It seems, Gary, that you think the 1990s diesel car demand was stifled by EPA regulation.
I have yet to find an article which said that specifically, although I did see one where the author mentioned that regulation was a factor.
I just haven't seen any evidence of that being true. Looks mostly to me like people in the USA in the 1990s ( outside the very loyal diesel diehards ) did just not want diesel cars.
"Wikipedia is a source of opinion on everything and an expert on nothing. "
Not really true. There is a lot of expert information in Wiki and some not so good information. It is a good place to start in many situations, but it is only an encyclopedia, so you need to dig a bit more.
And, if you don't like the information, make a change.
Gary, even if diesel car manufacturers WERE hit with regulations in the 1990s which required them to clean up the exhaust:
Don't you think that as wise businessmen, the thing to have done would have been to assess the demand and figure out if they could still have enough demand to make money after adding the filters to comply with regulations?
Even if they had to add $1500 to the cost of the car, if the demand was high enough, they would have STILL sold enough cars to make them stay in the black, right?
Dodge dealers could not keep Cummins-powered Rams in stock in the 1990s, before or after the 1994 redesign. I should know; I ordered one. In 1995, most dealers told me I had to wait about 6-12 months. When the additional assembly lines and shifts came on board, that wait for me was reduced to 3 months in 1996. I owned that truck for almost 9 years, and replaced it with another Cummins-powered Ram three years ago. That truck took just 7 weeks from factory order to delivery.
Diesel emissions regs were changed in 1994, 1998, 2004, 2007, and will be again for 2010. Each change was a dramatic reduction in various diesel emission components. New Jersey Transit bought 300 new diesel buses in 1994 - they are still on the road today - and to this day, they have no visible exhaust. You can stand behind my 2005 Ram and neither see or smell any exhaust.
Your assessment of diesel vehicle demand in the 90s is the same flawed logic as to why stations wagons aren't around any more. Station wagons are gone predominantly because the manufacturers opted to build cheaper-to-produce more-profitable light trucks. Had Ford offered the Taurus with a reliable V6 turbo diesel 15 years ago, all the other manufacturers would have had no choice but to compete with the same.
It's about what the marketplace (in this case, the manufacturers) want to offer. Diesels are again becoming a prominent issue because of fuel prices, not emissions. People are asking for vehicles that get better mileage more than they are concerned about emissions. EPA regulations are essentially irrelevant because they're a constant and have been for decades. Same with CARB and FMVSS safety standards. They are requirements to do business.
kcram - Pickups Host P.S. to everyone, don't let these debates get personal. I don't mind a spirited debate and I give you some leeway on topic-drift... but let's stay away from that edge where the comments are about the person and not the idea.
kcram says, "Your assessment of diesel vehicle demand in the 90s is the same flawed logic as to why stations wagons aren't around any more. Station wagons are gone predominantly because the manufacturers opted to build cheaper-to-produce more-profitable light trucks. "
So you are saying that EVEN in the face of STRONG DEMAND (for which I have found zero evidence ) the carmakers just "decided" to stop making diesel cars? Is that what they did?
If so, they deserved to lose money on the scenario. Any time there is a strong demand, is it not correct financial decision to keep supplying the product and making the mint?
Recollections of an era can be flawed. Gary's recollection that the diesels were in high demand has yet to be shown in any documentation I can find. If you say carmakers just "voluntarily" stopped building diesels to focus on more profitable cars, then that flies in the face of saying "there was demand."
If the demand was there, they would not have stopped making them.
Most auto manufacturers stopped selling diesels in the United States in the 1990s. But diesels are back, as Mercedes-Benz, Jeep and Volkswagen roll out vehicles at the 2004 New York International Automobile Show, which is running through April 18.
Your article lacks a bit on accuracy. VW only missed one year 1995. VW was switching to the new clean TDI from the old engine. Seems funny they would have tried selling their newer clean diesel engine if there was no demand as you keep erroneously saying. A publication put out by folks that are Wired might be questionable.
What part was inaccurate? It said "most" not "every" carmaker stopped selling diesels. What part of that was incorrect?
I'm not saying, and I have NEVER said, that there was ZERO demand. The diehard diesel fans provided all the demand. At about 1% - 2% of the overall market.
25 or 30 years ago diesels were on the rise and people loved them. What happened? GM decided to cash in on the diesel popularity and try to make a quick buck. So they started selling converted gas engines as diesel engines. Things soured for diesel in a hurry after that as these things were complete junk.
If what I am saying is "so erroneous" then please post articles or ANYTHING which backs up your contention, as I have been doing. Where was the 1990s demand? A total of 8 articles in the NYT in the decade of the 1990s in the "Diesel Vehicle" topic. That alone should have ended this dicussion.
So far, all we have is Gary's personal opinion that the demand was "substantial."
Which he is entitled to, of course, but which does not have to be correct.
I do not think they dare publish the results of bio diesel. It would produce emissions lower than an all electric bus, In addition to literally blowing away a compressed nat gas bus- which by any measure is very good.
So you are saying that EVEN in the face of STRONG DEMAND (for which I have found zero evidence ) the carmakers just "decided" to stop making diesel cars? Is that what they did?
Read my post again. I said that the manufacturers chose to maximize their financial bottom line by making light trucks instead of traditional station wagons. Customers still wanted station wagons but if no one makes them, what are they supposed to buy? In the diesel market, people who wanted diesels saw that there were plenty of heavy-duty light trucks available, but cars were limited to what came out of Germany. Detroit Diesel had a midsize V6 turbo diesel on their books for ages that they tried to offer to automakers... the manufacturers could've offered this a long time ago. They chose not to. That's my point.
