... Well for their 2.7 million Audi chose the comedy route rather than explaining high pressure, common rail, piezoceramic triggered fuel injection. Maybe a way of avoiding that you have a second, small, additive, tank to fill up every so often.
Looks like the telegraph has some ideas as to why diesels are not as popular as before. (petrol engines, supply, delivery, emissions)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/green-motoring/7166444/Is-diesel-dead.html "Britain's North Sea oil is also ill suited for diesel production." "Most of Europe's refining capacity is getting long in the tooth and was set up largely to create petrol. It's now finding that it is squeezing more diesel out of equipment ill suited to the task..."
The Audi A3 uses the same engine as the Jetta TDI. No urea tank to fill on the model sold here. I think the ad is funny. People expect funny entertaining ads during Super Bowl. It is geared to the jock mentality.
No larger TDI. They do offer the higher HP version that comes standard in the EU Golf. They claim that 170 HP vs the 140 HP makes a lot of difference. I plan to test drive the A3 TDI and the Q7 TDI. Not sure I can justify that kind of cash. I have waited 12 years now for a diesel vehicle that I could really like. I am getting older and have less need for a vehicle. After that last long drive cross country, I will just fly and rent a car.
I think that was the point. They were just using the enviro nut mentality to sell people on clean diesel cars. I think the flack is coming from the Enviro bunch that don't like being shown for their very ignorance. The sad part is they have taken control in many areas of our lives. They have all but kept diesel cars off the road. Honda diesels would be here if not for their control of CARB. Incandescent lights will be illegal in 2012. Better stock up. Some of the hotbeds of Eco nuts are already charging for plastic grocery bags.
The Bosch CP3 pump supplies the high pressure fuel to the injectors. Does anyone have any idea how long this pump lasts before requiring rebuild or replacement?
I have one on my Jeep Liberty CRD and they are also on the Cummins in Dodge trucks and on the Duramax found in G.M. products as well as many EU diesels.
Any time someone mentions purchase and 'making up costs', they should also consider how much of that value is retained.
You don't lose $50,000 when you purchase a $50,000 car (excluding taxes and interest). You lose $50,000-sales price.
Diesel trucks and SUVs in the US usually have up to 50% higher resale after 5-10 years than gasoline counterparts depending on make, model, equivalent mileage and condition (not an exaggeration).
For example, I'd gladly own a Dodge Cummins diesel for 10 years and pay $7000 more for it at purchase, knowing full well I'll make that back at sale time. That's a constant. Gas Dodge/Ford/Chevy trucks never have more favorable depreciation than their diesel cousins.
Total cost of ownership people. Total cost of ownership.
Not only resale. Take the Q7 as a good example. The Q7 TDI is about $10,000 less than the V8 model of the Q7. Yet it has almost 100 more foot lbs of torque to add to the drivability. The V6 is so anemic it is not even worth mentioning. I am surprised the Edmunds would leave themselves that wide open. Same goes for the VW models and the BMW X5 diesel.
For me it would not even be considered. I have bought my last new gas vehicle EVER. I knew better when I did it. Big mistake and a much bigger money loser when I unload it.
Leave themselves wide open, but unfortunately I think Edmunds will have perception on their side (if not truth) simply because it follows what people are used to hearing. Precedent is easier to believe, even when it becomes obsolete information.
Media still regularly pumping us full of US anti-diesel prejudice. Sadly, say it enough times openly and people will keep believing it.
I honestly believe the oil companies are behind the anti-diesel movement. They are trying to keep a good balance come out of the refineries. They are stuck with a lot of gas and do not want US to go the direction the EU has taken. One reason gas is cheaper much of the time. That and higher taxes on diesel.
I'm retired form one of the major oil companies. OIL COMPANIES ARE NOT ANTI-DIESEL. Most of the refineries in Texas, Oklahoma and New Mexico are making more diesel for the last two years. The tax on diesel is the same as gasoline in these states. There is no "anti-diesel movement",
Nice to hear the voice of reason and truth. Of course, the cospiracy theorists may well brand you as a "Big Oil Lackey" but you and I, at least, know the truth. (I'm also retired ex-big oil, albeit in UK). Their aim is to maximise profit from their crude with whatever mix the market place wants. Simple really.
