppers increasingly believe that diesel-powered vehicles get poorer fuel mileage than conventional gasoline engines.."
Isn't that an interesting piece of information. We here at this forum all know that diesel vehicles will get better mpg than a gasser, BUT, the market is still not up to speed. THAT IS THE ISSUE. :P
Many products have died on the vine even though they had advantages over other products. Diesel vehicles are going to fight customer indifference and just a lack of knowledge about the product. This happens all the time. This phenomena is not specific to diesel.
AND, you cannot discount some diesel disadvantages no matter how minor YOU may think they are. For example:
If I am interested in a new car and want to get in fairly cheap with low operating costs, should I buy a Corolla or a Diesel Jetta?
2009 Corolla Annual Fuel Costs $1968 Price Range $17k to $20k Passenger Volume 92 ft3 (4D) Luggage Volume 12 ft3 (4D) CO2 - 6.1 tons Reliability = Good Dealer availability = Good Number of gas station with RUG = 99.9% RUG pumps at the station = usually 2 or more
2009 Diesel Jetta Annual Fuel Costs $2145 Price Range $20k to $25k Passenger Volume 91 ft3 (4D) Luggage Volume 16 ft3 (4D) CO2 - 6.4 tons Reliability = ? VW overall is not so good Dealer availability = Fair Number of gas station with Diesel = 40% to 50% Diesel pumps at the station = sometimes only one
There are obviously other issues that might make a person want to buy the Jetta over the Corolla (looks, seats, driving feel, and so on). The bottom line is that the Diesel vehicles will be going into a very tough market. They are by no means a slam-dunk.
"Don't you find it a bit strange that every major country in the world has small diesel PU trucks, while we do not? "
No, not at all. It is related to the fact that Americans, up until recently, have not bought very small vehicles. I talk with a lot of pickup owners and the thing I hear over and over again is that a compact pickup is just too small. Ever buy a 4x8 sheet of plywood, OSB or sheet rock???? It has everything to do with size. If there was a way to super size their full sized pickups a lot of people would do it.
There is also the issue of power. People want to tow their 28 ft, fifth wheel and boat up to the lake. You're not going to do that with a compact unless it is a small camper and maybe a canoe.
" I just don't care. "
The reality is that enough people do care. The days of the spoiled kid using resources and polluting to their hearts content is coming to a close. CARB is working just fine. You forget their is a pollution issue in California.
"..the latest study shows that shoppers increasingly believe that diesel-powered vehicles get poorer fuel mileage than conventional gasoline engines.."
A couple things. The above statement is an indictment on the ignorance of the American car buyer. With all the tools on the Internet available they are still walking around in a fog.
You did leave out the higher EPA mileage rating on the Jetta Diesel 34 MPG vs the Corolla at 30 MPG. Also when there were gas stations from Florida to TX without gas during Katrina there was still plenty of diesel to be had. A person should have at least one diesel in his garage for the time when gas is rationed.
Plus cost of maintenance on the VW TDI would probably be less. My Toyota Sequoia requires oil change at 5k intervals. My Passat TDI at 10K intervals. Toyota charged more for oil change than VW in spite of the fact that Toyota used cheap 30 w oil and VW very expensive oil.
If I was looking for an economical car. I would probably look at the Civic or Corolla. If I wanted a good handling low priced sport sedan I would be looking at the Jetta. Especially the new Sportwagon. The Sportwagon has the same passenger room as the Corolla with nearly 3 times the luggage space. And much better mileage.
Sadly there are no SUVs sold in the USA with diesel under about $50k. That makes them only available to a very discriminating buyer. The last I read the 3 diesel Mercedes SUVs are outselling the gas versions in spite of the fact they are not available in the CARB states. The Mercedes GL diesel I test drove at a Mercedes dealer here in San Diego was used with 12k miles. They were asking $12k over MSRP for a new one. I know they sold it. Not sure if they found a buyer that fond of it. The smart buyer will go to a non CARB state and buy a used one with less than 10k miles and probably get it for less than new invoice.
Once you have put a few thousand miles driving a diesel vehicle it is difficult going back to a gasser. They just don't have the same driving characteristics. NO TORQUE. That includes my Sequoia V8.
It is very simple. You can hardly buy diesels when the regulations ban them (or severely limit them) on the market!!??
Very simply, I chose the Jetta TDI over the Toyota Corolla when the LARGEST Toyota dealer in the REGION is literally within 1.5 miles. I also have had a 21 year business relationship with them. If driving 1.5 miles is not convenient enough for me, they will literally send a flatbed to get it. :shades: If Toyota Corolla had a diesel, I guess it would have been a toss up! to no brainer!? I chose the Civic over the Toyota Corolla. Again it might be another toss up as one of the LARGEST Honda dealer in the region is 5 miles away : diesel Jetta, Civic, Corolla. Through a stroke of sheer demographics, the second largest Honda dealer in the region will be locating here also (1.5 miles away). As good as mph as Civic gets 38-42 mpg (and I have to note that 95-98% of Civic owners do NOT get this), a diesel Civic is capable of 50-56 mpg easy, probably the same as a diesel Corolla. In the same commute VW Jetta TDI gets 48-52.
According to YOUR logic, most Americans think 38-42 mpg is better than 48-52 mpg. :lemon:
This might be just one reason to explain why we are going through the economic problems we are going through today!!??
Another hypothesis is very simple also. As severe as the drop in gasser SUV's (P/U trucks also) have been, (I have read the segment has experienced a 28% drop) it would be far less IF there were 30-40 mpg diesel SUV's (P/U trucks also) vs 12-17 mpg SUV/P/U trucks.
"Also when there were gas stations from Florida to TX without gas during Katrina there was still plenty of diesel to be had. A person should have at least one diesel in his garage for the time when gas is rationed. "
When we move to Florida I will keep that in mind. Here in ND we had a diesel shortage. Long term I think we will be looking at a plug-in hybrid, hybrid or electric for around town.
"Once you have put a few thousand miles driving a diesel vehicle it is difficult going back to a gasser. They just don't have the same driving characteristics. NO TORQUE. That includes my Sequoia V8. "
So why did you buy the Sequoia when diesel trucks are available?
So why did you buy the Sequoia when diesel trucks are available?
Several reasons after a couple test drives. I liked the smoothness of the engine transmission over the other gas SUVs such as the Denali. The fit and finish of the Sequoia over the Denali. Unfortunately I did not drive the Sequoia all the way home on my test drive or I would have realized it did not have enough torque to pull the grade in 5th gear at the speed limit of 70 MPH. The biggest selling point of the Sequoia was the price. $10k under MSRP and right at $5k under invoice for the limited 4X4. Don't get me wrong I like the Sequoia other than the crappy NAV/CD player and no XM or Sirrius available.
