>What you advocate (50% diesel) might just increase the price of diesel to $6 a gallon and bring RUG down to $3 a gallon.
A smart move from the govt would be to increase tax on gas in order to compensate for the difference.
The problem with supply is one reason VW is not supplying more diesels to China Market. Because of controlled price, any diesel consumption increase result in queues up at gas stations.
Even though Diesel is mainstream in Europe (2/3rd of cars sold in France are diesel) I plan to get an economy gasser like the Toyota Agyo when back there. Despite tax difference in favor of diesel (20% advantage) the Liter price is very close now because diesel refineries work at capacity.
If 50% of cars sold in the US were diesels, I guess the Gallon would be around 7 and I think it is conservative.
There are a few factors you are leaving out in an increased diesel car market.
First I do not advocate any kind of government mandates on anything. I wish they would get their stinking nose out of business dealings.
You are right that an increase in diesel vehicles would probably have the adverse affect of raising diesel prices in the short term. However, there are several alternatives to making diesel. Coal is still plentiful and making diesel from coal may become profitable with the current or higher prices. Then you can make diesel from Natural Gas as they are doing in Qatar with their massive amounts of NG. And my favorite and hopefully future fuel is biodiesel from algae. We have the distinct advantage over the EU in the fact we are not over burdened with as much tax and waste as they are. Hopefully that does not change in the near future.
All told more diesel cars will cut our importing of oil which is the ultimate goal. Or it should be. Our balance of trade is not sustainable. The automakers have not done that well in improving gas mileage over the last 30 years.
Diesel is the logical fuel until someone comes up with a better battery than anything currently being built. I think that is a long ways off unfortunately. We are stuck with that nasty byproduct of diesel "Gasoline" that does need to be used by those that do not know any better. Gas is still trash 100 years after JDR figured out how to use it in an ICE.
There was a item on a local news station the other day that Washington State road improvement projects are being shut and many canceled because of an asphalt shortage. The shortage was due to the local Shell refinery’s deciding to increase production of gasoline and diesel.
How credible this is I have no idea, as we all know that local news is distorted sound bites at its best.
I always thought that asphalt was a nasty by product in the refining process. This may also be a taste of the future. Less miles driven in better fuel efficient vehicles will equal less road tax dollars. Just maybe they will use the road tax money on the roads.
Better get a heavy duty diesel SUV. You will need it to negotiate all the pot holes that will not get filled. :sick: That is one of many reasons I like an SUV or PU truck. We have really crappy roads with very poor maintenance in CA. Best roads I have been on in recent years is in Texas. They have great back roads and secondary highways with reasonable speed limits. I rarely went on the Interstate highways on my vacation there. Always found plenty of cheap diesel for the RV also.
"How credible this is I have no idea, as we all know that local news is distorted sound bites at its best. "
If you do a search on Google News you will see that this issue is becoming widespread. Part of the issue is the changing nature of the oil feedstock. All that sour crude coming from the Alberta oil sands is requiring refineries to update their refining processes. When they upgrade they try and squeeze as much high value products such as diesel and gasoline out of a barrel as possible. What surprises me is that all these transportation departments, that plan five and ten years down the road, did not see this coming.
"First I do not advocate any kind of government mandates on anything. I wish they would get their stinking nose out of business dealings."
No, I don't think you really want government to stay out of issues like safety, wages, pollution, and so on. Business is designed to maximize shareholder wealth "period". Is government great at regulating things, probably not, but that is the nature of the beast.
"Coal is still plentiful and making diesel from coal may become profitable with the current or higher prices."
I'm still waiting to hear if they will get the go ahead for the CTL plant here in ND. If memory serves me right they will make about 30,000 barrels of diesel. I think most of the super clean fuel will go to the Air Force, however. There won't be any available for you TDI owners.
I do not expect to see a lot of CTL plants for many years. It takes about 30 million tons of coal a year to make 100,000 barrels a day of diesel. North Dakota would need to double the production of coal to supply one 100,000 barrel a day refinery. Keep in mind that a good size refinery down in the Texas/LA area is 400,000 to 500,000 barrels a day.
'Then you can make diesel from Natural Gas as they are doing in Qatar with their massive amounts of NG."
Some of the Middle East countries have a shortage of NG. It will be interesting to see what they decide to do with the NG - make diesel or use it to generate electricity.
"And my favorite and hopefully future fuel is biodiesel from algae."
I would agree that algae shows tremendous promise. There seems to be an announcement every day about somebody developing a new process. If they can only get some of these things out of the lab and into full scale commercial production...
"The automakers have not done that well in improving gas mileage over the last 30 years."
That is an interesting comment. You are saving that left on their own they didn't do very well creating fuel efficient cars. Maybe some government meddling would help them along.
"Diesel is the logical fuel until someone comes up with a better battery than anything currently being built."
I see diesel as being one of many options for the future. We don't want to put all our eggs in one basket.
I see diesel as being one of many options for the future. We don't want to put all our eggs in one basket.
That is very true. As long as we are using Oil there will be gasoline. I just am thinking of getting optimum results on the short term. Diesel still offers the most bang for the buck. Unless you pay too much for the vehicle. I will have to get a good deal on a diesel SUV or I will continue to drive that nasty gas guzzling Sequoia.
I just hate having to go fill up every 300 miles.
Maybe some government meddling would help them along.
The Feds mandated 27 MPG fleet average 30 years ago. That is where it stopped. The new mandate has done nothing. The price of gas has been the impetus behind the smaller more fuel efficient cars. The market does so much better than government in pushing us to alternatives. There have always been innovators that come up with a better mouse trap without the help of the government. Making laws to protect US from unscrupulous business types is one thing. Mandating ethanol to aid with corporate welfare is quite another.
This might be transportation heresy to say this, but the (turbo) diesel will almost single handedly revolutionize the SUV segment. I hope they do not" throw the baby out with the bathwater" even as
GM posts $15.5 billion 2nd-quarter loss
By TOM KRISHER and DEE-ANN DURBIN, AP Auto Writers
..."That is an interesting comment. You are saving that left on their own they didn't do very well creating fuel efficient cars. Maybe some government meddling would help them along. "...
Actually it is the other way around, government meddling at almost every level has greatly contributed to the way things are today !!! There are many many examples of this, but one quick one: the governments make more "profit" aka TAXATION from oil for transportation than the oil companies !!