Did Toyota drop the Prius in 2000 when they could not give them away for less than it cost to build them. Do you really think anyone would have even looked at a Prius in 1998 when gas was down around $10 per barrel. The same goes for diesel. When fuel is expensive the kneejerk reaction in America is to go look for a high mileage car. I think you will find if you are really interested in the truth, that Americans are fickled. They will do the dumbest things based on the price of gas. Now is the time to buy that SUV or PU you always wanted. Not when gas is cheap. That is when you look for an econobox for the next surge in oil prices. I think from what I can see, Europeans are much smarter shoppers than Americans. Their diesel to gas car ratio bears that out. I would bet there are a lot of folks that would love a 70 MPG Skoda diesel about now.
The NEWEST Corvette (GASSER) is coming on line!!!?? Aren't you glad the gasser % is 98% and greater? :shades:
"DETROIT - The official Corvette ZR1 numbers are in and they're good. Very good: * $103,300 MSRP (including $850 destination charge)
* EPA-estimated fuel economy of 14 city and 20 highway * 0-60 mph in 3.4 seconds * 0-100 mph in 7.0 seconds * Quarter-mile elapsed time of 11.3 seconds at 131 mph
Now a twin turbo diesel with 45 mpg (min) would get my attention!! 70 mpg as per Larsb's long ago posting would just be NUTS!! Imagine 1260 miles on a tank full of D2!!! (18.5 gal tank-with .5 gals or 35 miles to look for a fuel station.)
How many would you say is MOST? All I can find are MB & VW building diesel cars for US sales during the 1990s. VW hung in there when fuel prices were cheap. I wonder if there was any demand for the Civic or Corolla during that time frame. You like to research. See where they stood during the cheap gas of the late 1990s.
At least till $4 gas came around. I think Civic just past Ford "F" series. That is a first in 20 or 30 years. Too bad Honda does not have its Accord diesel ready for prime time. It would be a real seller at 45-50 MPG.
I go on Honda web sites. It is amazing to see how gasser Honda owners really dislike the idea of a Honda diesel. I am sure that factored into the Honda corp decision to upscale their diesel offering to the Acura line, specifically TSX. My understanding (scuttle butt) is they used the TSX as the intro vehicle in that the gasser TSX has had very mixed reviews. This way if it goes south they can kill the concept. If it goes north, it will revise the concept.
"If we had adopted the same standards toward diesel cars, as the EU 15 years ago, we would be using about 30% less fossil fuel today. "
No, No & No.
Europe taxed the you know what out of fuel 15 years ago. That drove people to small cars. We would be using 50% less fuel if Congress had done the same here.
(U.S. Dollars per Gallon) Source EIA Date Belgium France Germany Italy Netherlands UK US 1/1/96 3.95 3.93 4.07 3.89 4.32 3.20 1.27 1/8/96 3.93 3.92 4.03 3.94 4.32 3.24 1.28 1/15/96 3.92 3.90 4.00 3.95 4.29 3.25 1.29
You seem to want Government to step in when it favors diesel, but not E85. I would rather all fuels be treated equal. The current hodge podge is well....... a hodge podge.
We are all well aware of your dislike of EPA. One thing you should understand is that EPA is the product of industry, environmentalists, congress and most of all us. We are the ones that tell them to go regulate, but for some reason everyone thinks it is always the other guy that is the problem, never us.
In a previous job I spent many hours working with EPA regional folks. They have some great people and some not so great people working for them. The same is true for the industry people I dealt with.
The next time you take a dump, keep in mind that EPA regulations and money help to make sure you don't end up with that e-coli in your drinking water. That is where a lot of the money is going. And it is money well spent. :shades:
It is our job to cut the use of fossil fuels not EPA.
"It is amazing to see how gasser Honda owners really dislike the idea of a Honda diesel."
Your mission, ruking1, should you decide to accept it, is to go to these Honda web sites....... As usual, should you or any member of your I.M. Force be captured or killed, the secretary will disavow any knowledge of your existence. This message will self-destruct in five seconds. Good luck, ruking1.
The part that is really funny is when you tell them the truth, that Honda has been making and selling diesels world wide for a very long time. They will continue that long into the future. It is almost like...SAY it ain't so Joe!! (Dimaggio). Of course they think the 38-42 mpg on daily commute in a gasser Civic is some person lying. Then when you tell em 48-52 is normal for that very SAME commute in a Jetta TDI, the eyes glaze over. When you tell em that is a fuel guzzler and they are gobs of 70 mpg Skoda's running around, they go almost completely vitiolic. It really riles them (probably as it does here) to know the true high mileage cars are literally banned from entry.
It is our job to cut the use of fossil fuels not EPA.
I would love to. I am not going to drive a Yugo to do it. The EPA would be well advised to making sure our drinking water is safe. Oh, I remember it was the EPA that mandated MTBE that is polluting our drinking water. And it is the EPA that should make sure our diesel is not loaded with unnecessary pollution causing ingredients. It is not their place to say you over there can use crappy diesel in a tractor or train or ship, but you little [non-permissible content removed] cannot drive a Beetle TDI in California. Why because the big bad CARB is a bigger dog than the EPA and we stick our tail between our legs when they bark. The little civil servants that go to work every day at the EPA and try to clean the air and water, I have no gripe with. It is probably the ones that just quit because they did not get their way.
You are beating your head against the same wall that Larsb beats all day at work. Once I looked that Ford Ranger diesel over in Prudhoe Bay I was bit with the diesel bug. I baby my POC Ford Ranger V6 to get 16 MPG. They averaged 45 MPG with that truck loaded with all their gear. They were taking their time and would spend a couple months getting back home to Brazil. All the time leaving me with the burden of trying to find a small PU truck that I could get 45 MPG with. Every country in the World has them except the USA. And I am happy to blame the EPA, CARB and our lame Congress for that injustice. In the mean time I will drive my Sequoia that gets 15 MPG and think all the time I am being cheated out of money by my government, that is supposed to be on our side. Maybe Michelle Obama is right in not being proud of her country. Cheating the little guy and passing the money onto big oil and big agriculture.