Thank you sir. I am totally anti-conspiracy and it makes me feel good to hear an "insider" put a kibosh on those silly, paranoid theories.
Oil companies want to sell oil. If that oil is converted into diesel, or into jet fuel, or whatever other hundreds of bi-products made from it, they could care less.
There are MANY valid reasons (which I and others have posted before) that diesel passenger cars are not a big success in the USA, and "anti-diesel conspiracy" ain't one of them.
Yeah, you beat me to it. I mean, think about it... The oil companies are against a product that is cheaper and easier to make? Next people will be saying that Knudsen is against yogurt and is instead only favoring cheese. Um... yeah... :P
The real issue is CARB. California represents about 10% of the entire U.S. market by itself and as such the makers understandably don't want to have to design two vehicles for the U.S. market if they can possibly get away with it - or lose 10-20% of their sales in this market for a vehicle that can't be sold in California.
Maybe as an insider, you can tell us what would happen to the gasoline in the refining process if the percentage of diesel vehicles was much higher. Or are you saying they can make it all into diesel and not have excess gasoline to get rid of?
I'm not an expert, but essentially yes. Gasoline is generally a byproduct of refining, or was originally. It's a lot more time and labor intensive than diesel, which is essentially more similar to crude oil than gasoline(which is more similar to, say, kerosene).
They'd just switch production ratios and the price would remain about the same. Currently Europe is in love with diesels because their industry is subsidized to have lower diesel prices(plus taxes and other factors. Here in the U.S., there is no such program, so diesel is roughly the same price. But you do get more miles per gallon, so it's a net gain for the consumer, though not nearly the landslide that it is over in Europe.
Start with crude that comes out of an oil well (Many many grades of crude). Send crude to a refinery. Add pressure and heat. The higher the pressure and heat, the higher the grade of product. Diesel, jet fuel, home heating fuel, gasoline, alcohol. Basic chemistry. This is only a few of the things in the process.
Before the crude (oil) goes to a refinery it has to be treated Some will eat holes in your clothes and can will coat the inside of pipe and have to be scraped out. Some crude is almost like a dark cheap gasoline. I've seen people burned it in their old junk cars during WWII. Not so good on your car but when you ran out of gas stamps people would do a lot of things.
My view on the process goes back to JD Rockefeller and his dumping gas as a useless byproduct when refining heating oil/kerosene. He came up with a process to run gasoline in Henry's Ford engines instead of Alcohol. So what would happen if we in the USA were to take to diesel cars like they have in the EU? My guess is it would cause shortages of diesel and excess gasoline. I cannot imagine that being something the oil companies would be happy about. Not to mention the fact that they sell less as it gets in most cases near double the miles of a comparable vehicle running Regular unleaded gas. So why is it so far fetched that the oil lobby would use their influence to keep diesel use at current levels?
PS We had some sweet light crude in one Arctic field that the oil companies were using in their generators and trucks.
... I am generally anti conspiracy, and don't want to believe there are conspiracies concerning petrochemicals and the environment; however there are some rather strange happenings with EGR, SCR-urea, NOx regs, and Diesel. The motive: billions of dollars. Also there has been much waste caused by regs that have ignored greenhouse gas for forty years. Actually there are some obvious conspiracies in these areas. The question is are they intentional or not ? Is it possible to have an unintended conspiracy ? Well I met a highly placed oil man, and like many of his brethren, he was extremely focused on production, and his eyes wide shut perception, almost, appeared to me, as borderline criminal.
I find on the forum many people will tack the "CONSPIRACY" title to any idea they don't like or believe. I am just highly skeptical by nature. To me the oil companies being against our having diesel vehicle is just good business. Why sell me a gallon of diesel that gets 50 MPG when they can sell me two gallons of RUG that will carry me the same distance. I think greed drives them more than anything. And we KNOW they have more influence in Washington than anyone here.