I purchased a 2008 Taurus Limited. I’m sure I didn’t get the best deal, but I’m not unhappy with it. Any time you can get your tax, tabs and fees paid is not bad.
MSRP was $29355. Tax, Tab, Fees came to $2613. I got the car out the door $29312.
Ice Blue Taurus Limited with limited convenience pkg, limited wood pkg, power moon roof, Sirius Radio and a full tank of gas. The gas alone is an $83 value @ $4.19 a gallon.
The purchase process started with a call to the dealer asking what kind of deal he could give me and we agreed to the price over the phone. We drove the hour to the dealer (closes dealer with a car I wanted) and arrived at 1:00PM. We took a test drive, looked over the car and went in to do the paper work. This is where I thought I was going to have to fight because he was going to start adding stuff.
We went over the agreed price, tax, rebate and the final price and then he said “all I need to add to this is the excise tax, tabs and doc fees”. I was amazed. We started at 1:00PM and I was on my way home by 3:40. Even the F&I gal was low key and low pressure.
Would it not have been neat for that (gasser) 2008 Ice Blue Taurus Limited to have been a turbo diesel? (with up to 72% better mpg? (my 29 gasser vs 50 diesel example)
So if the 2008 model year resulted in over production of certain segments, with sales projected to be down to 14 M units, from 16-17 M past years' averages: would that result in a 2009 (2008 = 14 M units- (Y?)= DECREASE?
It could be "HAMMER" (rough) times until the oems can produce the (market) correct inventories in the correct segments. It would seem anymore everything is a moving target judged with "rubber rulers."
You are a Ford man and have had good luck with them. Why switch? I think by the time you are in the market again there will be a lot more diesel options and much better prices. Enjoy that new car smell and feel. Have fun.
the idea of fuel from algae...so, gagrice, you are saying not to throw out all that spoiled food in my fridge, 'cuz I can make it into gasoline if I just install a "small" oil refinery in my back yard???...
My food bill becomes my gasoline bill, too...and for free...
(Except for the nominal multi-million dollar cost of that oil refinery in my back yard...:):):):):)...)
Algae shows the most promise as an alternate fuel at this time. The best case for ethanol from corn is about 18 gallons per acre. With this system they can produce over 30,000 gallons per acre of high grade biodiesel. Biodiesel is at least double the energy of ethanol. This I believe is the best of the best systems so far.
BMW calls it a Sports Activity Vehicle. It is one of the most well-rounded, high-performance, luxury-caliber SUVs in the marketplace. And starting in the fall of 2008, it will be available with a diesel engine. The X5 will share the same 3.0 liter biturbo inline-six diesel engine that will power the new diesel version of the BMW 3-series. The two vehicles will launch together as a veritable one-two punch for clean diesel technology.
The advanced diesel system will utilize BluePerformance urea injection, which will allow the X5 to be sold in all 50 states, even those following California's strict emissions standards. BluePerformance uses a solution called AdBlue, that is injected into the exhaust gas to turn nitrous oxides into nitrogen gas and water vapor. This works in conjunction with a particulate filter to further reduce emissions. The system works on virtually the same technology that Mercedes-Benz uses in its upcoming Bluetec SUVs.
The X5 is popular, but it’s appeal is expected to go through the roof once diesel is introduced. At the same time, the diesel movement as a whole should gain considerable visibility and momentum with the launch of this SUV.
According to the UK listing for this large SUV it should get 33.64 MPG highway and 28.64 MPG combined US. This will beat anything in its class by a big margin and it does not sacrifice performance. 0-62 MPH in 7 seconds with 149 MPH top speed. Not that either one would be part of my driving experience.
My local BMW will call me as soon as they hit the showroom.
Another choice I like is the Mercedes ML320 CDI. It only shows 30 MPG highway and 24.48 MPG Combined converted to US mileage. The ML is a second and a half slower 0-62 MPH than the X5 diesel. Those mileages match the results of the cross country match up with the Lexus RX400h a couple years ago. I don't expect the EPA ratings to be close to reality on either vehicle.
The good thing, we are finally getting choices. With choices comes competition in the showrooms.
The 335d and X5d are automatic only. The X5 is higher rated than the ML320 CDI in the UK. Here is from the UK site: BMW X5 Fuel Consumption :: (3.0sd M Sport Automatic)
Urban Fuel 27.4 mpg
Extra Urban 40.4 mpg
Combined 34.4 mpg
Mercedes Benz M-Class Fuel Consumption :: (ML 320 CDI SE Automatic)
... that are being used to set up urea infrastructure when there are technologies ( Argonne Lab) that will get rid of two of the worst boondoggles of the smog age: EGR and now tens or hundreds of millions of dollars on the Ad-blue systems ???
"Life is too short to spend it in a city...." ============================================================ As always, and part of the entertainment, the response avoids the issue entirely, and makes false statements in the process. It then goes on to restate the dead, but charming, fantasy of the open road, all designed to reinforce auto dependency, and avoidance of reality. And "The Band Played On".
"Algae shows the most promise as an alternate fuel at this time." =========================================================== There must be about 100 "pump and dump" stocks out there now touting this newest "silver bullet". Jump on board and take the newest ride, down. PT Barnum was never so right.
It then goes on to restate the dead, but charming, fantasy of the open road
Only for those so unfortunate as to be stuck in a concrete cell in some stinking city. Ah, smell the transit bus fumes as it aimlessly travels the city with one or two souls going nowhere. What a sad thought that would be. All of US are dependent on something or someone. Better to be out where the outlook on life is not so dire, waiting for your turn to die. :sick:
the open road exists in living color for me several times a year, and I wouldn't be surprised if others on here enjoy it regularly as well.
I drove to Alaska last year and took a spin around the Sierra this past spring. I regularly fly to New England on business, then drive to suppliers in Maine, Montreal, CT and VT. On every trip there are opportunities to get off the interstate and enjoy an uncrowded drive on a beautiful road of one sort or another. Doing it in my own diesel car with a manual transmission is something I've sought for the past seven years or so, since I was introduced to the modern turbodiesel in Germany on several business trips.
Fantasy, indeed. I guess I am living the dream, though it's much less frequent than I'd prefer. I feel that I'm making fairly good use of the seconds I have left -- tick-tock right back at you.