GM diesel engines were less than perfect when they came out. They got the bugs out and were sold in their trucks and Suburban through 1998. Why should a poor engine from diesel turn people off from diesel. The gas engine in my 1964 Toyota Land Cruiser was a disaster. They finally got it right and sold a lot of them. It did not destroy the perception of gas engines. The Mercedes diesel engines are arguably the longest lived engines every built. I read one article about a company that only bought used ones with 100k miles for their sales staff. They kept them past 300k miles. I see 1980s MB diesel cars around here all the time.
In 1985 Oldsmobile built the Cutlass Wagon with a 6 cylinder 4.3L diesel. It had a 3 speed auto and got 35 MPG on the highway. That same year Honda Accord with a 4 cylinder gas engine could only squeak out a lousy 30 MPG. If memory serves me that Cutlass wagon was about twice the size of the Accord.
Was the Olds diesel smelly. I am sure it was. If you had it today here in CA running on ULSD it would not smell as bad as a brand new gasser. I think the blame needs to be laid where it belongs in regards to diesel cars past and present. That same Olds Cutlass Wagon with the 3L gas engine and 3 speed would give you a whopping 22 MPG out on the highway. Or 38% less mileage. So tell me how far we have advanced in the last 23 years. How many vehicles today the size of the Olds Cutlass wagon will give you 35 MPG on the highway?
Interesting post -- quite a change from the recent back-and-forth. Real numbers & cogent thought.
This board goes much quicker if one skips the posts that say the same thing over and over and over and. . . Then I get to read posts like yours, which would not have been the case if I'd just taken this board off my watch list.
By John Addison (6/17/08). Last week, I test drove of the new Volkswagen Jetta TDI Diesel. It accelerated on to the freeway faster than my Toyota Prius. Driving freeways and stop-go city, I wondered which would be the bigger seller, the new European turbodiesels or the Japanese Hybrids.
For Detroit, May was the cruelest month, as they were outsold by Asia for the first time. Fuel economy is in; gas guzzling is being punished. General Motors, Ford Motor and Chrysler combined for a record low market share of 44.4 percent, compared with 48.1 percent for 10 Asian brands, according to the Autodata Corporation, the industry statistics firm. Toyota and Honda continued to gain market share. In the months ahead, Detroit will also lose share to the new fuel efficient diesels from Europe where diesel vehicles outsell gasoline alternatives.
The VW Jetta TDI Diesel has an EPA rated mileage on 41 mpg highway and 30 city with a 6-speed stick; 40/29 with an automatic. With 140 horsepower, the Jetta has plenty of performance. The diesel Jetta has a combined EPA rating of 33, compared with 25 for its gasoline cousin. In other words, diesel delivers over 30 percent better mileage, making a real difference to the pocket book even with diesel fuel’s higher prices, and to reduced greenhouse gas emissions.
Over 1.5 million Toyota Priuses are now on the road. The 2008 Priuses has an EPA rated mileage of 48 city and 45 highway. Notice that this hybrid with regenerative braking actually gets better mileage in stop and go than on freeways where there is added wind resistance. The Prius computer automatically disengages the engine most of the time when stopped and going slowly, making it more quiet than diesels. The Prius has a bit more passenger room than the Jetta. Both have the same trunk space.
The new turbo diesels are not your diesels of the past. They are quiet. I could smell no emissions. Emissions are far lower than those of the previous decade, meeting the tough new 50 state requirements including using ultra-low sulfur diesel.
Forget putting B100 biodiesel in these new engines with common rail and very high pressure injection. Don’t think about home brewed vegetable oil or recycled restaurant grease. Even B20 voids the warranty in the U.S., although not in Europe where biodiesel quality is better. B5 is the limit in the U.S. Biodiesel's Future
That's a shame, that B20 cannot be used............
In Japan, Nissan’s M9R four-cylinder diesel engine will be used in its X-Trail SUV this fall. Derived from the Renault 2.0-liter CDI in use in Europe, the engine will meet Japan’s stringent new emissions regulations by employing piezoelectric-controlled injectors, a variable nozzle turbo, a diesel particulate filter, and NOx storage-reduction catalyst that doesn’t require urea.
Along with its low emissions, the engine is expected to deliver on the traditional diesel strong points: power and fuel efficiency. In Europe, Renault's engine provides about 150 horsepower with 240 foot-pounds of torque—comparable to Nissan’s 3.5-liter V6—while offering 40 mpg fuel economy.
Before Nissan’s diesel Maxima reaches American showrooms, Honda will probably have a diesel available on its Acura TSX models. The company has said it will offer the engine in 2009, but it has yet to officially confirm the model that will carry it. The Honda diesel features V6-like acceleration while producing fuel economy better than its similar-sized four-cylinder engines. Toyota, Subaru and Mitsubishi have all talked about bringing diesels to their light-duty vehicles in the U.S. around 2010.
In Europe, 53 percent of all new cars have diesel engines.
On our side of the Atlantic, 13 diesel products, including compact cars and family automobiles, were introduced at the 2008 North American International Auto Show.
Diesels are more fuel-efficient than gasoline-powered vehicles. Is there a diesel invasion in our future?
"Everybody thinks it's coming, and it's coming like a freight train," says Wendy Dafoe, of the Department of Energy's Clean Cities program.
Yet most Americans have bad memories of diesel vehicles from the '80s. And, if you think gasoline is expensive, have you seen the price of diesel fuel lately?
