That does present a different picture. If you burn crude or bunker oil as it is called how much goes out the exhaust? Maybe they could build a mini refinery attached to the exhaust and extract some of the byproducts that are valuable.
If you are thinking of it for smaller engines I would say the obstacles would be tremendous. Just going from 130 to 500 PPM sulfur will plug up a modern diesel exhaust system. So with 3000 PPM or more in bunker oil it would be tough.
This is what is almost totally galling. The same governments that literally go into absolute hysterics when D2 to B100 are seen as better fuel choices over RUG to PUG and emit 15 ppm to in some cases ZERO sulfur ppm AND are mitigated to literally the n TH degree: almost glee fully allow to aggressively promote under the cloak of GLOBAL TRADE, the totally unmitigated release of 200 X to almost exponentially greater sulfur ppm and with much greater volume. :lemon:
On the other hand I have aunts and uncles (early 70's) who literally for the last generation( 30-40 years ) have taken cruise ships tours (aka 3000 to 5000 ppm BUNKER OIL USERS (unmitigated of course) !!??) @ a min of 4 times per year, 2 weeks per trip (not to mention the cars, boats and planes ancillary to said trips) and not only have had absolute BLASTS the WHOLE time, but are almost literally in the peak of health (respiratory to be germane, sans all that food they try to stuff you with while on board) They still play tennis and volleyball for pete's sakes in between bike riding, running, gym work outs......
who literally for the last generation( 30-40 years ) have taken cruise ships tours (aka 3000 to 5000 ppm BUNKER OIL USERS
Not only do those cruise ships spew a lot of exhaust pollution. They dump raw sewage into the ocean. Several cruise lines have been fined in Hawaii for dumping their sewage in the Harbors. Yet you emit one jillionth of a gram of NoX from a diesel car and you are anti environment.
I would expect the cruise business to keep expanding as more people retire. It is the cheapest way to travel if you watch for the bargains. Why no nuclear cruise ships? Clean and only need refueling every 30 years.
..."I would expect the cruise business to keep expanding as more people retire. It is the cheapest way to travel if you watch for the bargains. Why no nuclear cruise ships? Clean and only need refueling every 30 years. "...
I would concur. Despite what is happening (literally below and above) it remains the best bang for the buck vacation.
rocketing into the abyss and can't even come close to a 35 mpg car even WITH a 25 BILLION dollar TAXPAYER aka government loan... : VW has already BEEN at 42/49 mpg (03 MY) . or 81.4% ahead (of the 27 mpg current standard). Further VW is planning a 117 mpg diesel.... Better news? Development of a follow on 235 mpg VW diesel. !! :shades: Any wonder why the Am market doesn't like diesel?
It was similar at my local station. $2.05 vs $3.05.
However, this same station is charging 50 cents more for 93 octane compared to RUG. Every other station I see is 25-30 cents difference from RUG to PUG. So I'm wondering if the $1 extra for diesel is the norm or just that station.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
While it might be "mundane" news, it may be exciting to those that follow the diesel topic. Given the fact that there is one auto transmission (that have benn sold in the USA market and...) that is well mated to a turbo diesel engine, (MB 320/350) it will be interesting to see how the effort unfolds. For example, I would not get an automatic Jetta TDI, even as I have a 5 speed manual TDI , and further wish they had not compromised that effort and shipped the US model with a 6 speed manual. I personally am gleaning EVERYHING about the so called DSG or computer controlled dual clutch so called "automatic" manual
About time Honda caught up with an auto-box diesel. They have been laging lots of other folk, notably the Germans, for too long. Mercedes, BMW, Audi/VW/Skoda/SEAT, Volvo, Chrysler/Jeep, Land Rover, Jaguar, Saab and others have been offering this combination for quite a while.
A year ago I was interested in an Accord Tourer 2.2 CDTi if there was an auto option. There wasn't and none was in sight. So...........I bought a Volvo S60 D5 with the 6-spd Geartronic. Haven't regretted it but it's nice to have a new kid on the block. For me, though, flappy paddles on a diesel are just a mite pointless. If I want to stir gears on my Geartronic I only need to move the floor-mounted selector across to manual position and finger pressure does the job.
Indeed most folks who have diesels and those interested in them probably already know this, but the automatic in a diesel has to solve different "issues" if you will.
The easiest one to point to: max torque is delivered at 1750 rpm's.
So for example the DSG computer controlled dual clutch manual can shift in "mirco seconds" back and forth to the next clutch: both automatically and manually.