New diesels that meet tier2bin5 (50 state) qualify for a tax credit up to $3400 based on city mpg performance relative to a 2002MY gasoline baseline. The new Jettas qualify for $1300, which sounds good, but it should be more. There are two parts to the credit: award for efficiency and award for saving fuel over a 120,000mi lifetime. Jetta is in the 1.5x-1.75x efficiency category and 1800-2400 gallon savings category, as far as I can tell: $800+$500=$1300. Those who follow diesels know that the 2008 EPA adjusted values don't work well for diesels. The equations were calibrated for gasoline and gas-hybrid vehicles, with only one of 612 vehicles used to correlate being a diesel! So, Jetta ends up with a 29-30mpg city rating. EPA's own summary report states that they are probably underestimating diesel mpg by 18% (I say 23%). Well, that 18% is enough to bump the Jetta (and likely any other diesel) to the next category for both efficiency and savings: 1.75x-2.0x and 2400-3000gal (or even 3000+gal) savings, which would be $1200+$750 (or +$1000) = $1950-$2200. That would completely cover the diesel option premium for the Jetta. If EPA is truly off by 18% (if your correlation is off by more than 5%, it's useless; only in the government would that be acceptable, I guess), and I believe it is at least that far off, they have the responsibility to fix it. VW and others should press the EPA hard on this one.
I had planned to do a lot of that kind of travel when I retired. We bought that diesel Mercedes Sprinter RV and two weeks after retirement we headed to the Hill Country of Texas on our first adventure. It did not take us long to realize we were not going to camp. The campgrounds were just about as expensive as a decent motel. We are not the type to park in a Walmart. So we came back and put the RV on the market. It was great for stopping along the highway and making lunch. It also got great mileage. As high as 25 MPG. I consider that darn good for an 8500 lb motorhome. Nothing compares. We decided a good SUV would be better for long trips and wanted a diesel. The only one available was the Jeep and I did not care for it. So in the interim we are stuck with this gas guzzling Sequoia. Eagerly anticipating the BMW X5 diesel due here within a month. I think our driving style with that vehicle will net us over 30 MPG on the highway. With a little luck it will be here before the fall colors are in full array....
Your dream car should be available before Christmas. Either the VW Jetta TDI or the BMW 335d. That 335d wagon is a great car.
I have groused about that myself. Very convenient and not lost on those of US who prefer diesel. The EPA over estimated the Prius to give it a higher tax incentive. The head guy at the EPA is a rabid hybrid fan. Then way under estimate the Jetta TDI. VW was also very unhappy with the EPA estimates on the new Jetta TDI. They got an independent lab that came much closer to reality. Being a government agency there is NO OVERSIGHT. Just as CARB in CA they do as they please and who is going to question their authority? You cannot sue them for false testing. They are the infallible Government.
You notice when they got a lot of complaints on the 60 MPG city they gave the Prius, lots of people complained. So they change the procedure. They have a one size fits all mentality. How about some legitimate tests for our tax dollars being wasted on the EPA???? I think they are off closer to 26% on the Jetta TDI. Time will tell, and those that buy the VW TDI will be the ultimate winners. Even though they are cheated out of what should be rightfully their tax credit.
I am not sure how the tax credit for the new diesel will be implemented. However I did ask my CPA how the tax credit for the Prius worked.
The upshot (I will state my understanding as I am in no way representing what he said as I am NOT a practicing CPA, etc., etc.,) is that if you can not AFFORD a Prius, you are eligible for the tax credit. :lemon: If you CAN afford the Prius, you are most likely (effectively) constrained from the effects of the tax credit. :lemon:
My sense and swag is it will be similar with the diesel. :surprise: :confuse:
Gary says, "The EPA over estimated the Prius to give it a higher tax incentive."
Utterly ludicrous statement. The EPA cannot by law "over estimate" ANYTHING. It's against FEDERAL LAW. The tests were flawed, but the Prius DID PERFORM to those specs in the lab. No car in history has been over or under estimated. The cars perform to the test specs just as they are printed on the EPA sticker on the cars.
The fact that people are getting 65+ plus in REAL WORLD DRIVING shows and PROVES that the Prius is capable of FAR BETTER numbers than the EPA rated it.
Let me again say this, because Gary you could not be MORE WRONG when you say the EPA test was changed because of the hybrids:
The new EPA tests had NOTHING to do AT ALL with the Prius or any other hybrid cars. Those tests had been flawed for DECADES already and the public finally got tired of it enough to make the EPA adjust the test.
Just a couple of years before, AAA had done some tests showing that ALMOST EVERY CAR ON THE ROAD was below the EPA ratings. That was a huge factor in deciding to change the test.
I know when you get something in your head you never change it. But you are dead wrong when you start saying things like this. It's not something that you can say "It's MY Opinion" because you state it as FACT.
If you want it to be known that it's an opinion, then state it as such. Please don't try to say something is factual when it is fantasy.
If you want it to be known that it's an opinion, then state it as such. Please don't try to say something is factual when it is fantasy.
And tell us why we should accept YOUR opinions as facts? Do you have any peer reviewed facts to back up your blind belief in the EPA? Seems on other subjects you require peer reviewed studies before you will believe. I have an independent mileage study that says the EPA estimates on the Jetta TDI are NOT even close to what the average driver can expect. Seems strange they would be so low as to change the tax credit. Or maybe the EPA does not want to encourage people to buy diesel cars. Even when they clean them up to meet CARB standards. Any non government data you have would be welcomed.
Those tests had been flawed for DECADES already and the public finally got tired of it enough to make the EPA adjust the test.
I assume you believe that statement you have made? Yet the old tests were almost dead on accurate for the diesel VW TDIs at that time. So what makes the current EPA tests so great and the old ones so bad? If they were flawed before they surely can be flawed again.
Despite several disingenuous responses to the contrary, it is unlikely that you missed the point of the post - but this is Diesel's in the News and most points are missed, (which does help to maintain its entertainment value). There were people on the Titanic who thought everything was fine because it was dry where they were standing.
My friend with the same year TDI gets 45 on the road, and maybe mid to low 30;s in the city, which comes nowhere near your 48.4 overall - and she is a feather footed die hard Dieseler. My example is anecdotal, but so is the example of 15 others you gave - remember the problems of source and selection in statistics. A much larger verifiable sample is needed, and certainly not from these sites.