A couple reasons that I passed on the GL320 CDI. I did not like the way the 7 speed would downshift when you let off the throttle. I may have gotten used to that. It was a very nice ride and handling. The main reason I passed is the price. If I squeezed them I could have gotten it for $35,500 more than I paid for the Sequoia. My thinking is I could buy a lot of gas for $35,000. In fact I will be surprised if I spend that much for gas over the next 10 years.
At this point in time I will probably just go ahead and suck up the gas. Not my choice. It was Uncle Sam and Ahnold making the decision to use twice as much fuel as is needed. And the environmentalist are playing right into the oil company hands. No different than when John D Rockefeller got congress to make his worthless gas a commodity. How many people died as a result of 70+ years of leaded gas exhaust in the air.
I think as diesels are increasingly mated to 5/6/7/ speed AUTOMATIC transmissions, there will be situations when the transmissions will have a "mind" of their own. This of course will vary per oem model line. To date, the best mating is the MB 320/350 turbo diesel which only comes with an automatic transmission.
As soon as I understood this about the Civic automatic transmission, instead of stepping on the accelerator to downshift, (to get rid of that confused shift up, shft down, shift back again, etc., feeling) I just let it shift when and if it wanted.
"Bush is an oil man" ========================================================== This is a common error; The Bush family wealth came from the insurance and underwriting industry, not from oil.
"You say because you work for the EPA or CARB you do not have an IQ of 100 so you really cannot say?" "... to appease the wacko environmentalist element hanging around Congress." "That your boss who was appointed by the guy that likes big lobby investment in his party told you what to say because you are too stupid to tie your own shoes?" "At this point in my life I don't give a rat's patutee. I am going to drive what I like and if I use up the gas you needed to get somewhere. Too bad, so sad. I just don't care.""I will be so happy out on the highway without a bunch of schmucks darting in and out in their little rice rockets."
... I used to drive limos. Two different brands, the engines were almost identical in size and power; however the trannys had a different fourth gear (overdrive), in both ratio and kickdown. Hard to say as these were sixty inch stretch versions but one had an very pleasant shift and ratio and the other was quite annoying, but might have been just fine until the body company cut this sedan in half and added five foot.
Sorry, but unless you can cite credible sources I will stick with Bush being an oil man.
The Bush family has had many financial ties. Insurance may have played a minor role but primarily it has been oil and Wall Street. Their association with John D. Rockefeller and Standard Oil go back well over 100 years.
Makes no difference who is on top. OIL controls the world. Those manipulating the price of oil control the world. If you think you will survive in a city without oil you are only kidding yourself. When the oil stops flowing the world comes to a screeching halt. You can just walk until the calories run out then you will die also. You can act like your an elitist above the fray. Your in it with the rest of US.
PS HW Bush made his money in OIL. His dad had a lot of jobs prior to becoming a Senator. They are a very old family in the USA.
This is a common error; The Bush family wealth came from the insurance and underwriting industry, not from oil.
Just so you do not mislead anyone here with your opinions. I would say going from clerk to a millionaire in the oil business, would constitute being an "Oil Man".
After graduating from Yale, Bush moved his young family to West Texas. His father's business connections proved useful when he ventured into the oil business, starting as a sales clerk with Dresser Industries, a subsidiary of Brown Brothers Harriman. His father had served on the board of directors there for 22 years. Bush started the Bush-Overby Oil Development company in 1951 and co-founded the Zapata Petroleum Corporation, an oil company which drilled in the Permian Basin in Texas, two years later. He was named president of the Zapata Offshore Company, a subsidiary which specialized in offshore drilling, in 1954. The subsidiary became independent in 1958, so Bush moved the company from Midland, Texas to Houston. He continued serving as president of the company until 1964, and later chairman until 1966, but his ambitions turned political. By that time, Bush had become a millionaire.
I think one of the things that works against diesel (or gassers for that matter) is a seldom acknowledged reliability/durability "problem" of the automatic transmission. A year after I bought the VW TDI 5 speed manual transmission, I had "need" for a commute compact "high mpg" automatic. Four to (six) CARS ( "automatics") came to mind. 1. Toyota Prius 2.Toyota Corolla 3. Honda Civic. 4. VW (Golf, NB, Jetta)
Since this is a diesel thread, the diesels fell out (no fault of the diesel) (as did the Prius) for a number of reasons:
1. low reliability of VW's (01 model) automatic transmission 2. due to the mating significant decrease of mpg (still higher than the Civic, but coming close to the real world mpg reported on the Prius) 3. $1k premium for automatic transmission
Research indicated Civic (Corolla also) automatics were also problematic and costly to fix (1500-3000) , but since it (either) was cheaper than the Jetta, I could hold back and invest the money saved for a transmission repair (hopefully never) which research indicating a higher probability of vehicles & IF, then @ 225,000 to 250,000 miles.
So indeed while Gagrice's SOTP's experiences with the other than MB E320 might be indicative of the technical issues still to be overcome in the mating of good automatic transmissions to diesels, to me it is a disadvantage to the diesel for the much greater expected lifespan of the diesel motor. To put numbers to it, I expect the Civic to go a min of 450,000 miles and the Jetta TDI 1,000,000. miles. Again I would expect the first costly repair to be the Civic's automatic transmission.
A key point that is not ignored by the vehicle makers themselves is that statistic avalon02wh posted just above. The vehicle makers are in business to provide products to sell to a willing public. They are here to make money.
If the bulk of the NA buying population, even incorrectly, believes ...that diesel vehicles are more costly to buy ( they are ), ...less reliable ( VW is the key prophet here ) ...more costly to drive ( they are with fuel prices as they are ) then it's of little or no interest for the major vehicle makers to try to make an expensive effort to educate and reorient the wayward buyers.
There are some very valid reasons why diesel has not succeeded here... ..prior regulations certainly top the list because previously our diesel fuel was dirty ..the GM fiascos ..the VW fiascos ,,the 'chicken tax' ..now the price of the fuel itself.
Business ventures are not in the business of making converts. They are in the business of making vehicles that sell and generate income. If it's going to take a massive 're-education' program to bring the buying public around to thinking the 'right way'. Why do it? Just spend money to improve the current technologies.