I owned a 1978 Mercedes 240D automatic back in the early 80's. It was a little bit slow off the line but could cruise at 80 mph all day long with no problem. I would rank it as one of my all time favorites, and my all time favorite comparing it to other cars of the same era.
Given this juncture, I do not see why (actually I do) there can't be a plethora of diesel and turbo diesel models. I have had a lot of seat time in an old 300D (non turbo) diesel. Based on that experience, I would recommend the turbo (diesel).
I am sure a turbo would have livened it up considerably. I don't remember now if it was available in the 240 back then or if you had to step up to the 300 for the turbo. I paid around $8,000. for it back in 1980 (used) and that was about all I could handle.
I probably should put the turbo recommendation in context. The times I drove the 300D were trips to the mountains (6,300 ft or so). On the way UP, heaven help you if you were forced to brake/slowdown. You might not be able to regain normal up grade speeds (60-65 mph) for a ways and time. I recall times of a slower moving truck changing lanes to pass and either being forced to brake or slow and BARELY able to coax 35 mph on the uphill speed re build.
Contrast this with a 1.9 TDI (smaller displacement if memory serves correctly), you can literally maintain 80-90 mph cruising speeds. Of course on Highway 80 or 50 (on the way to Lake Tahoe CA ,you dont really want to do this as the roads are very rough.
Wood continued to pump the fuel, let out a chuckle and said, "I know."
His is not a typical Ford.
Wood owns Nitrous Express, which produces high-performance car parts for customers around the globe. It took him about a year and $50,000 to disassemble a working sports car just to put it back together -- with some major changes.
Pulling the 20 or so hood pins reveals a 2004 Chevrolet diesel pickup engine capable of 1,200 horsepower.
It is the fastest diesel-powered street-legal car in the world -- and it averages 35 miles per gallon.
"It was a challenge," Wood said. "I just wanted to prove I could do it."
Just an after thought, but it is almost hard to imagine 2000 ft #'s of torque with 1200 hp on tap.
The owner of a Corvette specialty shop where I was getting a mundane alignment, once took me for a (of a series of break in) ride in a 650 hp (and who knows how many # ft of torque gasser V-8 (normally aspirated) probably close to 575 # ft of torque).
... You have to wonder what a country would be like, that there was no possible way for an individual to do some experimentation at home. The percent of modified vehicles is small and to some extent I think it improves the breed and even shows the big manufacturers what is possible. A Zo/6 with next year's new lightweight Duramax would be interesting.
Just on the CNBC Cable NOOS: there is an auto bail out agreement reached. I can't wait for my TBD, Z06 Corvette tax credits and tax deductions for the new twin turbo diesel !! (being as how we ALL are now owners of GM and the other two) :lemon:
Nice. That sort of setup also has implications I bet for NASCAR and F1 racing, as 35mpg would be a huge incentive. Imagine only making one pit stop for gas in an entire race. For a shorter one, maybe not even having to stop at all.
No, there's nothing wrong with diesel cars in NASCAR. Just that nobody has bothered to make one yet. Though, there has been talk of entries in the truck series lately.
... The new Duramax has the exhaust up where you might expect the intake to be, on a V-8. This is good for heat (read turbo) management and packaging (overall size). Other than size I think twin turbos, mounted low and close to the foward end(s) of the head(s), (for heat management) might be even better. Of course there is no way to bring a twin turbo, down the line, as cost effective as a single layout.
Diesels already race in BTCC, (British Touring Car Championships), and WTCC, (World ditto).
Team in each series is SEAT, which is an "economy" marque within the VW family, from Spain. The car is a SEAT Leon which is, basically, a re-bodied VW Golf. This year the SEAT BTCC team came second in the championships behind Team Vauxhall, (GM's major brand in U.K.), with their Astra VXR's.........which are gassers.
So, diesels are racing, in Europe, with VW backing. Is anyone surprised ?
Just been reading that, from Feb 2009, the Porsche Cayenne will be offered with a diesel - Audi's 3.0 TDi, (after all, Porsche do own a big lump of VW Group). In the Audi A6 this engine is quoted as 230bhp/332lbft, I believe.
Offering will be in Europe-only initially, but other markets are under consideration, apparently.
"Hey, what's that noise ? Oh it's just the gnashing of teeth in the Porsche-purists camp".