Conspiracy or not, there certainly is a 'movement' afoot. And I think Big Oil will have to adapt to it the same as the consumer.
Battery companies, electric car companies, the mainstream media, CARB, the Fed... all 100% want the public to be convinced that the US greenhouse gas production from automobiles is a major contributing factor to global warming (blah blah blah. I'm not discrediting global warming, I'm saying cars ain't the problem!)... and their solution is to charge headlong into other forms of stored energy without exploring the obvious, immediate, and effective one (diesel).
The ones that have the money for now may be Big Oil, but everyone else wants it, so they'll reshuffle distribution in their favor (against all economic logic, and against consumer demand) via legislation.
Problem is... the consumer is not really getting a choice in the matter.
If I had to choose between Big Oil and Big Electric, I'll take Oil. At least when prices get too high, you can cut back on oil for your personal use, and eventually when shipping businesses start boycotting oil prices they 'reset' themselves (see 2008). But when was the last time you saw your bill for Big Electric go down significantly per kWh? That's an even greater monopoly, and the greater of 2 evils, IMO.
Big Oil reps on the forum are saying Big Oil believes in supply/demand. I'm all about capitalism. This whole gov't sponsorship of expensive battery technology reeks of the same stench as the ethanol debacle. Its about money for a mostly useless product.
Why would 'oil companies being against our having diesel vehicle[s]' be true here, but the exact same oil companies are selling plenty of diesel in Europe? And all those diesel trucks/semis in the US use large amounts of diesel. Are you saying the oil companies have the EPA and CARB in their pocket? Ain't no way!
Are you saying the oil companies have the EPA and CARB in their pocket? Ain't no way!
I am sure CARB is controlled by ECO NUTS in Sacramento and Hollywood. The EPA has never been favorable to diesel cars. They always under rate them to try and keep sales down. Which makes them undesirable to sell in the USA.
Do you really think the oil companies would be happy about 50% of the vehicles being sold running on diesel? That is a big cut in profit and it leaves them with a lot of gasoline to dispose of. My understanding is we are buying a lot of surplus gas from the UK at present.
If diesel car sales went to 10% tomoorow the change in fuel demand would be a gradual increase. I need to check, but my understanding is that the 'natural' yield of a barrel of oil is tilted more towards diesel than current demand, with the higher gasoline output achieved by hydrocracking and other treating. But it all comes down to supply and demand. If the mix trends to diesel, diesel demand goes up, refineries adjust some, and diesel price would go up, putting a cap on increased diesel car sales.
Frankly, those of us who prefer diesel cars would probably be better off if they did not become too popular here. We don't have a great selection but it is getting a little better.
The more popular they become, the higher they will be priced plus diesel fuel prices will also go up. The status quo is fine with me. One good small diesel from Japan would be nice just to give the European diesels some competition.
A midsized diesel PU and SUV from any automaker would be fine for me. I really don't want a sedan. I may end up with some sort of diesel wagon. Or maybe bite the bullet and get a big honkin diesel SUV. I am looking for higher mileage than the V6 diesels are getting.
Exactly. Nothing changes. They just swap production amounts a bit(there are still enough gas powered vehicles to last decades even if they drop gasoline production a bit.
The real issue is the EPA and CARB being butt heads. They make it just enough of a problem to sell diesel passenger vehicles in the U.S. that the makers don't bother. Also, you'll note that where they CAN easily sell them, say, big full size trucks, diesels account for a significant amount of their total sales.
The difference then is what's happening between a diesel F250 and a diesel Focus? Right. Paperwork and regulations. Because where it IS already easy, they do it already.
I have gone and sat in the Tiguan and like it. I asked the VW dealer about getting one with the 2.0L TDI. He did not think so. They are sold in the UK, of course. They get 48 MPG (40 MPG US) combined and 47 MPG US on the highway. What's not to like about that? The Tiguans have been good sellers here and the owners like them from all the reviews. Only 21 MPG with that 2.0L gas engine. That is not enough better than my Sequoia to justify the loss of room and comfort.