This is just reality. It's too costly and involves too much effort. I actually thought that Honda would have been the right company to begin such a conversion process - VW definitely is not. However by Honda hiding the TSX diesel away in the closet is not what I'd call a signal of confidence on their part. There was also supposed to be an MDX diesel and an ODY diesel. Both of these make perfect sense but I've not heard any more about them.
OTOH GM, Ford, Toyota have all come out stating that for light duty vehicles diesels are NOT the answer in the US. All their efforts are being directed elsewhere. Again the cost benefit issue arises here.
Why spend the time to redirect the population which has the opinion stated in the prior post when that same time and effort and cost can be directed to just selling other types of advanced vehicles and making profits with little or no education?
I see a bit of 'cooperation' here although some might see it as 'conspiracy'. I think that the vehicle makers got together at one or several of their annual meetings and took a cold hard look at different regional market trends and regional market preferences and regional local regulations and came to these conclusions.
Diesels make sense in Europe because of the history, the local tax disincentives, the preferences of the buyers and the size of the vehicles/roads. Gassers/hybrids make sense in Japan and NA because of the recent history, the local emissions regulations, the preferences of the buyers. The smaller regional markets will be influenced by the key market in that region.
It's not a simple coincidence that GM, F, T all make spectacular diesels for the diesel market but each refuses to ( or in some cases cannot ) bring these vehicles to NA or to Japan. It's intentional, the decisions have been made. It's just business. More profits and more volume can be made by selling improved gassers and hybrids in the non-diesel markets.
What you say is true of any business. So what!? This however does not explain why diesels are EXCLUDED (built by ALL those very same manufacturers, (or is that not very apparent to you? ) from being let into the country despite ALL the whining about conserving fuel. Honda Civic diesel, Toyota Corolla diesels are but two of many examples and you of course know that. You can hardly buy any diesels if there are EXCLUDED !? But then again, it gets back to what I have said and you apparently agree.:
Why consume @ 50 mpg on up when 14-27 mpg will do just fine!!!! It is hard to use less fuel when folks continue to use more fuel now isn't it? It is your nickel, so I am ok with folks using more. So this would mean there is truly no fuel crisis. However the over game plan is being implemented and that is the increase in the price of fuel per gal, the cost per mile driven, etc, etc. Depending on your point of view, this is either the bad news or the good news as almost all prices of everything related will continue to RISE.
Indeed from a business point of view BETTER mpg has not been and will not be better for the auto industry, just as (higher fuel prices) has not been and will not be better for the airline industry. Oxymoronically this is one reason why folks SHOULD get diesels.
Realistically 16-17 m is the yearly sales of new cars (6.4-7% of the passenger vehicle fleet) . When the majority of those vehicles get less than the standard (27 mpg) and defacto (22 mpg) , the overall industry is in for some tough sledding; sans the minority segments than can do BETTER than those mpg's. So indeed if the SUV's (12% of the passenger vehicle fleet) are suffering the most, your argument makes NO logical sense if they intend to continue selling the SUV's which far away is the most PROFITABLE segment . Indeed 30-40 mpg or DIE! Why would you need a dinky sub to compact vehicle that MOST American's do not even fit into, let alone really demonstrating NOT wanting to buy, if a turbo diesel SUV gets 25-35 mpg? Most Civic drivers work hard to get 35 mpg if some surveys are to be believed.
..."To state the obvious, the overwhelming majority of participants in this poll (77.02%) get between 24 to 36 mpg. The mode (21.27%) get 27 to 30 mpg."... Msg # 1416, Honda Civic Real World MPG.
Less than 3% of Civic owners get better mpg than our normal commute 38-42 mpg. You might probably agree with Avalon that figure is better than the TDI @ 48-52 mpg on that exact same commute!!?? :lemon:
On the contrary they are not excluded. That's too broad a statement, As you have noted here so many times most of the US could buy diesels even before the recent regs. Even with the old dirty diesel fuel. Yes certain CARB states did exclude them because of the emissions but that did not exclude them from being made or imported here. However I will restate that IMO the vehicle makers here have decided that NA is going to be a gasser or hybrid market. I believe that that decision has already been made.
The mileage figures you state are skewed. I agree that the efficient gassers probably do get about 30 mpg in combined driving but there is no way that the diesels get an overall average of 48-52 in combined driving. While excellent on the highways they just are not that good in the city.
The new Jetta will only be slightly better than either the Civic or Corolla gasser when comparing combined usage. It will be better than both on the highway.
27 / 35 / 30 for the 09 Corolla gasser 29 / 40 / 33 for the 09 Jetta diesel
In the end for the automakers it's just about selling what the populace will buy; i.e. moving steel and generating profits. That nominal fuel savings when comparing a premium price and significantly higher fuel prices does not make the diesels an attractive product to market. Better the money could be spent to improve the gasser technology by 10% which improves all the gassers.
Someone it appears had a pretty clear crystal ball several years ago. My guess, with nothing other than my own suppositions, is that Toyota convinced GM and Ford to go the gasser/hybrid route for NA and Japan and continue down the diesel road for Europe and Asia. Nissan laughed at the idea ( reversal in process now ) and Honda kept its options open to go either way ( which was reasonable ).
I will restate that IMO the vehicle makers here have decided that NA is going to be a gasser or hybrid market. I believe that that decision has already been made.
I would add to that. The oil companies are just as much in favor of US burning gasoline rather than diesel. I am sure there are members that have seats on both the automakers and the oil companies boards of directors. Makes it easier that way to make agreements that are beneficial to both. In this case it is beneficial to use gas vs diesel for several reasons. The states and the Feds like us to burn gas as it yields more dollars in the coffers. SO it is a win for big business and big government. All are happy except those that realize what they are getting screwed out of. Joe public, as usually is fat, dumb and happy.
The popular Mercedes ML320 CDI is rated city 18 highway 24. Three owners posted that drive mostly city stop and go. The average of the 3 is just under 24 MPG. One poster gets 24 MPG in 100% city driving. The gas ML350 gets 15 MPG city according to the EPA on Premium gas. The bigger GL320 CDI according to one poster yields him 25 MPG combined. This is a vehicle heavies than my Sequoia that gets 15 combined for most of the 5600 miles I have on it. The savings for the large diesel SUV driver would be 40%. That is 40% less fossil fuel being used. NOTHING built with gas will compare to diesel in a large SUV.