What's the deal with the diesel? Is it a viable option for those of us struggling with increasing gas bills?
The Actros BlueTec 5 (built to Euro efficiency standards coming on line in October 2009) is the most fuel-efficient 40-ton truck in the world. It's even set a Guinness World Record, thanks to a recent test run (at the Nardo circuit in Italy) in which an Actros pulling a 25-ton trailer delivered an average 12.39 mpg over seven straight days at an average speed of 50 mph. The Actros also proved remarkably clean, producing just 20.5 grams per ton of payload and kilometer (multiply kilometers traveled by number of tons transported) of CO2 -- more than twice as efficient per g/tkm as a typical one-liter gasoline automobile getting 29 mpg.
The Actros, redesigned this year, is now in its third generation (since the truck's debut in 1996, Mercedes has sold roughly 550,000). New is a standard PowerShift fully automatic transmission -- the first in this class. Engines choices include six V-6s and three V-8s, ranging in output from 316 horsepower to 580.
You climb aboard the Actros, literally; the air-suspended driver's seat is about eight feet off the ground. Once you get up there, you're greeted by a cockpit that's spacious and comfortable -- though Mercedes does not offer the giant, luxurious sleeper cabs you'll find on, say, Kenworths and Peterbilts. Visibility to the front is fabulous, nothing but glass. To the rear, of course, all you've got are those reflective ears on each side.
My rig was an "1851." Translation: Payload of 18 metric tons, engine making 510 horsepower (the "51" in the designation). It lights off easily, then I slip the transmission into Drive, release the parking brake, and we're rolling. If I hadn't seen it, I'd never have guessed there's a 40,000-pound trailer behind me. Acceleration isn't brisk, but the Actros pulls off the line smoothly, seemingly immune to its burden. The sixteen-speed automatic shifts quickly and often -- though sometimes a bit choppily -- divvying up the torque into neat, bite-sized chunks. Steering is as light and easy as a car's; brakes are discs all around, with additional engine-compression braking (à la "Jake Brake") available by clicking a column lever. The ride is soft, cushioned by air.
..."Notice that this hybrid with regenerative braking actually gets better mileage in stop and go than on freeways where there is added wind resistance. The Prius computer automatically disengages the engine most of the time when stopped and going slowly, making it more quiet than diesels. "...
I just read this in passing but there are some diesel models that are being fitted with the system to cut the engine off under correct conditions. Heretofore, this has been a Prius competitive advantage. With the diesel cut off option becoming more mainstream (and even I would admit that currently is an oxymoron with a diesel car population of less than 1%) the diesel situational mpg would go up, with the overally mpg going up.
On the other hand, VW did let us test drive the new 2009 2.0L Jetta “clean” TDI Sedan (which will be released in the US in August) and the gas-powered 2.0L Tiguan TSI. I took the wheel of the Tiguan first, which felt like just about any other new car but was noticeably sluggish in responding to the gas pedal. I wasn’t particularly impressed by its 18 mpg city / 25 mpg highway rating either.
But the Jetta sedan was worth waiting around for. Having zero experience with newer diesels (I own a 1987 Toyota Truck, which is a heartless 2L diesel), I was surprised to find out just about everything they’ve been saying is true: the new diesels are so quiet you can hardly tell it’s a diesel, except at idle, and it handles like any other comparable sedan on the road.
It also has power. Close your ears/eyes VW, but during the downtown SF test drive I was somehow able to hit a clear straightaway onto a freeway onramp that left my passenger and I deeply imprinted in our seats. If you’re worried about acceleration and horsepower in these new diesels, well, don’t be.
It’s been several years since VW introduced a new model diesel in the US, due to the implementation of strict new emissions standards. I’ve written before (see Clean Diesel Cars Coming to US This Fall: 2008-2010 Timeline) about how the new clean diesel Jetta has cleaner emissions than your average car. My only gripe is that the EPA mileage estimate is listed as 29 mpg city / 40 mpg highway. Older Jetta’s seem relatively well-known for getting up to 55 mpg, and I’m not sure if the difference has to do with the new emissions technology or changes in horsepower.
"and I’m not sure if the difference has to do with the new emissions technology or changes in horsepower. "
My experience has been: USING the upgraded hp/torque.
One of the neatest differences between the gasser/diesel is that very small upgrades and resultant smaller cost give such a boost to the hp/torque % wise.. Gassers typically cost more and once the upgrades are in, almost always effect/affect a loss of mpg. Diesels on the other hand, lose mpg ONLY when you get ON it. This is a HUGE difference.
So while the writer in effect confesses his lack of diesel knowledge (which is VERY common) , that lack of knowledge does not do justice to diesels. It is however very representative of those who drive gassers but have not had the diesel experience.
The other non sound bite able issue is the 0-60 second metric. This has been and probably will remain a major criticism. 0-60 metrics are pretty close to USELESS in the real world, but I understand it takes on the treasured measure mantle on par with the measure of classic french dishs when you go to different restaurants.
Diesels are good from 40-125 mph. They really don't need to be a sub 4 second 0-60, nor are most diesels designed for that metric. Operation at altitude literally blows away a gasser. MPG is 20-40% better. Diesels are better adapted for the US road systems than gassers. Torque for like hp gassers is almost always MORE.
I think that Subaru was better off with GM at the helm than Toyota. This does not look good for their only shot at diesel stardom.
And what you want to know is: the new engine. Any good?
No. It’s crap. Normally, diesels are happiest at low revs in a high gear. Not the Legacy. It has the torque of a pencil sharpener, the life and soul of a corpse.
Plus it has been neutered inside as well.