This probably has been discussed, but how easy it is to find gas stations that carries diesel? i live in NY area and am thinking about buying a diesel SUV because of the state credit, but does not see too many stations carry diesel so a little worried. appreciate any advice.
... Fred, I doubt you will have much, if any trouble at all; especially with the range of these vehicles. Heck you can probably drive to New Jersey with two gallons from Albany.
Looking at what the average VW Jetta TDI drivers get I would say you will get at least 40% better mileage than with the 2.5L gas engine. And at much higher cruising speeds. Not sure of the gearing on the new Sportswagen. My 05 Passat TDI Wagon, would cruise at 70 MPH at 2000 RPM. Up hill at 70 MPH is where you really appreciate the torque of the diesel.
I would be tickled with the 2.5L 4 banger diesel. 188 HP and 332 ft lbs of torque is perfect in a mid sized PU. I'm rooting for Nissan to be first to the US. With Toyota and their flaky DBW systems, I don't think they would be on my short list even with a diesel engine.
Bringing drive train thru port is not a problem. Complete vehicle would be. No problem with registration as I already own the recipient truck. Only issue I'm working on is researching the compatibility of wiring harness and OBD for the Navarra to Frontier.
Many people in CA are adapting diesel engines to existing gas vehicles. Seems to be a snap getting them registered with the new diesel engine. No smog test on older diesel conversions.
You mention people are converting these vehicles, are they doing it themselves or are there companies out there doing the conversions? I sure would like to see 2010 Ranger's get converted with Ford's 2.5L Duratorq diesel by someone. I wonder what the cost would be to change the engine, ecu, wiring harness etc. Since a lot of mfg's are getting rid of compact/midsize pickups out of their line-ups you would think there would be a market for the conversions.
Comments
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/green-motoring/7166444/Is-diesel-dead.html
"Britain's North Sea oil is also ill suited for diesel production." "Most of Europe's refining capacity is getting long in the tooth and was set up largely to create petrol. It's now finding that it is squeezing more diesel out of equipment ill suited to the task..."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ml54UuAoLSo
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
I have one on my Jeep Liberty CRD and they are also on the Cummins in Dodge trucks and on the Duramax found in G.M. products as well as many EU diesels.
link title
Any time someone mentions purchase and 'making up costs', they should also consider how much of that value is retained.
You don't lose $50,000 when you purchase a $50,000 car (excluding taxes and interest). You lose $50,000-sales price.
Diesel trucks and SUVs in the US usually have up to 50% higher resale after 5-10 years than gasoline counterparts depending on make, model, equivalent mileage and condition (not an exaggeration).
For example, I'd gladly own a Dodge Cummins diesel for 10 years and pay $7000 more for it at purchase, knowing full well I'll make that back at sale time. That's a constant. Gas Dodge/Ford/Chevy trucks never have more favorable depreciation than their diesel cousins.
Total cost of ownership people. Total cost of ownership.
Fail article is fail.
For me it would not even be considered. I have bought my last new gas vehicle EVER. I knew better when I did it. Big mistake and a much bigger money loser when I unload it.
Media still regularly pumping us full of US anti-diesel prejudice. Sadly, say it enough times openly and people will keep believing it.
Nice to hear the voice of reason and truth. Of course, the cospiracy theorists may well brand you as a "Big Oil Lackey" but you and I, at least, know the truth. (I'm also retired ex-big oil, albeit in UK). Their aim is to maximise profit from their crude with whatever mix the market place wants. Simple really.
Oil companies want to sell oil. If that oil is converted into diesel, or into jet fuel, or whatever other hundreds of bi-products made from it, they could care less.
There are MANY valid reasons (which I and others have posted before) that diesel passenger cars are not a big success in the USA, and "anti-diesel conspiracy" ain't one of them.
Nice to hear the voice of reason and truth.
Yeah, you beat me to it. I mean, think about it... The oil companies are against a product that is cheaper and easier to make? Next people will be saying that Knudsen is against yogurt and is instead only favoring cheese. Um... yeah... :P
The real issue is CARB. California represents about 10% of the entire U.S. market by itself and as such the makers understandably don't want to have to design two vehicles for the U.S. market if they can possibly get away with it - or lose 10-20% of their sales in this market for a vehicle that can't be sold in California.