The point being there are MILLIONS of Americans that will not give up their large SUV just because gas is $10 per gallon. If they do they were a fool to buy one in the first place. For all the Americans that are willing to ride a bus or drive around cramped up in an econobox, go for it. I have a ways to go on the $35k I saved buying the Sequoia over the over inflated diesel Mercedes that no one will buy. Right. That is why there are dealers in CA that only buy and sell diesel VWs and Mercedes. Because there is NO market. Thankfully there is the 7500 Mile loophole in the CA law for those that just cannot live without a diesel vehicle. I am too cheap to go that route. Though I am sad for the driving experience I am being cheated out of by our lame brained governments. The only satisfaction I get is burning twice the fossil fuel as is needed to get the job done. Serves the Enviro wackos right.
"However I will restate that IMO the vehicle makers here have decided that NA is going to be a gasser or hybrid market. I believe that that decision has already been made. "
You are just RE- repeating what I been saying:. 98% of passenger vehicles are gassers, WAY less than 2% are passenger CAR diesels. The passenger diesel fleet is DOWN from less than 3%.
..."The mileage figures you state are skewed. "...
I stated them in the context of what was gotten for a Civic gasser and a TDI doing the same work . It was and is and continues to be what we get. Skewed? NO! If you do not like truthful statements, I can understand that. If you do not know how to do comparisons I can also understand that. Was it a scientifically validated figure for the Honda Civic, No! No statement was made to that effect. Was it a guarantee that most folks of a huge population would get those figures? Again, NO! If the survey where folks described their experiences confuses or causes fits, it is open for discussion. You might misunderstand, but that it is NOT my survey.
Yes, once an suv is "owned" it almost makes no sense at all to sell because of fuel mileage. This is especially true in light of the average yearly mileage of 12-15,000 miles. For me it makes sense to keep it the second 15 years, or when there is a segment of SUV's that get 45 mpg. This is not likely in view of the 35 mpg 2012 standard and how things are progressing.
This only states the obviously why 14-27 mpg is better than 50 mpg.
..."California, which has the highest gas tax in the nation according to a survey by the American Petroleum Institute, would rake in $5 billion this year if the price at the pump remains at $4 a gallon. That's more than double the $2.1 billion the state took in gasoline tax revenue in 2003, state revenue officials said."...
"Sorry, but unless you can cite credible sources I will stick with Bush being an oil man." ===========================================================
You do have to do your own research. It is also useful to follow the original statement that the Bush Family had made its money in the insurance and underwiting business, not in oil. W's failed company was begun with George Seniors money and then went bankrupt when W bailed and left the rest stranded. The Bush Family is now in international and private placement investments, little having to do with oil. Wikipedia can be very useful for a beginning, but check a little further.
New york and Hawaii have higher gasoline taxes than California.
The tax is a fixed amount and does not change with the price of gasoline. If consumption declines, then revenue declines.
Separately: California gasoline taxes amount to about 10% of the pump price at current levels. European fuel taxes amount to about 50% and greater of pump prices - so we have a long way to go to catch up
New york and Hawaii have higher gasoline taxes than California.
I could spend a lot of time correcting your erroneous statements. I am not sure why as most here do not consider it worth their time to respond to your continuous misinformation. CA does indeed have the highest tax on gas and diesel
Hawaii is not even close while NY is 3 cents cheaper.
Indeed, in addition to FED/CA-STATE there is also a sales tax on gasoline. Here it is an additional 8.25%. So as you can see when the price changes the tax goes UP!? AKA $1.00 * 8.25%= 8.25 cents. 2 * 8.25%= 16.5 cents.
In this vein I'm actually shocked that GM and Ford haven't been able to put more pressure on the oil companies to moderate prices. They both are on their knees with a gun to their heads about to face execution because their products are so dependent on cheap fuel.
It's almost as if the oil companies have it in for the detroiters. No love lost there, and the truck SUV buyers are the prime customers at the pump. Very very weird.
No those numbers are simply anecdotal. Other than your presonal results they have no statistical validity to extend to the general case. It's a classic logic fault of arguing from the speciic to the general. The result is invalid. Interesting but invalid.
For your personal budget it is very valid. That's all that can be said.
So given the chart, 63.9 cents is 10% of = 6.39 per gal.
In addition to FED/CA-STATE there is also a sales tax on gasoline. Here it is an additional 8.25%. So as you can see when the price changes the tax goes UP!? AKA $1.00 * 8.25%= 8.25 cents. 2 * 8.25%= 16.5 cents.
Speaking of which gagrice, don't you think that these Incredible Conspirators might be smart enough to figure out that, gee whiz, they could just increase the taxes on the "Magic Bullet Diesel" to solve this imagined income shortfall that would destroy state budgets as we know them?
As I stated all that can be said on the matter is that 'In your personal situation....'. Nothing else can be inferred. Don't take the criticism personally. The results are very valid in your personal situation.
It's almost as if the oil companies have it in for the detroiters.
Detroit yes, GM & Ford I don't think so. What was just announced? The closing of 4 more factories in the US building PU trucks and SUVs. How much will that save GM? They get rid of high priced labor and bring small cars from overseas to sell here. They just tell the American people we are selling what you want. Too bad about your autoworkers in the SUV and PU factories. No longer needed. Will Toyota convert their PU truck and SUV factories to building Prius and Corolla? Probably not.
There are bigger forces at work here than we get to see. If Obama gets elected count on Iran getting bombed before he takes office. Who ever controls the oil rules. Maybe that is what Bush was alluding to when he said we were addicted to oil...
I agree that diesel cars are probably not in the cards for the USA.
It will be interesting to see how Obama (if he gets elected) gets out of a renewed recall for global jihad if Iran gets a new carpet treatment. :lemon:
Why raise taxes on diesel? Just tell people we are forced to sell ULSD, that costs more to produce. Though many states as I posted do charge more tax on diesel. CA being the highest tax on diesel as well as gas. They would like to get more now that people are CHEATING them out of gas tax by driving hybrids. They are going to tax by the mile. Makes sense to me...
Comments
The fact is greater mpg gasser and diesel vehicles are available world wide. Diesel (has been repeated more than once) has a 20-40% advantage over like model gassers. The operative facts are diesel passenger cars are less than 1% of the passenger vehicle fleet. The government tracks and reports this!!!!!!!! It is truly an indicator their PRO ( anti
If you doubt what I am saying try to ship over a high mpg vehicle and report to us what roadblocks you run into. I will caution you that you will probably lose your entire "investment". At best you will have to make massive alterations which are euphemistically considered non economic.
So I do not see why you think there is a conspiracy, when the rules clearly prohibit higher mpg vehicles (diesels specifically for this discussion as they prohibit high mileage gassers also) from entering !!!????