Inside, it has five seats, a dashboard, some leather and a sat nav screen that works well. Except at night, when it stares out of the dash like a second-world-war searchlight. Oh yes, and either I’ve grown or the car’s shrunk since I last tried it out, because I can report that life for the taller driver is cramped.
I was hoping for more from Subaru... Oh well... :sick:
I didn't buy the last gen Subie because: 1) the interior looked cheap, 2) the body cladding on the Outback put my wife off, and 3) it was too small for my 6'2" frame to comfortably fit. I wanted at least one more notch on the fore-to-aft seat adjustment. Bought the 1.8T Passat instead.
I'm hoping, when the time comes, that an alternative to a VW's Jetta diesel wagon will be available.
I have seen a few of the clips and also programs that he hosts. I think he/his persona is really geared to the European audience/market and being one of those English young, hip but sophisticated English 25-40 year old sum tins. So I think it is accidental that he might hit the mark on anything in this USA market. Unless of course you are one of those described above or like to watch a bit of the slice from "home" while being stuck in the colonies......
Having said that, it would have seemed to me their diesel engine while having a lower center of gravity would face significantly greater challenges.
..."The decision to stay with the boxer layout may have been an easy one for Subaru, but turning that into reality was more complicated. The challenge was to make the engine strong enough to handle the increased demands of diesel without outgrowing the engine bay."...
Go back and read some of the comments after the article. Many think Clarkson was simply doing a hatchet job and did not even drive the subie.
I did one better. I got a second opinion. Motor Trend seems to like it.
Powering the trio is a 2.0-liter DOHC horizontally opposed flat-four common-rail diesel putting out 148 horses and 258 pound-feet of torque. (VW's 2.0-liter turbodiesel, coming later this year, provides 140 horsepower and 235 pound-feet.) Its acceleration won't break any records, but its excellent torque, available at a measly 1800 rpm, ensures that this car effortlessly goes up grades in fifth gear and has no trouble merging at freeway speeds. The boxer layout provides the same advantages as in Subaru's gas-powered offerings: lower center of gravity, reduced vibration, lighter weight.
This turbodiesel is surprisingly smooth, with little turbo lag. It hums along at freeway speed at 2000 rpm and eats up mountain roads in third gear
Comments
I have yet to find an article which said that specifically, although I did see one where the author mentioned that regulation was a factor.
I just haven't seen any evidence of that being true. Looks mostly to me like people in the USA in the 1990s ( outside the very loyal diesel diehards ) did just not want diesel cars.
Not really true. There is a lot of expert information in Wiki and some not so good information. It is a good place to start in many situations, but it is only an encyclopedia, so you need to dig a bit more.
And, if you don't like the information, make a change.
Don't you think that as wise businessmen, the thing to have done would have been to assess the demand and figure out if they could still have enough demand to make money after adding the filters to comply with regulations?
Even if they had to add $1500 to the cost of the car, if the demand was high enough, they would have STILL sold enough cars to make them stay in the black, right?
Diesel emissions regs were changed in 1994, 1998, 2004, 2007, and will be again for 2010. Each change was a dramatic reduction in various diesel emission components. New Jersey Transit bought 300 new diesel buses in 1994 - they are still on the road today - and to this day, they have no visible exhaust. You can stand behind my 2005 Ram and neither see or smell any exhaust.
Your assessment of diesel vehicle demand in the 90s is the same flawed logic as to why stations wagons aren't around any more. Station wagons are gone predominantly because the manufacturers opted to build cheaper-to-produce more-profitable light trucks. Had Ford offered the Taurus with a reliable V6 turbo diesel 15 years ago, all the other manufacturers would have had no choice but to compete with the same.
It's about what the marketplace (in this case, the manufacturers) want to offer. Diesels are again becoming a prominent issue because of fuel prices, not emissions. People are asking for vehicles that get better mileage more than they are concerned about emissions. EPA regulations are essentially irrelevant because they're a constant and have been for decades. Same with CARB and FMVSS safety standards. They are requirements to do business.
kcram - Pickups Host
P.S. to everyone, don't let these debates get personal. I don't mind a spirited debate and I give you some leeway on topic-drift... but let's stay away from that edge where the comments are about the person and not the idea.
So you are saying that EVEN in the face of STRONG DEMAND (for which I have found zero evidence ) the carmakers just "decided" to stop making diesel cars? Is that what they did?
If so, they deserved to lose money on the scenario. Any time there is a strong demand, is it not correct financial decision to keep supplying the product and making the mint?
Recollections of an era can be flawed. Gary's recollection that the diesels were in high demand has yet to be shown in any documentation I can find. If you say carmakers just "voluntarily" stopped building diesels to focus on more profitable cars, then that flies in the face of saying "there was demand."
If the demand was there, they would not have stopped making them.
Your article lacks a bit on accuracy. VW only missed one year 1995. VW was switching to the new clean TDI from the old engine. Seems funny they would have tried selling their newer clean diesel engine if there was no demand as you keep erroneously saying. A publication put out by folks that are Wired might be questionable.
I'm not saying, and I have NEVER said, that there was ZERO demand. The diehard diesel fans provided all the demand. At about 1% - 2% of the overall market.
So effectively GM stopped diesel in its tracks.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
So far, all we have is Gary's personal opinion that the demand was "substantial."
Which he is entitled to, of course, but which does not have to be correct.
Helped "kill the demand" we could say.................:)
Read my post again. I said that the manufacturers chose to maximize their financial bottom line by making light trucks instead of traditional station wagons. Customers still wanted station wagons but if no one makes them, what are they supposed to buy? In the diesel market, people who wanted diesels saw that there were plenty of heavy-duty light trucks available, but cars were limited to what came out of Germany. Detroit Diesel had a midsize V6 turbo diesel on their books for ages that they tried to offer to automakers... the manufacturers could've offered this a long time ago. They chose not to. That's my point.
kcram - Pickups Host
That's why it was not necessarily correct for the 1990s diesel car demand to be low -but LOW it WAS.