You guys get all the good stuff. A friend from Greece spent the week with us. He wanted to know why we did not buy one of the small cars with a 1.0L diesel? I told him this was the first year in while we could even buy a diesel anything in California. He was amazed. And a bit insulted when I told him it was our very strict emissions that keep diesels out of the country. His response, what about the huge waste of OIL by Americans?
I just want to thank you and Jose for keeping US posted on what is available in the real world. We in LaLa land can only drool....
... Good point from Europe. It seems to me that there is too much attention to the tailpipe and obviously not the big overall carbon picture. There also seems to be little attention paid to what goes up the stacks of the refineries.
Indeed the Big Three's recent "tribulations" have finally let the facts come to light that DEMOCRATS have ALL ALONG (@ least 53 years!?) been major cheerleaders for quashing higher fuel standards, aka Michigan's House of Representatives and acknowledged DEAN (Democrat) The Honorable John D. Dingell.
I would say they have done a fine job !!! :shades: :lemon: So while you can say even they can see the writing on the wall; INXS of 25 B on top of the already 25 B for the recent passage of 2012 fuel standards is an absolute slam dunk no brainer.
It is not hard to come to the conclusion diesels do not play much of a role in this equation.
However this is precisely why getting a good diesel if and when you can might be the smart move.
Gagrice, the pleasure is mine and, I presume, Jose's. Just highlights that something ain't right in your car industry.
Recommend you watch the latest Top Gear prog, (was aired here in U.K. last night). The three lads got to drive from Basel in Switzerland to Blackpool in U.K. Approx 750miles - the challenge being to do it on only one tank of fuel. Hammond chose a VW Polo 1.4 TDi "Bluemotion", May ran a Subaru Legacy Tourer diesel and Clarkson had a Jaguar XJ 2.7 twin-turbo diesel, (on the grounds that it was a stupid challenge). Hammond just got there first at around 84mpg. After a lot of faffing about, (incl some 70mph cruising to prove his point that it couldn't be done), Clarkson arrived shortly after and May - well, he may still be driving around the U.K. The amazing outcome was that the big Jag showed that it was capable of around 1000 miles on a tankful of diesel, if driven sensibly.
Outstanding economy for such a car. Well worth watching if/when you can. Should be on BBC iPlayer if you can access it. All the mpg figures are Imperial, of course, so you'll need to do the conversions for USgals.
45 mpg!!! WAY cool. Again the US car industry is the repository for gas guzzlers. So as an example, I have a close Aunt/Uncle whose (late model) Jag gets 12-15 mpg and they say they are lucky to get THAT !!!!! @ 45 miles per gal the twin turbo diesel gets 3 times to 3.75 x better mileage !!!!!! This might be a good reason why our K-12 school system pooh poohs mathematics? Our "leaders" still don't get it. But they still generate a lot of hot air about it.
Gagrice, the pleasure is mine and, I presume, Jose's. Just highlights that something ain't right in your car industry.
Sure it's my pleasure too.
There are so many good diesel cars over here practically the full range of asians, europeans, and the USA big three brands offer diesels, from the biggest to the smallest models.
I'm not a diesel apostle. In my life I´ve driven gassers and diesels and enjoyed both. My conclusion is: driving a diesel through torque is at least as fun as it can be driving a gasser to the redline but more fuel efficient.
That said, I must say that by no means I'm a hypermiler. I like to drive agile. I enjoyed my last 530d and I enjoy even more my current 335d. I much liked a 118d I drove extensively last winter; she was an excellent blend of performance and economy.
My point is that opting between gassers and clean diesels is a good choice which can be made almost everywhere. Why not in the USA? Let the buyers decide. (Please do not forget legislation also is environment ally conservative over here.)
Jose, how are you doing? Glad to see you posting in the diesel forum. For sure, we get very few diesels over here to the tune that it is almost criminal. Our gov. preaches fuel and oil conservation but makes laws to promote just the opposite. Ridiculous.
I hope you are doing well and enjoying your 335d. I just bought a 2006 LS 430 and believe it or not, after about 1,000 miles, according to the computer (and me verifying at fill ups), I am averaging about 23.5 mpg overall. That v-8 is sweet and at a steady 70 on the freeway gets around 31 mpg. A very pleasant surprise.
Another pleasant surprise, with the collapse of oil prices, gasoline prices in Kansas City area have dropped from a high of around $4.50 to around $1.50 per gal. So I am saving a few dollars at the pump (and losing thousands in the stock market). :mad:
I'm doing reasonably well, given the circumstances.