This of course is consistent with higher acqusition prices, higher consumption, higher fuel prices, greater taxation, higher cost per mile driven, policies!!
IF MPG was the only criteria, diesels would rule the world, no?
But it is not the only criteria. Public health (clean air) comes into play also. CARB, etc.
It's not just as simple as you would make it out to be, which you would state as:
"diesel cars get higher 20%-40% more mileage, so let them be available everywhere"
That cannot happen as long as diesel exhaust contains the pollution and chemical composition which it contains.
There must be a compromise in both clean and efficient. The AT-PZEV diesel has yet to be shown, has it?
Biodiesel has been shown to have less emissions than plug in electric!!? So what!!??
I think Willie is working on that. Join his forces.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
I call Hog on the Wash on that one...................
First of all: This is not 1920. Nothing anywhere near that size and kind of conspiracy could even have a slight hope of being contained and not leaked.
Second of all: Who would be behind it? Not oil companies, because they get paid to deliver crude and fuel anyway. Not carmakers - they WANT better mileage to help them reach their CAFE goals. AHA - CAFE - Maybe they are behind it? Well, their stated goal is better fuel economy, so NO, they would not be behind it.
That leaves only two choices:
CARB
The EPA
Are either of those entities controlled by..........whomever it is you think might be behind the "ban diesel" conspiracy?
Does anyone have any concrete facts, or evidence, of such a conspiracy? Has any investigative reporter in the world been notified that this is a potential blockbuster story?
Someone blowing up something like the conspiracy you talk about would be the news story of the YEAR, maybe the DECADE.
You better put together your theories and contact the local news team and make them some money !!!!!!!!!
Bush is an oil man. Colonel Sanders is a chicken man. If we had elected Col Sanders 8 years ago and the price of chicken had tripled wouldn't you be just a tad bit suspicious?
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
I'm talking about some imaginary conspiracy to keep diesel cars out of America because they get better gas mileage. That (supposedly keeping diesel down) if it has happened at all (I doubt it) did not start with Bush - diesel has been the red-headed stepchild forever in the USA.
However there is a lot of truth to what you say. As has been repeatedly mentioned there are a host of fractional "raw" products from a barrel of oil. What has been almost a needle in a haystack quest is what is the ultimate cost or sales of the aggregate fractional portions of a barrel of oil. It is better than a state secret!! Those in the know are really not talking!!!
The issue with Biodiesel is the lack of over-sight and regulation.
Biodiesel does not have defined and testable attributes regarding purity and energy content right now so it is a little 'wild west'. Since there is no over-sight in place no auto manufacturer or gas station can feel confident to stand behind the product.
The key to Biodiesel is controls. It has to be testable so that all the interest parties can sign off that it will work in the manner expected and so that they can stand behind their product guarantees if their customers use it.
Until those controls are in place, we will never biodiesel playing a major part.
FWIW, I believe Biodiesel is a great end-solution. Particularly from algae in an industrial application.
So what happens are absolutely known sources of productions go absolutely underutilized.
Most folks do not even have the slightest clue at the enormous and exponential WASTE from FOOD production that can be recaptured and recycled for FUEL production for example.
One example is up to 15,000 gals per acre and more (hydroponically even more) biodiesel from algae. No real subtraction from food streams. Indeed it has the dual capability to ADD to both food streams AND energy streams.
Another is no bio diesel production from known and STABLE yearly production from sewage treatment plants. Another no real substraction from food streams (
Another is the non saleable beer and wine products that can be further "stilled" into 180 proof alcohol "burnable" as fuel.
RUG $ 4.33
PUG $ 4.56
D2 $ 4.85
Don't you find it a bit strange that every major country in the world has small diesel PU trucks, while we do not? Don't you think it is strange that EPA and CARB look the other way on diesel PU trucks that are over 7500 GVW? In fact that was the loop hole that allowed the VW Touareg V10 diesel into CA. It has a GVW of 7700 lbs.
Now from a logical point of view. If given the option of a modern diesel PU Truck that gets 40+ MPG or a monster diesel truck that gets maybe 15 MPG which would you as a regulator prefer running around on our streets? You say because you work for the EPA or CARB you do not have an IQ of 100 so you really cannot say? That your boss who was appointed by the guy that likes big lobby investment in his party told you what to say because you are too stupid to tie your own shoes? The automakers, oil companies and the gas tax people are all hurt by higher mileage vehicles. They are not good money makers for anyone.
I know you think all is wonderful in Congress because of a tax credit for hybrids. They have to allow a few hybrids to slip through to appease the wacko environmentalist element hanging around Congress. It looks good at the Oscars so it must be good.
At this point in my life I don't give a rat's patutee. I am going to drive what I like and if I use up the gas you needed to get somewhere. Too bad, so sad. I just don't care.
I keep 3 vehicles filled with gas. I always have something to drive including my tractor. If gas is $10 per gallon I will be so happy out on the highway without a bunch of schmucks darting in and out in their little rice rockets.
"According to the latest Kelley Blue Book Marketing Research study, only six percent of new-car shoppers in the US think that diesel is most likely to succeed in becoming a mainstream vehicle powertrain type, compared to 40% identifying hybrids, 20% selecting hydrogen fuel cell vehicles and 17% citing flexible-fuel systems."
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2008/01/survey-us-new-c.html
So you can see that you IS in the minority.
"..the latest study shows that shoppers increasingly believe that diesel-powered vehicles get poorer fuel mileage than conventional gasoline engines.."
Isn't that an interesting piece of information. We here at this forum all know that diesel vehicles will get better mpg than a gasser, BUT, the market is still not up to speed. THAT IS THE ISSUE. :P
Many products have died on the vine even though they had advantages over other products. Diesel vehicles are going to fight customer indifference and just a lack of knowledge about the product. This happens all the time. This phenomena is not specific to diesel.
AND, you cannot discount some diesel disadvantages no matter how minor YOU may think they are. For example:
If I am interested in a new car and want to get in fairly cheap with low operating costs, should I buy a Corolla or a Diesel Jetta?