I know a lot of people who want high mileage diesel cars.
Now it's up to the manufacturers to respond. We are just waiting for the cars.
Scooter to motorcycle mpg-.... still a car!!
"DETROIT - The official Corvette ZR1 numbers are in and they're good. Very good: * $103,300 MSRP (including $850 destination charge)
* EPA-estimated fuel economy of 14 city and 20 highway
* 0-60 mph in 3.4 seconds
* 0-100 mph in 7.0 seconds
* Quarter-mile elapsed time of 11.3 seconds at 131 mph
link title
Now a twin turbo diesel with 45 mpg (min) would get my attention!! 70 mpg as per Larsb's long ago posting would just be NUTS!! Imagine 1260 miles on a tank full of D2!!! (18.5 gal tank-with .5 gals or 35 miles to look for a fuel station.)
How many would you say is MOST? All I can find are MB & VW building diesel cars for US sales during the 1990s. VW hung in there when fuel prices were cheap. I wonder if there was any demand for the Civic or Corolla during that time frame. You like to research. See where they stood during the cheap gas of the late 1990s.
No, No & No.
Europe taxed the you know what out of fuel 15 years ago. That drove people to small cars. We would be using 50% less fuel if Congress had done the same here.
(U.S. Dollars per Gallon) Source EIA
Date Belgium France Germany Italy Netherlands UK US
1/1/96 3.95 3.93 4.07 3.89 4.32 3.20 1.27
1/8/96 3.93 3.92 4.03 3.94 4.32 3.24 1.28
1/15/96 3.92 3.90 4.00 3.95 4.29 3.25 1.29
You seem to want Government to step in when it favors diesel, but not E85. I would rather all fuels be treated equal. The current hodge podge is well....... a hodge podge.
We are all well aware of your dislike of EPA. One thing you should understand is that EPA is the product of industry, environmentalists, congress and most of all us. We are the ones that tell them to go regulate, but for some reason everyone thinks it is always the other guy that is the problem, never us.
In a previous job I spent many hours working with EPA regional folks. They have some great people and some not so great people working for them. The same is true for the industry people I dealt with.
The next time you take a dump, keep in mind that EPA regulations and money help to make sure you don't end up with that e-coli in your drinking water. That is where a lot of the money is going. And it is money well spent. :shades:
It is our job to cut the use of fossil fuels not EPA.
Your mission, ruking1, should you decide to accept it, is to go to these Honda web sites....... As usual, should you or any member of your I.M. Force be captured or killed, the secretary will disavow any knowledge of your existence. This message will self-destruct in five seconds. Good luck, ruking1.
I would love to. I am not going to drive a Yugo to do it. The EPA would be well advised to making sure our drinking water is safe. Oh, I remember it was the EPA that mandated MTBE that is polluting our drinking water. And it is the EPA that should make sure our diesel is not loaded with unnecessary pollution causing ingredients. It is not their place to say you over there can use crappy diesel in a tractor or train or ship, but you little [non-permissible content removed] cannot drive a Beetle TDI in California. Why because the big bad CARB is a bigger dog than the EPA and we stick our tail between our legs when they bark. The little civil servants that go to work every day at the EPA and try to clean the air and water, I have no gripe with. It is probably the ones that just quit because they did not get their way.
You are beating your head against the same wall that Larsb beats all day at work. Once I looked that Ford Ranger diesel over in Prudhoe Bay I was bit with the diesel bug. I baby my POC Ford Ranger V6 to get 16 MPG. They averaged 45 MPG with that truck loaded with all their gear. They were taking their time and would spend a couple months getting back home to Brazil. All the time leaving me with the burden of trying to find a small PU truck that I could get 45 MPG with. Every country in the World has them except the USA. And I am happy to blame the EPA, CARB and our lame Congress for that injustice. In the mean time I will drive my Sequoia that gets 15 MPG and think all the time I am being cheated out of money by my government, that is supposed to be on our side. Maybe Michelle Obama is right in not being proud of her country. Cheating the little guy and passing the money onto big oil and big agriculture.
.."to know the true high mileage cars are literally banned from entry."...
Hard to drive a 70 mpg car when 70 mpg cars are banned from the US market.
Actually, the Olds diesel has been mentioned a few times.
#36 - March, 2005
#3000 - June, 2007 --- Your message. :surprise:
#5809 - May, 2008 --- my post.
In 1985 Oldsmobile built the Cutlass Wagon with a 6 cylinder 4.3L diesel. It had a 3 speed auto and got 35 MPG on the highway. That same year Honda Accord with a 4 cylinder gas engine could only squeak out a lousy 30 MPG. If memory serves me that Cutlass wagon was about twice the size of the Accord.
Was the Olds diesel smelly. I am sure it was. If you had it today here in CA running on ULSD it would not smell as bad as a brand new gasser. I think the blame needs to be laid where it belongs in regards to diesel cars past and present. That same Olds Cutlass Wagon with the 3L gas engine and 3 speed would give you a whopping 22 MPG out on the highway. Or 38% less mileage. So tell me how far we have advanced in the last 23 years. How many vehicles today the size of the Olds Cutlass wagon will give you 35 MPG on the highway?
This board goes much quicker if one skips the posts that say the same thing over and over and over and. . . Then I get to read posts like yours, which would not have been the case if I'd just taken this board off my watch list.
Thanks again.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
Turbo Diesels Take on Hybrids
By John Addison (6/17/08). Last week, I test drove of the new Volkswagen Jetta TDI Diesel. It accelerated on to the freeway faster than my Toyota Prius. Driving freeways and stop-go city, I wondered which would be the bigger seller, the new European turbodiesels or the Japanese Hybrids.