Because I'm not accusing the EPA of breaking the law. If they were doing that, it would be discovered and the people involved would be arrested and charged. It's against federal law for the EPA to fabricate mpg numbers. In the absence of valid and/or specific accusations, then here in the USA they are PRESUMED INNOCENT.
Here's why VW had to go to an outside source for the better Jetta mpg numbers: Because when THEY THEMSELVES ran the Jetta using the EPA test, they got the same thing the EPA got. You know how I know that? Because VW did not come out and say that "we got higher numbers on the EPA test than the EPA themselves reported." That would have been a MAJOR PROBLEM for the EPA. It could have been shown to be violating the law AND at the same time it would have PROVEN that the EPA has something against diesel cars. But it did not happen that way.
So that should prove to you right there that the EPA test on the Jetta was not falsified. VW would be suing them and telling the story to every newspaper on the planet if they suspected that the EPA falsified the Jetta test.
Who's to say the "independent" Jetta test which VW commissioned was not "biased" toward diesel engines? Did they publish their test methodology?
The EPA can't just say, "Here is a car we LIKE so it will test with HIGHER MPG and here is a car we don't like so we will fabricate lower numbers !! Cha-Ching !!!"
You want non-guvmint evidence that the EPA is not biased against diesel? OK, I can find that.
Here's an Indiana rail agency working with the EPA to use cleaner rail diesel:
Of course the EPA is so stringent on diesel exhaust only because it is such a cancer causing agent. I could list hundreds of sources for that but you already know it. We should applaud them not accuse them for trying to make sure diesel exhaust is scrubbed.
Gary, you are not SERIOUS in saying "because these people get far higher than EPA mpg so the test is flawed" are you?
You cannot POSSIBLY be trying to make that erroneous and illogical point, can you?
Think about it for a second or two before you reply. ( I'm warning you that I'm now leading you into a trap, so just back out now and save the snapping down of the steel teeth. To get out of the trap before it closes, just post a "That's not what I was saying" reply.)
http://www.epa.gov/fueleconomy/420r06017.pdf Wow, dry reading. I can swear there was a sentence in there where they admitted they were probably underestimating by 18%. Still kinda in there on p.8, but wording looks different. Anyway, same two tests from the 70s are still used, but three more are added that are supposed to better reflect real-world (actually, not new; borrowed from emissions world). However, there seems to be a 3 year period where OEMs can use a 'mpg-based correlation', and it seems that this correlation is what really falls short for Diesels. I wonder if VW used the correlation or submitted the full five tests for the 2009 Jetta? Sounds like the 5-test method might be more accurate, since it is a weighted average of actual test cycles. In any case, it's clear from this doc that EPA focused of gasoline and hybrid vehicles when developing their mpg-based correlation (and 5-cycle weighting factors?); only one of 615 vehicles used to develop the adjustments was a diesel. Looks like an MB E320, in fact. "YourMPG" shows E320 owners matching the old numbers, not the new, which are 17% lower in the city.
Sounds like VW's independent tester AMCI came up with 38/44mpg city/hwy. That city number would result in $1200+$750=$1950 if the Jetta is in the 4000# inertia weight class, $1200+$1000=$2200 if it is in the 4500# IWC. I think IWC is the same as GVWR, but not 100% sure..
That would make perfect sense to me, because certainly fewer than 1 in 615 cars on the road in the USA are diesel passenger cars.
You need about 16 samples to be statistically significant, so if you're happy with that ratio, you'd test 16 diesels and 9840 non-diesels, minimum.
Why would the EPA make any changes to favor diesel passenger cars when there are so few on the road anyway?
They should neither favor nor hinder; they should be impartial. The new emissions standards are impartial, independent of combustion technology. So should the economy estimates be. I'm not saying they are being inaccurate on purpose; I'm just saying that they appear to be inaccurate, and should not pretend that a sample size of one is adequate.
They obviously are not INTENTIONALLY HINDERING anything. VW did not accuse them of intentionally hindering the Jetta tests.
What is happening is that the strengths of diesel engine fuel efficiency, which is "low rpm highway cruising" are not a major score-maker in the test.
My opinion is that they should have a "diesel test" and a "gasoline test" and in the diesel test they should emphasize the strengths of the diesel engine and give more precedence to low rpm highway cruising.
Is it going to matter to the "general public" at large that the EPA hwy number is 41 versus 44 in the VW independent test on the Jetta? Not a bit. Diesel fans are going to want the Jetta regardless.
Volkswagen did express a concern that the new ratings method penalizes diesels: http://www.epa.gov/fueleconomy/420r06016.pdf page 53. I do not know if their concern has alleviated or not. I do believe that the EPA is trying to be impartial with the 5 cycle test. My concerns are that the interim mpg-based calculation seems not to be accurate for diesels, that VW may have chosen that method for 2009 vs. the 5-cycle, and that consumers won't be getting as much of a credit as they probably should be. 44 vs. 41 hwy mpg is unimportant, but 38 vs. 30 is a huge 27%, representing $900 credit in your pocket.
I do not think there should be separate diesel and gasoline tests; diesel efficiency shows up in city cycle also. If it didn't, it wouldn't be getting the lean-burn credit, which is based on city FE.
Here's a thought starter why EPA's mpg-based calc might not be accurate for diesel: EPA is trying to account for aggressive driving. With a gasoline engine, when you 'stab' the pedal aggressively, going wide-open-throttle, more fuel is injected than is necessary for complete combustion (enrichment). This is at least 16% extra fuel. Diesels are always lean, injecting only enough fuel to meet load requirement.
Aside from a separate test for diesels, the only other way would be to grade the diesels on a "curve" and give them xx percent increases across the board based on the EPA test results.
Even VW admitted that very little data exists which would indicate that the diesels are getting an unfair shake, and they agreed to gather some data and present it to the EPA.
I would love to see that document once it is delivered to the EPA.
All the above numbers are driven by me, combination of city and highway in wonderful Chicagoland traffic and weather over no less than 20,000 miles per vehicle and as high as 100,000 plus per vehicle. Myself and others that drive diesel's are the extreme opposite of feather footed.
Tell your friend to STOMP on it.
I'll have some more anecdotal mpg as soon as I get my hands on a Maxima or TSX diesel.