2009 Corolla
Annual Fuel Costs $1968
Price Range $17k to $20k
Passenger Volume 92 ft3 (4D)
Luggage Volume 12 ft3 (4D)
CO2 - 6.1 tons
Reliability = Good
Dealer availability = Good
Number of gas station with RUG = 99.9%
RUG pumps at the station = usually 2 or more
2009 Diesel Jetta
Annual Fuel Costs $2145
Price Range $20k to $25k
Passenger Volume 91 ft3 (4D)
Luggage Volume 16 ft3 (4D)
CO2 - 6.4 tons
Reliability = ? VW overall is not so good
Dealer availability = Fair
Number of gas station with Diesel = 40% to 50%
Diesel pumps at the station = sometimes only one
There are obviously other issues that might make a person want to buy the Jetta over the Corolla (looks, seats, driving feel, and so on). The bottom line is that the Diesel vehicles will be going into a very tough market. They are by no means a slam-dunk.
No, not at all. It is related to the fact that Americans, up until recently, have not bought very small vehicles. I talk with a lot of pickup owners and the thing I hear over and over again is that a compact pickup is just too small. Ever buy a 4x8 sheet of plywood, OSB or sheet rock???? It has everything to do with size. If there was a way to super size their full sized pickups a lot of people would do it.
There is also the issue of power. People want to tow their 28 ft, fifth wheel and boat up to the lake. You're not going to do that with a compact unless it is a small camper and maybe a canoe.
" I just don't care. "
The reality is that enough people do care. The days of the spoiled kid using resources and polluting to their hearts content is coming to a close. CARB is working just fine. You forget their is a pollution issue in California.
A couple things. The above statement is an indictment on the ignorance of the American car buyer. With all the tools on the Internet available they are still walking around in a fog.
You did leave out the higher EPA mileage rating on the Jetta Diesel 34 MPG vs the Corolla at 30 MPG. Also when there were gas stations from Florida to TX without gas during Katrina there was still plenty of diesel to be had. A person should have at least one diesel in his garage for the time when gas is rationed.
Plus cost of maintenance on the VW TDI would probably be less. My Toyota Sequoia requires oil change at 5k intervals. My Passat TDI at 10K intervals. Toyota charged more for oil change than VW in spite of the fact that Toyota used cheap 30 w oil and VW very expensive oil.
If I was looking for an economical car. I would probably look at the Civic or Corolla. If I wanted a good handling low priced sport sedan I would be looking at the Jetta. Especially the new Sportwagon. The Sportwagon has the same passenger room as the Corolla with nearly 3 times the luggage space. And much better mileage.
Sadly there are no SUVs sold in the USA with diesel under about $50k. That makes them only available to a very discriminating buyer. The last I read the 3 diesel Mercedes SUVs are outselling the gas versions in spite of the fact they are not available in the CARB states. The Mercedes GL diesel I test drove at a Mercedes dealer here in San Diego was used with 12k miles. They were asking $12k over MSRP for a new one. I know they sold it. Not sure if they found a buyer that fond of it. The smart buyer will go to a non CARB state and buy a used one with less than 10k miles and probably get it for less than new invoice.
Once you have put a few thousand miles driving a diesel vehicle it is difficult going back to a gasser. They just don't have the same driving characteristics. NO TORQUE. That includes my Sequoia V8.
Very simply, I chose the Jetta TDI over the Toyota Corolla when the LARGEST Toyota dealer in the REGION is literally within 1.5 miles. I also have had a 21 year business relationship with them. If driving 1.5 miles is not convenient enough for me, they will literally send a flatbed to get it. :shades: If Toyota Corolla had a diesel, I guess it would have been a toss up! to no brainer!? I chose the Civic over the Toyota Corolla. Again it might be another toss up as one of the LARGEST Honda dealer in the region is 5 miles away : diesel Jetta, Civic, Corolla. Through a stroke of sheer demographics, the second largest Honda dealer in the region will be locating here also (1.5 miles away). As good as mph as Civic gets 38-42 mpg (and I have to note that 95-98% of Civic owners do NOT get this), a diesel Civic is capable of 50-56 mpg easy, probably the same as a diesel Corolla. In the same commute VW Jetta TDI gets 48-52.
According to YOUR logic, most Americans think 38-42 mpg is better than 48-52 mpg. :lemon:
This might be just one reason to explain why we are going through the economic problems we are going through today!!??
Another hypothesis is very simple also. As severe as the drop in gasser SUV's (P/U trucks also) have been, (I have read the segment has experienced a 28% drop) it would be far less IF there were 30-40 mpg diesel SUV's (P/U trucks also) vs 12-17 mpg SUV/P/U trucks.
When we move to Florida I will keep that in mind. Here in ND we had a diesel shortage. Long term I think we will be looking at a plug-in hybrid, hybrid or electric for around town.
"Once you have put a few thousand miles driving a diesel vehicle it is difficult going back to a gasser. They just don't have the same driving characteristics. NO TORQUE. That includes my Sequoia V8. "
So why did you buy the Sequoia when diesel trucks are available?
I hope you are not trying to hitch a ride on the (DIESEL) turnip truck again?
..."IF there were 30-40 mpg diesel SUV's (P/U trucks also) vs 12-17 mpg SUV/P/U trucks." ...
IF being the operative WORD!?
NOT (available) being the operative reality!?
So that I am not being vague.... DIESEL Sequoia has/IS NOT available on the US market!?
Several reasons after a couple test drives. I liked the smoothness of the engine transmission over the other gas SUVs such as the Denali. The fit and finish of the Sequoia over the Denali. Unfortunately I did not drive the Sequoia all the way home on my test drive or I would have realized it did not have enough torque to pull the grade in 5th gear at the speed limit of 70 MPH. The biggest selling point of the Sequoia was the price. $10k under MSRP and right at $5k under invoice for the limited 4X4. Don't get me wrong I like the Sequoia other than the crappy NAV/CD player and no XM or Sirrius available.
A couple reasons that I passed on the GL320 CDI. I did not like the way the 7 speed would downshift when you let off the throttle. I may have gotten used to that. It was a very nice ride and handling. The main reason I passed is the price. If I squeezed them I could have gotten it for $35,500 more than I paid for the Sequoia. My thinking is I could buy a lot of gas for $35,000. In fact I will be surprised if I spend that much for gas over the next 10 years.
At this point in time I will probably just go ahead and suck up the gas. Not my choice. It was Uncle Sam and Ahnold making the decision to use twice as much fuel as is needed. And the environmentalist are playing right into the oil company hands. No different than when John D Rockefeller got congress to make his worthless gas a commodity. How many people died as a result of 70+ years of leaded gas exhaust in the air.
As soon as I understood this about the Civic automatic transmission, instead of stepping on the accelerator to downshift, (to get rid of that confused shift up, shft down, shift back again, etc., feeling) I just let it shift when and if it wanted.
Great post with good information, and a fine interjection of reality vs the myth of the endless highway.