My 335d coupe is a joy now that her engine is easing after 12500 miles. The only thing I miss is manually shifting—though I use to drive her in M mode most of the time. I'm really satisfied with this car. 530d was more fuel efficient, but 335d is more a driver's machine.
RUG down to $1.999 with Diesel at $3.109. Price spread as a percentage currently rules out the Jetta CleanDiesel as a viable alternative for a replacement to our aging Accord.
... If you look @ "fuel claims polarise opinion" in Google News you will see some controversial fuel droplet research conducted by Professor Tao of Temple University. This is quite a bit related to the theory behind Green Diesel Corp's new injector; however one relying on a mechanical means and one system using an electronic method to achieve the same goal, more complete fuel combustion. I think there should be some regulation induced incentive for these very sophisticated Diesels in that for reduced carbon and soot output there might be a Diesel only reduction (not to apply for gasoline engines) in the NOx regs that are strangling the industry.
Interesting comments. An interesting issue here. As gasoline engine compression ratios increase, and more of them are moving toward direct gasoline injection, they are starting to run into some of the same issues diesels have had, namely particulate and NOx. Higher compression ratios are more conducive to the formation of NOx. Particulate in direct injection gasoline just may become a problem. Particulate comes from the incomplete combustion of fuel. In gassers, add the fact that sulfur content is 30 PPM versus less than 10 PPM for U.S. diesel fuel, you add to the particulate issue. Granted 30 PPM is pretty small, but considering that 97% of vehicles in the U.S. are gasoline powered, it adds up.
In the newer diesels, piezo-electric injectors are becoming more mainstream. They can inject seven plus injections quickly to cool the air charge and produce a very clean burn. As for particulate, there are self-regenerating particulate exhaust filters and appropriate catalysts and urea spray systems to reduce NOx.
Does anyone in the forum know how effectively the urea injection system reduces NOx?
... As far as I know the piezo-ceramic, CR injection systems have a max of five pulses. Because they are injected into the combustion chamber and instantaneously ignite, the systems have no effect on the intake air temperature. .. ... The urea after-treatment systems are very effective on reducing NOx; however it is my opinion that the entire infrastructure will have to work, almost without problems, for two years, after implementation, just to cover, the carbon footprint, from building, the hundreds of millions of dollars, infrastructure, where upon, I expect the whole system to be obsolete. At least, it does not appear to be outright poisonous, as the MTBE debacle was. The reduced carbon output is a trade off in that urea treated engines are more efficient, because they can be tuned and built to a higher state and make more heat. Of course, that is if you ignore the three percent liquid penalty of the urea, and what it took, to get it, in your car.
Based on the first link, NOx cannot exceed 0.05 gm/mile. If I could retrofit such a system onto my Jeep Liberty CRD, then it would reduce NOx by 88% and for the new Jetta TDI by 82% to meet the 0.05 gm/mile.
On the British version of our EPA website, a brief search shows no diesel using AdBlue or equivalent. Many do have DPF though.
The Jetta TDI passes all emissions without adblue. Only the V6 diesels coming from BMW and Mercedes use adblue to get 50 state approval. Honda tried without it and failed the test. So I've read. Honda claims it would cost $5000 more for the diesel than gas engine to pass California emissions. VW is doing it for about $1200.
... Winter, thank you for the links. It might be a case similar to Audi, in that they test above thirty thousand pounds of fuel pressure in their racing program but their street cars run less than thirty thou. So you are right there are some systems that are capable of seven pulses but there are very few that have made it on-highway. .. ... What I find even more surprising (and hopefully true) is that one system claims a significant drop in NOx production, especially considering that most attempts at more complete combustion increase NOx. Read, more compression, more boost, more heat, sharper timing. It is one of Mother Nature's CRUEL ironies.
Comments
If you are thinking of it for smaller engines I would say the obstacles would be tremendous. Just going from 130 to 500 PPM sulfur will plug up a modern diesel exhaust system. So with 3000 PPM or more in bunker oil it would be tough.
On the other hand I have aunts and uncles (early 70's) who literally for the last generation( 30-40 years ) have taken cruise ships tours (aka 3000 to 5000 ppm BUNKER OIL USERS (unmitigated of course) !!??) @ a min of 4 times per year, 2 weeks per trip (not to mention the cars, boats and planes ancillary to said trips) and not only have had absolute BLASTS the WHOLE time, but are almost literally in the peak of health (respiratory to be germane, sans all that food they try to stuff you with while on board) They still play tennis and volleyball for pete's sakes in between bike riding, running, gym work outs......