For Detroit, May was the cruelest month, as they were outsold by Asia for the first time. Fuel economy is in; gas guzzling is being punished. General Motors, Ford Motor and Chrysler combined for a record low market share of 44.4 percent, compared with 48.1 percent for 10 Asian brands, according to the Autodata Corporation, the industry statistics firm. Toyota and Honda continued to gain market share. In the months ahead, Detroit will also lose share to the new fuel efficient diesels from Europe where diesel vehicles outsell gasoline alternatives.
The VW Jetta TDI Diesel has an EPA rated mileage on 41 mpg highway and 30 city with a 6-speed stick; 40/29 with an automatic. With 140 horsepower, the Jetta has plenty of performance. The diesel Jetta has a combined EPA rating of 33, compared with 25 for its gasoline cousin. In other words, diesel delivers over 30 percent better mileage, making a real difference to the pocket book even with diesel fuel’s higher prices, and to reduced greenhouse gas emissions.
Over 1.5 million Toyota Priuses are now on the road. The 2008 Priuses has an EPA rated mileage of 48 city and 45 highway. Notice that this hybrid with regenerative braking actually gets better mileage in stop and go than on freeways where there is added wind resistance. The Prius computer automatically disengages the engine most of the time when stopped and going slowly, making it more quiet than diesels. The Prius has a bit more passenger room than the Jetta. Both have the same trunk space.
The new turbo diesels are not your diesels of the past. They are quiet. I could smell no emissions. Emissions are far lower than those of the previous decade, meeting the tough new 50 state requirements including using ultra-low sulfur diesel.
Forget putting B100 biodiesel in these new engines with common rail and very high pressure injection. Don’t think about home brewed vegetable oil or recycled restaurant grease. Even B20 voids the warranty in the U.S., although not in Europe where biodiesel quality is better. B5 is the limit in the U.S. Biodiesel's Future
That's a shame, that B20 cannot be used............
In Japan, Nissan’s M9R four-cylinder diesel engine will be used in its X-Trail SUV this fall. Derived from the Renault 2.0-liter CDI in use in Europe, the engine will meet Japan’s stringent new emissions regulations by employing piezoelectric-controlled injectors, a variable nozzle turbo, a diesel particulate filter, and NOx storage-reduction catalyst that doesn’t require urea.
Along with its low emissions, the engine is expected to deliver on the traditional diesel strong points: power and fuel efficiency. In Europe, Renault's engine provides about 150 horsepower with 240 foot-pounds of torque—comparable to Nissan’s 3.5-liter V6—while offering 40 mpg fuel economy.
Before Nissan’s diesel Maxima reaches American showrooms, Honda will probably have a diesel available on its Acura TSX models. The company has said it will offer the engine in 2009, but it has yet to officially confirm the model that will carry it. The Honda diesel features V6-like acceleration while producing fuel economy better than its similar-sized four-cylinder engines. Toyota, Subaru and Mitsubishi have all talked about bringing diesels to their light-duty vehicles in the U.S. around 2010.
All you need to know about modern clean diesel
In Europe, 53 percent of all new cars have diesel engines.
On our side of the Atlantic, 13 diesel products, including compact cars and family automobiles, were introduced at the 2008 North American International Auto Show.
Diesels are more fuel-efficient than gasoline-powered vehicles. Is there a diesel invasion in our future?
"Everybody thinks it's coming, and it's coming like a freight train," says Wendy Dafoe, of the Department of Energy's Clean Cities program.
Yet most Americans have bad memories of diesel vehicles from the '80s. And, if you think gasoline is expensive, have you seen the price of diesel fuel lately?
What's the deal with the diesel? Is it a viable option for those of us struggling with increasing gas bills?
Anyone have any ideas as to why that might have happened?
Loves the car, didn't like the engine...uh-oh.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
The Actros BlueTec 5 (built to Euro efficiency standards coming on line in October 2009) is the most fuel-efficient 40-ton truck in the world. It's even set a Guinness World Record, thanks to a recent test run (at the Nardo circuit in Italy) in which an Actros pulling a 25-ton trailer delivered an average 12.39 mpg over seven straight days at an average speed of 50 mph. The Actros also proved remarkably clean, producing just 20.5 grams per ton of payload and kilometer (multiply kilometers traveled by number of tons transported) of CO2 -- more than twice as efficient per g/tkm as a typical one-liter gasoline automobile getting 29 mpg.
The Actros, redesigned this year, is now in its third generation (since the truck's debut in 1996, Mercedes has sold roughly 550,000). New is a standard PowerShift fully automatic transmission -- the first in this class. Engines choices include six V-6s and three V-8s, ranging in output from 316 horsepower to 580.
You climb aboard the Actros, literally; the air-suspended driver's seat is about eight feet off the ground. Once you get up there, you're greeted by a cockpit that's spacious and comfortable -- though Mercedes does not offer the giant, luxurious sleeper cabs you'll find on, say, Kenworths and Peterbilts. Visibility to the front is fabulous, nothing but glass. To the rear, of course, all you've got are those reflective ears on each side.
My rig was an "1851." Translation: Payload of 18 metric tons, engine making 510 horsepower (the "51" in the designation). It lights off easily, then I slip the transmission into Drive, release the parking brake, and we're rolling. If I hadn't seen it, I'd never have guessed there's a 40,000-pound trailer behind me. Acceleration isn't brisk, but the Actros pulls off the line smoothly, seemingly immune to its burden. The sixteen-speed automatic shifts quickly and often -- though sometimes a bit choppily -- divvying up the torque into neat, bite-sized chunks. Steering is as light and easy as a car's; brakes are discs all around, with additional engine-compression braking (à la "Jake Brake") available by clicking a column lever. The ride is soft, cushioned by air.