Thanks
==========================================================
This is a common error; The Bush family wealth came from the insurance and underwriting industry, not from oil.
"... to appease the wacko environmentalist element hanging around Congress."
"That your boss who was appointed by the guy that likes big lobby investment in his party told you what to say because you are too stupid to tie your own shoes?"
"At this point in my life I don't give a rat's patutee. I am going to drive what I like and if I use up the gas you needed to get somewhere. Too bad, so sad. I just don't care.""I will be so happy out on the highway without a bunch of schmucks darting in and out in their little rice rockets."
Tick Tock
The Bush family has had many financial ties. Insurance may have played a minor role but primarily it has been oil and Wall Street. Their association with John D. Rockefeller and Standard Oil go back well over 100 years.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
PS
HW Bush made his money in OIL. His dad had a lot of jobs prior to becoming a Senator. They are a very old family in the USA.
Just so you do not mislead anyone here with your opinions. I would say going from clerk to a millionaire in the oil business, would constitute being an "Oil Man".
After graduating from Yale, Bush moved his young family to West Texas. His father's business connections proved useful when he ventured into the oil business, starting as a sales clerk with Dresser Industries, a subsidiary of Brown Brothers Harriman. His father had served on the board of directors there for 22 years. Bush started the Bush-Overby Oil Development company in 1951 and co-founded the Zapata Petroleum Corporation, an oil company which drilled in the Permian Basin in Texas, two years later. He was named president of the Zapata Offshore Company, a subsidiary which specialized in offshore drilling, in 1954. The subsidiary became independent in 1958, so Bush moved the company from Midland, Texas to Houston. He continued serving as president of the company until 1964, and later chairman until 1966, but his ambitions turned political. By that time, Bush had become a millionaire.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_H._W._Bush
Since this is a diesel thread, the diesels fell out (no fault of the diesel) (as did the Prius) for a number of reasons:
1. low reliability of VW's (01 model) automatic transmission
2. due to the mating significant decrease of mpg (still higher than the Civic, but coming close to the real world mpg reported on the Prius)
3. $1k premium for automatic transmission
Research indicated Civic (Corolla also) automatics were also problematic and costly to fix (1500-3000) , but since it (either) was cheaper than the Jetta, I could hold back and invest the money saved for a transmission repair (hopefully never) which research indicating a higher probability of vehicles & IF, then @ 225,000 to 250,000 miles.
So indeed while Gagrice's SOTP's experiences with the other than MB E320 might be indicative of the technical issues still to be overcome in the mating of good automatic transmissions to diesels, to me it is a disadvantage to the diesel for the much greater expected lifespan of the diesel motor. To put numbers to it, I expect the Civic to go a min of 450,000 miles and the Jetta TDI 1,000,000. miles. Again I would expect the first costly repair to be the Civic's automatic transmission.
If the bulk of the NA buying population, even incorrectly, believes
...that diesel vehicles are more costly to buy ( they are ),
...less reliable ( VW is the key prophet here )
...more costly to drive ( they are with fuel prices as they are )
then it's of little or no interest for the major vehicle makers to try to make an expensive effort to educate and reorient the wayward buyers.
There are some very valid reasons why diesel has not succeeded here...
..prior regulations certainly top the list because previously our diesel fuel was dirty
..the GM fiascos
..the VW fiascos
,,the 'chicken tax'
..now the price of the fuel itself.
Business ventures are not in the business of making converts. They are in the business of making vehicles that sell and generate income. If it's going to take a massive 're-education' program to bring the buying public around to thinking the 'right way'. Why do it? Just spend money to improve the current technologies.
This is just reality. It's too costly and involves too much effort. I actually thought that Honda would have been the right company to begin such a conversion process - VW definitely is not. However by Honda hiding the TSX diesel away in the closet is not what I'd call a signal of confidence on their part. There was also supposed to be an MDX diesel and an ODY diesel. Both of these make perfect sense but I've not heard any more about them.
OTOH GM, Ford, Toyota have all come out stating that for light duty vehicles diesels are NOT the answer in the US. All their efforts are being directed elsewhere. Again the cost benefit issue arises here.
Why spend the time to redirect the population which has the opinion stated in the prior post when that same time and effort and cost can be directed to just selling other types of advanced vehicles and making profits with little or no education?
I see a bit of 'cooperation' here although some might see it as 'conspiracy'. I think that the vehicle makers got together at one or several of their annual meetings and took a cold hard look at different regional market trends and regional market preferences and regional local regulations and came to these conclusions.
Diesels make sense in Europe because of the history, the local tax disincentives, the preferences of the buyers and the size of the vehicles/roads.
Gassers/hybrids make sense in Japan and NA because of the recent history, the local emissions regulations, the preferences of the buyers.
The smaller regional markets will be influenced by the key market in that region.
It's not a simple coincidence that GM, F, T all make spectacular diesels for the diesel market but each refuses to ( or in some cases cannot ) bring these vehicles to NA or to Japan. It's intentional, the decisions have been made. It's just business. More profits and more volume can be made by selling improved gassers and hybrids in the non-diesel markets.
Why consume @ 50 mpg on up when 14-27 mpg will do just fine!!!! It is hard to use less fuel when folks continue to use more fuel now isn't it? It is your nickel, so I am ok with folks using more. So this would mean there is truly no fuel crisis. However the over game plan is being implemented and that is the increase in the price of fuel per gal, the cost per mile driven, etc, etc. Depending on your point of view, this is either the bad news or the good news as almost all prices of everything related will continue to RISE.
Indeed from a business point of view BETTER mpg has not been and will not be better for the auto industry, just as (higher fuel prices) has not been and will not be better for the airline industry. Oxymoronically this is one reason why folks SHOULD get diesels.
Realistically 16-17 m is the yearly sales of new cars (6.4-7% of the passenger vehicle fleet) . When the majority of those vehicles get less than the standard (27 mpg) and defacto (22 mpg) , the overall industry is in for some tough sledding; sans the minority segments than can do BETTER than those mpg's. So indeed if the SUV's (12% of the passenger vehicle fleet) are suffering the most, your argument makes NO logical sense if they intend to continue selling the SUV's which far away is the most PROFITABLE segment . Indeed 30-40 mpg or DIE! Why would you need a dinky sub to compact vehicle that MOST American's do not even fit into, let alone really demonstrating NOT wanting to buy, if a turbo diesel SUV gets 25-35 mpg? Most Civic drivers work hard to get 35 mpg if some surveys are to be believed.