Here is a diesel in the news article I found Mercedes 190D
Thank you for the insight and link. Honda has the best idea. It also then falls back onto the automaker to deliver on those estimates. Instead of a government agency that make the laws as they see fit. What our friend larsb does not want to see is the fact that flawed testing is costing the prospective VW TDI buyer money they should be getting as a tax credit. The rule says that it is based on the fuel economy gain from the 2003 model. Not the perceived gain by some flaky test. So VW has complained and rightly so. It will impact their sales. Just as Toyota would have complained if the Prius buyers were cheated.
Honda suggested that EPA allow manufacturers to collect real-world fuel economy data which could then feed back directly into fuel economy estimates. Under their concept, the manufacturer would gather in-use fuel economy data from actual customer vehicles during the first 6 to 12 months of production, and then label future production using the average of the in-use data.
Volkswagen expressed concerns that the proposed procedures may unfairly penalize diesel vehicles. They believe that a high percentage of their diesel vehicle customers come closer to achieving today’s current labels than is suggested by the proposed methodology, and that additional factors that reduce the label estimate may represent an unnecessary penalty for diesel technology. They acknowledge that little data exists to support or refute this concern and that they intend to collect some and present it to EPA.
Since this is a diesel thread, it really needs to be said that one should not drive the diesels like gasser Honda Civics, for example. Even those that bought and drive Honda Civics (gassers) can be disappoint to EXTREMELY disappointed. As a population, I would expect no less for diesels as most will assume you should drive diesels like gassers. On the other extreme, getting better to so called "hyper) mileage from a diesel is better served when one operates within the parameters of the diesel motor (this goes for the gasser motor also but is off topic).
Looks like VW will go against the EPA and post their independent mileage figures. About time some automakers buck the [non-permissible content removed] EPA. It will be interesting if they put the two sets of figures on the window sticker.
The Jetta TDI starts at $21,990 and the Jetta TDI Sportwagen starts at $23,590. The 50-state legal Jetta TDI gets 38 mpg city and 44 mpg on the highway.
"Our clean diesel vehicles offer consumers a true value with the fuel efficiency that drivers are looking for while providing power, utility and performance," said Mark Barnes, COO, Volkswagen of America, Inc. "The Jetta TDI's offer a no compromise alternative fuel driving experience."
What is interesting to note is that the EPA estimated that the Jetta TDI would get 29 mpg in the city and 40 mpg on the highway. Apparently VW wasn't happy with those numbers, so the automaker went to the leading third party certifier, AMCI. AMCI tested the Jetta TDI and certified it at a much better 38 mpg in the city and 44 mpg on the highway. Either way the Jetta TDI couldn't come at a better time.
There is a lot of buzz about the HUGE discrepancy. Hopefully VW will pave the way for other automakers with diesels. Someone needs to slap the EPA down. They are supposed to be working for ALL of US. Not just the oil companies and the Environmental groups.
Comments
A smart move from the govt would be to increase tax on gas in order to compensate for the difference.
The problem with supply is one reason VW is not supplying more diesels to China Market. Because of controlled price, any diesel consumption increase result in queues up at gas stations.
Even though Diesel is mainstream in Europe (2/3rd of cars sold in France are diesel) I plan to get an economy gasser like the Toyota Agyo when back there. Despite tax difference in favor of diesel (20% advantage) the Liter price is very close now because diesel refineries work at capacity.
If 50% of cars sold in the US were diesels, I guess the Gallon would be around 7 and I think it is conservative.
First I do not advocate any kind of government mandates on anything. I wish they would get their stinking nose out of business dealings.
You are right that an increase in diesel vehicles would probably have the adverse affect of raising diesel prices in the short term. However, there are several alternatives to making diesel. Coal is still plentiful and making diesel from coal may become profitable with the current or higher prices. Then you can make diesel from Natural Gas as they are doing in Qatar with their massive amounts of NG. And my favorite and hopefully future fuel is biodiesel from algae. We have the distinct advantage over the EU in the fact we are not over burdened with as much tax and waste as they are. Hopefully that does not change in the near future.
All told more diesel cars will cut our importing of oil which is the ultimate goal. Or it should be. Our balance of trade is not sustainable. The automakers have not done that well in improving gas mileage over the last 30 years.
Diesel is the logical fuel until someone comes up with a better battery than anything currently being built. I think that is a long ways off unfortunately. We are stuck with that nasty byproduct of diesel "Gasoline" that does need to be used by those that do not know any better. Gas is still trash 100 years after JDR figured out how to use it in an ICE.
How credible this is I have no idea, as we all know that local news is distorted sound bites at its best.
I always thought that asphalt was a nasty by product in the refining process. This may also be a taste of the future. Less miles driven in better fuel efficient vehicles will equal less road tax dollars. Just maybe they will use the road tax money on the roads.
Better get a heavy duty diesel SUV. You will need it to negotiate all the pot holes that will not get filled. :sick: That is one of many reasons I like an SUV or PU truck. We have really crappy roads with very poor maintenance in CA. Best roads I have been on in recent years is in Texas. They have great back roads and secondary highways with reasonable speed limits. I rarely went on the Interstate highways on my vacation there. Always found plenty of cheap diesel for the RV also.
If you do a search on Google News you will see that this issue is becoming widespread. Part of the issue is the changing nature of the oil feedstock. All that sour crude coming from the Alberta oil sands is requiring refineries to update their refining processes. When they upgrade they try and squeeze as much high value products such as diesel and gasoline out of a barrel as possible. What surprises me is that all these transportation departments, that plan five and ten years down the road, did not see this coming.
No, I don't think you really want government to stay out of issues like safety, wages, pollution, and so on. Business is designed to maximize shareholder wealth "period". Is government great at regulating things, probably not, but that is the nature of the beast.
"Coal is still plentiful and making diesel from coal may become profitable with the current or higher prices."
I'm still waiting to hear if they will get the go ahead for the CTL plant here in ND. If memory serves me right they will make about 30,000 barrels of diesel. I think most of the super clean fuel will go to the Air Force, however. There won't be any available for you TDI owners.
I do not expect to see a lot of CTL plants for many years. It takes about 30 million tons of coal a year to make 100,000 barrels a day of diesel. North Dakota would need to double the production of coal to supply one 100,000 barrel a day refinery. Keep in mind that a good size refinery down in the Texas/LA area is 400,000 to 500,000 barrels a day.