Not only do those cruise ships spew a lot of exhaust pollution. They dump raw sewage into the ocean. Several cruise lines have been fined in Hawaii for dumping their sewage in the Harbors. Yet you emit one jillionth of a gram of NoX from a diesel car and you are anti environment.
I would expect the cruise business to keep expanding as more people retire. It is the cheapest way to travel if you watch for the bargains. Why no nuclear cruise ships? Clean and only need refueling every 30 years.
I would concur. Despite what is happening (literally below and above) it remains the best bang for the buck vacation.
link title
But I guess the good news is....LOTS of good deals on Am SUVs !!?? I would even buy a (DIESEL) one !!!
RUG $1.99
Diesel $3.00
(No CA) Corner store today
RUG 2.59 (I bought PUG, Sunday morning for a road trip @ 2..51. with 25 mpg the cost per mile driven was .10 cents)
D2 @ 2.79 (normal ho hum 50 mpg, cost per mile driven .0558 cents)
However, this same station is charging 50 cents more for 93 octane compared to RUG. Every other station I see is 25-30 cents difference from RUG to PUG. So I'm wondering if the $1 extra for diesel is the norm or just that station.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
link title
Honda is using the results of it's effort to design an automatic transmission for the Acura TSX diesel for the euro Accord.
quote-
The first automatic, diesel-engined Honda, it can do 129mph yet return 44.1mpg and emit just 170g/km -end
I would really like to see the euro Accord Wagon offered as an Acura and if it had a diesel that would be even better.
A year ago I was interested in an Accord Tourer 2.2 CDTi if there was an auto option. There wasn't and none was in sight. So...........I bought a Volvo S60 D5 with the 6-spd Geartronic. Haven't regretted it but it's nice to have a new kid on the block. For me, though, flappy paddles on a diesel are just a mite pointless. If I want to stir gears on my Geartronic I only need to move the floor-mounted selector across to manual position and finger pressure does the job.
The easiest one to point to: max torque is delivered at 1750 rpm's.
So for example the DSG computer controlled dual clutch manual can shift in "mirco seconds" back and forth to the next clutch: both automatically and manually.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
Contrast this with a 1.9 TDI (smaller displacement if memory serves correctly), you can literally maintain 80-90 mph cruising speeds. Of course on Highway 80 or 50 (on the way to Lake Tahoe CA ,you dont really want to do this as the roads are very rough.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
"You're putting diesel in your car!"
Wood continued to pump the fuel, let out a chuckle and said, "I know."
His is not a typical Ford.
Wood owns Nitrous Express, which produces high-performance car parts for customers around the globe. It took him about a year and $50,000 to disassemble a working sports car just to put it back together -- with some major changes.
Pulling the 20 or so hood pins reveals a 2004 Chevrolet diesel pickup engine capable of 1,200 horsepower.
It is the fastest diesel-powered street-legal car in the world -- and it averages 35 miles per gallon.
"It was a challenge," Wood said. "I just wanted to prove I could do it."
Gee and meets the 2012 35 mpg economy standards , today!!
The owner of a Corvette specialty shop where I was getting a mundane alignment, once took me for a (of a series of break in) ride in a 650 hp (and who knows how many # ft of torque gasser V-8 (normally aspirated) probably close to 575 # ft of torque).
Judas Priest !!!!
As an aside, 45 mpg would extend the range to 810 miles !!!
No, there's nothing wrong with diesel cars in NASCAR. Just that nobody has bothered to make one yet. Though, there has been talk of entries in the truck series lately.
Team in each series is SEAT, which is an "economy" marque within the VW family, from Spain. The car is a SEAT Leon which is, basically, a re-bodied VW Golf. This year the SEAT BTCC team came second in the championships behind Team Vauxhall, (GM's major brand in U.K.), with their Astra VXR's.........which are gassers.
So, diesels are racing, in Europe, with VW backing. Is anyone surprised ?
WTCC home
WTCC year results
And Yvan Muller (France) (SEAT Diesel) was the leader pilot.
Yvan Muller
Add this to Audi R10 wins in 24 Hours du Mans and the picture is complete.
Regards,
Jose
PS. I'm sorry I could not find an Ivan Mueller website written in English.
Offering will be in Europe-only initially, but other markets are under consideration, apparently.
"Hey, what's that noise ? Oh it's just the gnashing of teeth in the Porsche-purists camp".
Way of the world, it seems.