..."To state the obvious, the overwhelming majority of participants in this poll (77.02%) get between 24 to 36 mpg. The mode (21.27%) get 27 to 30 mpg."...
Msg # 1416, Honda Civic Real World MPG.
forums, www.Edmunds.com
link title
Less than 3% of Civic owners get better mpg than our normal commute 38-42 mpg. You might probably agree with Avalon that figure is better than the TDI @ 48-52 mpg on that exact same commute!!?? :lemon:
The mileage figures you state are skewed. I agree that the efficient gassers probably do get about 30 mpg in combined driving but there is no way that the diesels get an overall average of 48-52 in combined driving. While excellent on the highways they just are not that good in the city.
The new Jetta will only be slightly better than either the Civic or Corolla gasser when comparing combined usage. It will be better than both on the highway.
27 / 35 / 30 for the 09 Corolla gasser
29 / 40 / 33 for the 09 Jetta diesel
In the end for the automakers it's just about selling what the populace will buy; i.e. moving steel and generating profits. That nominal fuel savings when comparing a premium price and significantly higher fuel prices does not make the diesels an attractive product to market. Better the money could be spent to improve the gasser technology by 10% which improves all the gassers.
Someone it appears had a pretty clear crystal ball several years ago. My guess, with nothing other than my own suppositions, is that Toyota convinced GM and Ford to go the gasser/hybrid route for NA and Japan and continue down the diesel road for Europe and Asia. Nissan laughed at the idea ( reversal in process now ) and Honda kept its options open to go either way ( which was reasonable ).
I would add to that. The oil companies are just as much in favor of US burning gasoline rather than diesel. I am sure there are members that have seats on both the automakers and the oil companies boards of directors. Makes it easier that way to make agreements that are beneficial to both. In this case it is beneficial to use gas vs diesel for several reasons. The states and the Feds like us to burn gas as it yields more dollars in the coffers. SO it is a win for big business and big government. All are happy except those that realize what they are getting screwed out of. Joe public, as usually is fat, dumb and happy.
The point being there are MILLIONS of Americans that will not give up their large SUV just because gas is $10 per gallon. If they do they were a fool to buy one in the first place. For all the Americans that are willing to ride a bus or drive around cramped up in an econobox, go for it. I have a ways to go on the $35k I saved buying the Sequoia over the over inflated diesel Mercedes that no one will buy. Right. That is why there are dealers in CA that only buy and sell diesel VWs and Mercedes. Because there is NO market. Thankfully there is the 7500 Mile loophole in the CA law for those that just cannot live without a diesel vehicle. I am too cheap to go that route. Though I am sad for the driving experience I am being cheated out of by our lame brained governments. The only satisfaction I get is burning twice the fossil fuel as is needed to get the job done. Serves the Enviro wackos right.
You are just RE- repeating what I been saying:. 98% of passenger vehicles are gassers, WAY less than 2% are passenger CAR diesels. The passenger diesel fleet is DOWN from less than 3%.
..."The mileage figures you state are skewed. "...
I stated them in the context of what was gotten for a Civic gasser and a TDI doing the same work . It was and is and continues to be what we get. Skewed? NO! If you do not like truthful statements, I can understand that. If you do not know how to do comparisons I can also understand that. Was it a scientifically validated figure for the Honda Civic, No! No statement was made to that effect. Was it a guarantee that most folks of a huge population would get those figures? Again, NO! If the survey where folks described their experiences confuses or causes fits, it is open for discussion. You might misunderstand, but that it is NOT my survey.
Gas taxes set to rise in some states
By SHANNON McCAFFREY, Associated Press Writer
This only states the obviously why 14-27 mpg is better than 50 mpg.
..."California, which has the highest gas tax in the nation according to a survey by the American Petroleum Institute, would rake in $5 billion this year if the price at the pump remains at $4 a gallon. That's more than double the $2.1 billion the state took in gasoline tax revenue in 2003, state revenue officials said."...
link title
===========================================================
You do have to do your own research. It is also useful to follow the original statement that the Bush Family had made its money in the insurance and underwiting business, not in oil. W's failed company was begun with George Seniors money and then went bankrupt when W bailed and left the rest stranded. The Bush Family is now in international and private placement investments, little having to do with oil. Wikipedia can be very useful for a beginning, but check a little further.
New york and Hawaii have higher gasoline taxes than California.
The tax is a fixed amount and does not change with the price of gasoline. If consumption declines, then revenue declines.
Separately: California gasoline taxes amount to about 10% of the pump price at current levels. European fuel taxes amount to about 50% and greater of pump prices - so we have a long way to go to catch up
I could spend a lot of time correcting your erroneous statements. I am not sure why as most here do not consider it worth their time to respond to your continuous misinformation. CA does indeed have the highest tax on gas and diesel
Hawaii is not even close while NY is 3 cents cheaper.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/245.html
http://www.api.org/statistics/fueltaxes/upload/GAS_TAX_MAP_JANUARY_2008_2.pdf
http://www.api.org/statistics/fueltaxes/upload/DIESEL_TAX_MAP_JANUARY_2008.pdf
Indeed, in addition to FED/CA-STATE there is also a sales tax on gasoline. Here it is an additional 8.25%. So as you can see when the price changes the tax goes UP!? AKA $1.00 * 8.25%= 8.25 cents. 2 * 8.25%= 16.5 cents.
It's almost as if the oil companies have it in for the detroiters. No love lost there, and the truck SUV buyers are the prime customers at the pump. Very very weird.
For your personal budget it is very valid. That's all that can be said.
Indeed ! What other errors do you have for us?
So given the chart, 63.9 cents is 10% of = 6.39 per gal.
In addition to FED/CA-STATE there is also a sales tax on gasoline. Here it is an additional 8.25%. So as you can see when the price changes the tax goes UP!? AKA $1.00 * 8.25%= 8.25 cents. 2 * 8.25%= 16.5 cents.
Detroit yes, GM & Ford I don't think so. What was just announced? The closing of 4 more factories in the US building PU trucks and SUVs. How much will that save GM? They get rid of high priced labor and bring small cars from overseas to sell here. They just tell the American people we are selling what you want. Too bad about your autoworkers in the SUV and PU factories. No longer needed. Will Toyota convert their PU truck and SUV factories to building Prius and Corolla? Probably not.
There are bigger forces at work here than we get to see. If Obama gets elected count on Iran getting bombed before he takes office. Who ever controls the oil rules. Maybe that is what Bush was alluding to when he said we were addicted to oil...
I agree that diesel cars are probably not in the cards for the USA.