'Then you can make diesel from Natural Gas as they are doing in Qatar with their massive amounts of NG."
Some of the Middle East countries have a shortage of NG. It will be interesting to see what they decide to do with the NG - make diesel or use it to generate electricity.
"And my favorite and hopefully future fuel is biodiesel from algae."
I would agree that algae shows tremendous promise. There seems to be an announcement every day about somebody developing a new process. If they can only get some of these things out of the lab and into full scale commercial production...
"The automakers have not done that well in improving gas mileage over the last 30 years."
That is an interesting comment. You are saving that left on their own they didn't do very well creating fuel efficient cars. Maybe some government meddling would help them along.
"Diesel is the logical fuel until someone comes up with a better battery than anything currently being built."
I see diesel as being one of many options for the future. We don't want to put all our eggs in one basket.
That is very true. As long as we are using Oil there will be gasoline. I just am thinking of getting optimum results on the short term. Diesel still offers the most bang for the buck. Unless you pay too much for the vehicle. I will have to get a good deal on a diesel SUV or I will continue to drive that nasty gas guzzling Sequoia.
I just hate having to go fill up every 300 miles.
Maybe some government meddling would help them along.
The Feds mandated 27 MPG fleet average 30 years ago. That is where it stopped. The new mandate has done nothing. The price of gas has been the impetus behind the smaller more fuel efficient cars. The market does so much better than government in pushing us to alternatives. There have always been innovators that come up with a better mouse trap without the help of the government. Making laws to protect US from unscrupulous business types is one thing. Mandating ethanol to aid with corporate welfare is quite another.
GM posts $15.5 billion 2nd-quarter loss
By TOM KRISHER and DEE-ANN DURBIN, AP Auto Writers
">link titlehttp://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080801/ap_on_bi_ge/earns_gm
Actually it is the other way around, government meddling at almost every level has greatly contributed to the way things are today !!! There are many many examples of this, but one quick one: the governments make more "profit" aka TAXATION from oil for transportation than the oil companies !!
I purchased a 2008 Taurus Limited. I’m sure I didn’t get the best deal, but I’m not unhappy with it. Any time you can get your tax, tabs and fees paid is not bad.
MSRP was $29355. Tax, Tab, Fees came to $2613. I got the car out the door $29312.
Ice Blue Taurus Limited with limited convenience pkg, limited wood pkg, power moon roof, Sirius Radio and a full tank of gas. The gas alone is an $83 value @ $4.19 a gallon.
The purchase process started with a call to the dealer asking what kind of deal he could give me and we agreed to the price over the phone. We drove the hour to the dealer (closes dealer with a car I wanted) and arrived at 1:00PM. We took a test drive, looked over the car and went in to do the paper work. This is where I thought I was going to have to fight because he was going to start adding stuff.
We went over the agreed price, tax, rebate and the final price and then he said “all I need to add to this is the excise tax, tabs and doc fees”. I was amazed. We started at 1:00PM and I was on my way home by 3:40. Even the F&I gal was low key and low pressure.
So if the 2008 model year resulted in over production of certain segments, with sales projected to be down to 14 M units, from 16-17 M past years' averages: would that result in a 2009 (2008 = 14 M units- (Y?)= DECREASE?
It could be "HAMMER" (rough) times until the oems can produce the (market) correct inventories in the correct segments. It would seem anymore everything is a moving target judged with "rubber rulers."
I read a description of the system and just the basics were about 6 pages long.
Most of the "complication" of a hybrid is just computerization.
The BlueTec system also takes a lot of hardware and a complicated computer to do it's bidness.
I'm all for more BlueTecs and more hybrids on the road. Complicated cars are the present and the future. There is no going back now.
"Complication" can no longer be considered a negative criticism.
My food bill becomes my gasoline bill, too...and for free...
(Except for the nominal multi-million dollar cost of that oil refinery in my back yard...:):):):):)...)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ToojK_MJd0
The company is Valcent in El Paso.
http://www.valcent.net/s/NewsReleases.asp?ReportID=290918&_Type=News-Releases&_T- itle=Valcents-Releases-Profitable-Initial-Production-Estimates-For-its-Vertical-- ...
Then I can't say...NIMBY...Not in my back yard.........:):):):)
The advanced diesel system will utilize BluePerformance urea injection, which will allow the X5 to be sold in all 50 states, even those following California's strict emissions standards. BluePerformance uses a solution called AdBlue, that is injected into the exhaust gas to turn nitrous oxides into nitrogen gas and water vapor. This works in conjunction with a particulate filter to further reduce emissions. The system works on virtually the same technology that Mercedes-Benz uses in its upcoming Bluetec SUVs.
The X5 is popular, but it’s appeal is expected to go through the roof once diesel is introduced. At the same time, the diesel movement as a whole should gain considerable visibility and momentum with the launch of this SUV.
According to the UK listing for this large SUV it should get 33.64 MPG highway and 28.64 MPG combined US. This will beat anything in its class by a big margin and it does not sacrifice performance. 0-62 MPH in 7 seconds with 149 MPH top speed. Not that either one would be part of my driving experience.
My local BMW will call me as soon as they hit the showroom.
Another choice I like is the Mercedes ML320 CDI. It only shows 30 MPG highway and 24.48 MPG Combined converted to US mileage. The ML is a second and a half slower 0-62 MPH than the X5 diesel. Those mileages match the results of the cross country match up with the Lexus RX400h a couple years ago. I don't expect the EPA ratings to be close to reality on either vehicle.
The good thing, we are finally getting choices. With choices comes competition in the showrooms.
dare anyone ask if it's available with manual transmission?
BMW X5 Fuel Consumption :: (3.0sd M Sport Automatic)
Urban Fuel
27.4 mpg
Extra Urban
40.4 mpg
Combined
34.4 mpg
Mercedes Benz M-Class Fuel Consumption :: (ML 320 CDI SE Automatic)
Urban Fuel
22.1 mpg
Extra Urban
36.2 mpg
Combined
29.4 mpg
I will gladly pay you two trade-in vehicles next tuesday for a diesel X5 today.
None of which is safe in a city. Nothing like getting out on the open road in a DIESEL SUV and putting the cares of life behind you.... :shades:
Life is too short to spend it in a city wearing a mask to protect yourself from disease and toxic waste caused by too many MT buses. As in EMPTY!