I just read this in passing but there are some diesel models that are being fitted with the system to cut the engine off under correct conditions. Heretofore, this has been a Prius competitive advantage. With the diesel cut off option becoming more mainstream (and even I would admit that currently is an oxymoron with a diesel car population of less than 1%) the diesel situational mpg would go up, with the overally mpg going up.
So suck it up boyz and gurls, one way or the other !!! :lemon:
Eating too much causes global warming!! :P
On the other hand, VW did let us test drive the new 2009 2.0L Jetta “clean” TDI Sedan (which will be released in the US in August) and the gas-powered 2.0L Tiguan TSI. I took the wheel of the Tiguan first, which felt like just about any other new car but was noticeably sluggish in responding to the gas pedal. I wasn’t particularly impressed by its 18 mpg city / 25 mpg highway rating either.
But the Jetta sedan was worth waiting around for. Having zero experience with newer diesels (I own a 1987 Toyota Truck, which is a heartless 2L diesel), I was surprised to find out just about everything they’ve been saying is true: the new diesels are so quiet you can hardly tell it’s a diesel, except at idle, and it handles like any other comparable sedan on the road.
It also has power. Close your ears/eyes VW, but during the downtown SF test drive I was somehow able to hit a clear straightaway onto a freeway onramp that left my passenger and I deeply imprinted in our seats. If you’re worried about acceleration and horsepower in these new diesels, well, don’t be.
It’s been several years since VW introduced a new model diesel in the US, due to the implementation of strict new emissions standards. I’ve written before (see Clean Diesel Cars Coming to US This Fall: 2008-2010 Timeline) about how the new clean diesel Jetta has cleaner emissions than your average car. My only gripe is that the EPA mileage estimate is listed as 29 mpg city / 40 mpg highway. Older Jetta’s seem relatively well-known for getting up to 55 mpg, and I’m not sure if the difference has to do with the new emissions technology or changes in horsepower.
My experience has been: USING the upgraded hp/torque.
One of the neatest differences between the gasser/diesel is that very small upgrades and resultant smaller cost give such a boost to the hp/torque % wise.. Gassers typically cost more and once the upgrades are in, almost always effect/affect a loss of mpg. Diesels on the other hand, lose mpg ONLY when you get ON it. This is a HUGE difference.
So while the writer in effect confesses his lack of diesel knowledge (which is VERY common) , that lack of knowledge does not do justice to diesels. It is however very representative of those who drive gassers but have not had the diesel experience.
The other non sound bite able issue is the 0-60 second metric. This has been and probably will remain a major criticism. 0-60 metrics are pretty close to USELESS in the real world, but I understand it takes on the treasured measure mantle on par with the measure of classic french dishs when you go to different restaurants.
Diesels are good from 40-125 mph. They really don't need to be a sub 4 second 0-60, nor are most diesels designed for that metric. Operation at altitude literally blows away a gasser. MPG is 20-40% better. Diesels are better adapted for the US road systems than gassers. Torque for like hp gassers is almost always MORE.
Corner store 4.51 per gal/27-22= .167 cents, .205 cents per mile driven
$7.53 per gal ( US) Average price of diesel Germany (if someone has a corner store price in a place in Germany, pipe it in)
7.53/50-45= .15 cents, .167 cents per mile driven.
One reason why I like diesel 4.95/50= .099 cents per mile driven.
Even the Civic is still more 4.51/38 mpg= .11868 cents per mile driven.
And what you want to know is: the new engine. Any good?
No. It’s crap. Normally, diesels are happiest at low revs in a high gear. Not the Legacy. It has the torque of a pencil sharpener, the life and soul of a corpse.
Plus it has been neutered inside as well.
Inside, it has five seats, a dashboard, some leather and a sat nav screen that works well. Except at night, when it stares out of the dash like a second-world-war searchlight. Oh yes, and either I’ve grown or the car’s shrunk since I last tried it out, because I can report that life for the taller driver is cramped.
I was hoping for more from Subaru... Oh well... :sick:
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
I didn't buy the last gen Subie because: 1) the interior looked cheap, 2) the body cladding on the Outback put my wife off, and 3) it was too small for my 6'2" frame to comfortably fit. I wanted at least one more notch on the fore-to-aft seat adjustment. Bought the 1.8T Passat instead.
I'm hoping, when the time comes, that an alternative to a VW's Jetta diesel wagon will be available.
Having said that, it would have seemed to me their diesel engine while having a lower center of gravity would face significantly greater challenges.
..."The decision to stay with the boxer layout may have been an easy one for Subaru, but turning that into reality was more complicated. The challenge was to make the engine strong enough to handle the increased demands of diesel without outgrowing the engine bay."...
(Ref Garice's link)
I did one better. I got a second opinion. Motor Trend seems to like it.
Powering the trio is a 2.0-liter DOHC horizontally opposed flat-four common-rail diesel putting out 148 horses and 258 pound-feet of torque. (VW's 2.0-liter turbodiesel, coming later this year, provides 140 horsepower and 235 pound-feet.) Its acceleration won't break any records, but its excellent torque, available at a measly 1800 rpm, ensures that this car effortlessly goes up grades in fifth gear and has no trouble merging at freeway speeds. The boxer layout provides the same advantages as in Subaru's gas-powered offerings: lower center of gravity, reduced vibration, lighter weight.
This turbodiesel is surprisingly smooth, with little turbo lag. It hums along at freeway speed at 2000 rpm and eats up mountain roads in third gear
2nd opinion
http://www.leftlanenews.com/porsche-to-launch-diesel-powered-cayenne-by-mid-2009- -spy-photos-included.html