I just want to thank you and Jose for keeping US posted on what is available in the real world. We in LaLa land can only drool....
link title
I would say they have done a fine job !!!
It is not hard to come to the conclusion diesels do not play much of a role in this equation.
However this is precisely why getting a good diesel if and when you can might be the smart move.
Recommend you watch the latest Top Gear prog, (was aired here in U.K. last night). The three lads got to drive from Basel in Switzerland to Blackpool in U.K. Approx 750miles - the challenge being to do it on only one tank of fuel. Hammond chose a VW Polo 1.4 TDi "Bluemotion", May ran a Subaru Legacy Tourer diesel and Clarkson had a Jaguar XJ 2.7 twin-turbo diesel, (on the grounds that it was a stupid challenge). Hammond just got there first at around 84mpg. After a lot of faffing about, (incl some 70mph cruising to prove his point that it couldn't be done), Clarkson arrived shortly after and May - well, he may still be driving around the U.K. The amazing outcome was that the big Jag showed that it was capable of around 1000 miles on a tankful of diesel, if driven sensibly.
Outstanding economy for such a car. Well worth watching if/when you can. Should be on BBC iPlayer if you can access it. All the mpg figures are Imperial, of course, so you'll need to do the conversions for USgals.
69.94 mpg
No wonder they were all astounded.
Sure it's my pleasure too.
There are so many good diesel cars over here practically the full range of asians, europeans, and the USA big three brands offer diesels, from the biggest to the smallest models.
I'm not a diesel apostle. In my life I´ve driven gassers and diesels and enjoyed both. My conclusion is: driving a diesel through torque is at least as fun as it can be driving a gasser to the redline but more fuel efficient.
That said, I must say that by no means I'm a hypermiler. I like to drive agile. I enjoyed my last 530d and I enjoy even more my current 335d. I much liked a 118d I drove extensively last winter; she was an excellent blend of performance and economy.
My point is that opting between gassers and clean diesels is a good choice which can be made almost everywhere. Why not in the USA? Let the buyers decide. (Please do not forget legislation also is environment ally conservative over here.)
Regards,
Jose
I hope you are doing well and enjoying your 335d. I just bought a 2006 LS 430 and believe it or not, after about 1,000 miles, according to the computer (and me verifying at fill ups), I am averaging about 23.5 mpg overall. That v-8 is sweet and at a steady 70 on the freeway gets around 31 mpg. A very pleasant surprise.
Another pleasant surprise, with the collapse of oil prices, gasoline prices in Kansas City area have dropped from a high of around $4.50 to around $1.50 per gal. So I am saving a few dollars at the pump
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
I'm doing reasonably well, given the circumstances.
My 335d coupe is a joy now that her engine is easing after 12500 miles. The only thing I miss is manually shifting—though I use to drive her in M mode most of the time. I'm really satisfied with this car. 530d was more fuel efficient, but 335d is more a driver's machine.
Thanks for asking,
Regards,
Jose
Jetta TDI
In the newer diesels, piezo-electric injectors are becoming more mainstream. They can inject seven plus injections quickly to cool the air charge and produce a very clean burn. As for particulate, there are self-regenerating particulate exhaust filters and appropriate catalysts and urea spray systems to reduce NOx.
Does anyone in the forum know how effectively the urea injection system reduces NOx?
link title
link title
..
... The urea after-treatment systems are very effective on reducing NOx; however it is my opinion that the entire infrastructure will have to work, almost without problems, for two years, after implementation, just to cover, the carbon footprint, from building, the hundreds of millions of dollars, infrastructure, where upon, I expect the whole system to be obsolete. At least, it does not appear to be outright poisonous, as the MTBE debacle was. The reduced carbon output is a trade off in that urea treated engines are more efficient, because they can be tuned and built to a higher state and make more heat. Of course, that is if you ignore the three percent liquid penalty of the urea, and what it took, to get it, in your car.
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2008/09/delphi-launches.html
Here is another.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/h5g70142565u5131/
Here is yet a third showing up to seven injections/cycle
http://www.theengineer.co.uk/Articles/268707/Perfect+piezo.htm
On the British version of our EPA website, a brief search shows no diesel using AdBlue or equivalent. Many do have DPF though.
..
... What I find even more surprising (and hopefully true) is that one system claims a significant drop in NOx production, especially considering that most attempts at more complete combustion increase NOx. Read, more compression, more boost, more heat, sharper timing. It is one of Mother Nature's CRUEL ironies.