============================================================
As always, and part of the entertainment, the response avoids the issue entirely, and makes false statements in the process. It then goes on to restate the dead, but charming, fantasy of the open road, all designed to reinforce auto dependency, and avoidance of reality. And "The Band Played On".
Tick Tock.
===========================================================
There must be about 100 "pump and dump" stocks out there now touting this newest "silver bullet". Jump on board and take the newest ride, down. PT Barnum was never so right.
Tick Tock
Only for those so unfortunate as to be stuck in a concrete cell in some stinking city. Ah, smell the transit bus fumes as it aimlessly travels the city with one or two souls going nowhere. What a sad thought that would be. All of US are dependent on something or someone. Better to be out where the outlook on life is not so dire, waiting for your turn to die. :sick:
I would only add a couple of words to your message to Mr. Hypnosis:
TICK TOCK
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
I drove to Alaska last year and took a spin around the Sierra this past spring. I regularly fly to New England on business, then drive to suppliers in Maine, Montreal, CT and VT. On every trip there are opportunities to get off the interstate and enjoy an uncrowded drive on a beautiful road of one sort or another. Doing it in my own diesel car with a manual transmission is something I've sought for the past seven years or so, since I was introduced to the modern turbodiesel in Germany on several business trips.
Fantasy, indeed. I guess I am living the dream, though it's much less frequent than I'd prefer. I feel that I'm making fairly good use of the seconds I have left -- tick-tock right back at you.
Those who follow diesels know that the 2008 EPA adjusted values don't work well for diesels. The equations were calibrated for gasoline and gas-hybrid vehicles, with only one of 612 vehicles used to correlate being a diesel! So, Jetta ends up with a 29-30mpg city rating. EPA's own summary report states that they are probably underestimating diesel mpg by 18% (I say 23%). Well, that 18% is enough to bump the Jetta (and likely any other diesel) to the next category for both efficiency and savings: 1.75x-2.0x and 2400-3000gal (or even 3000+gal) savings, which would be $1200+$750 (or +$1000) = $1950-$2200. That would completely cover the diesel option premium for the Jetta. If EPA is truly off by 18% (if your correlation is off by more than 5%, it's useless; only in the government would that be acceptable, I guess), and I believe it is at least that far off, they have the responsibility to fix it. VW and others should press the EPA hard on this one.
Your dream car should be available before Christmas. Either the VW Jetta TDI or the BMW 335d. That 335d wagon is a great car.
I have groused about that myself. Very convenient and not lost on those of US who prefer diesel. The EPA over estimated the Prius to give it a higher tax incentive. The head guy at the EPA is a rabid hybrid fan. Then way under estimate the Jetta TDI. VW was also very unhappy with the EPA estimates on the new Jetta TDI. They got an independent lab that came much closer to reality. Being a government agency there is NO OVERSIGHT. Just as CARB in CA they do as they please and who is going to question their authority? You cannot sue them for false testing. They are the infallible Government.
You notice when they got a lot of complaints on the 60 MPG city they gave the Prius, lots of people complained. So they change the procedure. They have a one size fits all mentality. How about some legitimate tests for our tax dollars being wasted on the EPA???? I think they are off closer to 26% on the Jetta TDI. Time will tell, and those that buy the VW TDI will be the ultimate winners. Even though they are cheated out of what should be rightfully their tax credit.
The upshot (I will state my understanding as I am in no way representing what he said as I am NOT a practicing CPA, etc., etc.,) is that if you can not AFFORD a Prius, you are eligible for the tax credit. :lemon: If you CAN afford the Prius, you are most likely (effectively) constrained from the effects of the tax credit. :lemon:
My sense and swag is it will be similar with the diesel. :surprise: :confuse:
Utterly ludicrous statement. The EPA cannot by law "over estimate" ANYTHING. It's against FEDERAL LAW. The tests were flawed, but the Prius DID PERFORM to those specs in the lab. No car in history has been over or under estimated. The cars perform to the test specs just as they are printed on the EPA sticker on the cars.
The fact that people are getting 65+ plus in REAL WORLD DRIVING shows and PROVES that the Prius is capable of FAR BETTER numbers than the EPA rated it.
Let me again say this, because Gary you could not be MORE WRONG when you say the EPA test was changed because of the hybrids:
The new EPA tests had NOTHING to do AT ALL with the Prius or any other hybrid cars. Those tests had been flawed for DECADES already and the public finally got tired of it enough to make the EPA adjust the test.
Just a couple of years before, AAA had done some tests showing that ALMOST EVERY CAR ON THE ROAD was below the EPA ratings. That was a huge factor in deciding to change the test.
I know when you get something in your head you never change it. But you are dead wrong when you start saying things like this. It's not something that you can say "It's MY Opinion" because you state it as FACT.
If you want it to be known that it's an opinion, then state it as such. Please don't try to say something is factual when it is fantasy.
And tell us why we should accept YOUR opinions as facts? Do you have any peer reviewed facts to back up your blind belief in the EPA? Seems on other subjects you require peer reviewed studies before you will believe. I have an independent mileage study that says the EPA estimates on the Jetta TDI are NOT even close to what the average driver can expect. Seems strange they would be so low as to change the tax credit. Or maybe the EPA does not want to encourage people to buy diesel cars. Even when they clean them up to meet CARB standards. Any non government data you have would be welcomed.
I assume you believe that statement you have made? Yet the old tests were almost dead on accurate for the diesel VW TDIs at that time. So what makes the current EPA tests so great and the old ones so bad? If they were flawed before they surely can be flawed again.
Here is my evidence:
Check this on the EPA site.
2003 Volkswagen Jetta Wagon
Manual 5-spd
4 Cylinders
1.9 Liters
Diesel
New EPA estimate 39 MPG Combined. 15 owners report average 48.4 MPG.
You may think a 20% error is accurage estimating.
FACT IS THAT IS NOT EVEN CLOSE
Tick Tock (or, Splish Splash!)
Because I'm not accusing the EPA of breaking the law. If they were doing that, it would be discovered and the people involved would be arrested and charged. It's against federal law for the EPA to fabricate mpg numbers. In the absence of valid and/or specific accusations, then here in the USA they are PRESUMED INNOCENT.