They'd just switch production ratios and the price would remain about the same. Currently Europe is in love with diesels because their industry is subsidized to have lower diesel prices(plus taxes and other factors. Here in the U.S., there is no such program, so diesel is roughly the same price. But you do get more miles per gallon, so it's a net gain for the consumer, though not nearly the landslide that it is over in Europe.
Send crude to a refinery. Add pressure and heat. The higher the pressure and heat, the higher the grade of product. Diesel, jet fuel, home heating fuel, gasoline, alcohol. Basic chemistry. This is only a few of the things in the process.
Before the crude (oil) goes to a refinery it has to be treated Some will eat holes in your clothes and can will coat the inside of pipe and have to be scraped out. Some crude is almost like a dark cheap gasoline. I've seen people burned it in their old junk cars during WWII. Not so good on your car but when you ran out of gas stamps people would do a lot of things.
PS
We had some sweet light crude in one Arctic field that the oil companies were using in their generators and trucks.
Conspiracy or not, there certainly is a 'movement' afoot. And I think Big Oil will have to adapt to it the same as the consumer.
Battery companies, electric car companies, the mainstream media, CARB, the Fed... all 100% want the public to be convinced that the US greenhouse gas production from automobiles is a major contributing factor to global warming (blah blah blah. I'm not discrediting global warming, I'm saying cars ain't the problem!)...
and their solution is to charge headlong into other forms of stored energy without exploring the obvious, immediate, and effective one (diesel).
The ones that have the money for now may be Big Oil, but everyone else wants it, so they'll reshuffle distribution in their favor (against all economic logic, and against consumer demand) via legislation.
Problem is... the consumer is not really getting a choice in the matter.
If I had to choose between Big Oil and Big Electric, I'll take Oil. At least when prices get too high, you can cut back on oil for your personal use, and eventually when shipping businesses start boycotting oil prices they 'reset' themselves (see 2008). But when was the last time you saw your bill for Big Electric go down significantly per kWh? That's an even greater monopoly, and the greater of 2 evils, IMO.
Big Oil reps on the forum are saying Big Oil believes in supply/demand. I'm all about capitalism. This whole gov't sponsorship of expensive battery technology reeks of the same stench as the ethanol debacle. Its about money for a mostly useless product.
Just my $0.02.
I am sure CARB is controlled by ECO NUTS in Sacramento and Hollywood. The EPA has never been favorable to diesel cars. They always under rate them to try and keep sales down. Which makes them undesirable to sell in the USA.
Do you really think the oil companies would be happy about 50% of the vehicles being sold running on diesel? That is a big cut in profit and it leaves them with a lot of gasoline to dispose of. My understanding is we are buying a lot of surplus gas from the UK at present.
The more popular they become, the higher they will be priced plus diesel fuel prices will also go up. The status quo is fine with me. One good small diesel from Japan would be nice just to give the European diesels some competition.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
The real issue is the EPA and CARB being butt heads. They make it just enough of a problem to sell diesel passenger vehicles in the U.S. that the makers don't bother. Also, you'll note that where they CAN easily sell them, say, big full size trucks, diesels account for a significant amount of their total sales.
The difference then is what's happening between a diesel F250 and a diesel Focus? Right. Paperwork and regulations. Because where it IS already easy, they do it already.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
Ouch! Consider that a turbo gasoline engine is down around "350°C on the bowl".
http://www.autofieldguide.com/articles/011002.html
kcram - Pickups/Wagons Host
405 lb ft torque and for you non-diesel HP people 235 HP.
Meets stringent European emissions.
25 NX 450h+ / 24 Sienna Plat AWD / 23 Civic Type-R / 21 Boxster GTS 4.0
25 NX 450h+ / 24 Sienna Plat AWD / 23 Civic Type-R / 21 Boxster GTS 4.0
No problem with registration as I already own the recipient truck. Only issue I'm working on is researching the compatibility of wiring harness and OBD for the Navarra to Frontier.