Here's why VW had to go to an outside source for the better Jetta mpg numbers: Because when THEY THEMSELVES ran the Jetta using the EPA test, they got the same thing the EPA got. You know how I know that? Because VW did not come out and say that "we got higher numbers on the EPA test than the EPA themselves reported." That would have been a MAJOR PROBLEM for the EPA. It could have been shown to be violating the law AND at the same time it would have PROVEN that the EPA has something against diesel cars. But it did not happen that way.
So that should prove to you right there that the EPA test on the Jetta was not falsified. VW would be suing them and telling the story to every newspaper on the planet if they suspected that the EPA falsified the Jetta test.
Who's to say the "independent" Jetta test which VW commissioned was not "biased" toward diesel engines? Did they publish their test methodology?
The EPA can't just say, "Here is a car we LIKE so it will test with HIGHER MPG and here is a car we don't like so we will fabricate lower numbers !! Cha-Ching !!!"
You want non-guvmint evidence that the EPA is not biased against diesel? OK, I can find that.
Here's an Indiana rail agency working with the EPA to use cleaner rail diesel:
EPA all for clean rail diesel
And:
EPA funding diesel retrofits
And:
EPA certifies for sale 3 new 2009 MB 50-state diesels
And:
EPA releases grant money for diesel pollution reduction technology
And:
EPA works with Ford to develop clean diesel technology and Press release for Ford-EPA clean diesel collaboration
Of course the EPA is so stringent on diesel exhaust only because it is such a cancer causing agent. I could list hundreds of sources for that but you already know it. We should applaud them not accuse them for trying to make sure diesel exhaust is scrubbed.
You cannot POSSIBLY be trying to make that erroneous and illogical point, can you?
Think about it for a second or two before you reply. ( I'm warning you that I'm now leading you into a trap, so just back out now and save the snapping down of the steel teeth. To get out of the trap before it closes, just post a "That's not what I was saying" reply.)
That would make perfect sense to me, because certainly fewer than 1 in 615 cars on the road in the USA are diesel passenger cars.
Why would the EPA make any changes to favor diesel passenger cars when there are so few on the road anyway?
Maybe they need a separate "gasoline" test and "diesel" test.
You need about 16 samples to be statistically significant, so if you're happy with that ratio, you'd test 16 diesels and 9840 non-diesels, minimum.
Why would the EPA make any changes to favor diesel passenger cars when there are so few on the road anyway?
They should neither favor nor hinder; they should be impartial. The new emissions standards are impartial, independent of combustion technology. So should the economy estimates be. I'm not saying they are being inaccurate on purpose; I'm just saying that they appear to be inaccurate, and should not pretend that a sample size of one is adequate.
What is happening is that the strengths of diesel engine fuel efficiency, which is "low rpm highway cruising" are not a major score-maker in the test.
My opinion is that they should have a "diesel test" and a "gasoline test" and in the diesel test they should emphasize the strengths of the diesel engine and give more precedence to low rpm highway cruising.
Is it going to matter to the "general public" at large that the EPA hwy number is 41 versus 44 in the VW independent test on the Jetta? Not a bit. Diesel fans are going to want the Jetta regardless.
I do not think there should be separate diesel and gasoline tests; diesel efficiency shows up in city cycle also. If it didn't, it wouldn't be getting the lean-burn credit, which is based on city FE.
Here's a thought starter why EPA's mpg-based calc might not be accurate for diesel: EPA is trying to account for aggressive driving. With a gasoline engine, when you 'stab' the pedal aggressively, going wide-open-throttle, more fuel is injected than is necessary for complete combustion (enrichment). This is at least 16% extra fuel. Diesels are always lean, injecting only enough fuel to meet load requirement.
Aside from a separate test for diesels, the only other way would be to grade the diesels on a "curve" and give them xx percent increases across the board based on the EPA test results.
Even VW admitted that very little data exists which would indicate that the diesels are getting an unfair shake, and they agreed to gather some data and present it to the EPA.
I would love to see that document once it is delivered to the EPA.
TDI's
2001 Golf automatic 42 mg combined
2002 Jetta Wagon manual 47 mpg combined
2004 Jetta Wagon automatic 43 mpg combined
All the above numbers are driven by me, combination of city and highway in wonderful Chicagoland traffic and weather over no less than 20,000 miles per vehicle and as high as 100,000 plus per vehicle. Myself and others that drive diesel's are the extreme opposite of feather footed.
Tell your friend to STOMP on it.
I'll have some more anecdotal mpg as soon as I get my hands on a Maxima or TSX diesel.
Here is a diesel in the news article I found Mercedes 190D
Honda suggested that EPA allow manufacturers to collect real-world fuel economy data which could then feed back directly into fuel economy estimates. Under their concept, the manufacturer would gather in-use fuel economy data from actual customer vehicles during the first 6 to 12 months of production, and then label future production using the average of the in-use data.
Volkswagen expressed concerns that the proposed procedures may unfairly
penalize diesel vehicles. They believe that a high percentage of their diesel vehicle customers come closer to achieving today’s current labels than is suggested by the proposed methodology, and that additional factors that reduce the label estimate may represent an unnecessary penalty for diesel technology. They acknowledge that little data exists to support or refute this concern and that they intend to collect some and present it to EPA.
The Jetta TDI starts at $21,990 and the Jetta TDI Sportwagen starts at $23,590. The 50-state legal Jetta TDI gets 38 mpg city and 44 mpg on the highway.
"Our clean diesel vehicles offer consumers a true value with the fuel efficiency that drivers are looking for while providing power, utility and performance," said Mark Barnes, COO, Volkswagen of America, Inc. "The Jetta TDI's offer a no compromise alternative fuel driving experience."
What is interesting to note is that the EPA estimated that the Jetta TDI would get 29 mpg in the city and 40 mpg on the highway. Apparently VW wasn't happy with those numbers, so the automaker went to the leading third party certifier, AMCI. AMCI tested the Jetta TDI and certified it at a much better 38 mpg in the city and 44 mpg on the highway. Either way the Jetta TDI couldn't come at a better time.
There is a lot of buzz about the HUGE discrepancy. Hopefully VW will pave the way for other automakers with diesels. Someone needs to slap the EPA down. They are supposed to be working for ALL of US. Not just the oil companies and the Environmental groups.
http://www.google.com/search?q=vw+tdi+epa+mileage+tests&sourceid=navclient-ff&ie- =UTF-8&rlz=1B2GGIC_en___US205