Did you recently take on (or consider) a loan of 84 months or longer on a car purchase?
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/25 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/25 for details.
Options
Comments
The ONLY thing that would "swing" American drivers over to diesel is one or a combination of these factors:
1. Diesel becomes "considerably cheaper" ( i.e. about 20 cents cheaper) than gasoline, and stays that way PERMANENTLY. No reversals, no fluctuations.
2. All the major brands (GM, Ford, Toyota, Honda) offer three or more diesel sedans, each making sure they include a high-mileage small car (a la VW Polo) and a capable 5-passenger touring sedan (a la Passat.)
3. The existing gas stations would have to include more than 1 or 2 diesel pumps for cars at their locations. No one is going to like having a diesel car if they are on a trip and have to wait for 3 or 4 cars to fill up before they can get their car filled up.
4. Diesel advocates are going to have to spend a LOT of advertising money convincing the uneducated public about the advantages of diesel cars, both financially and in regard to torque and in regard to the fact that the new ones ARE NOT SMELLY/STINKY. People still associate diesel cars with nasty exhaust smells. That has to change.
With the "perfect storm" of a combination of those 4 accomplishments, diesel could make inroads in the USA.
If not, then it will take a LOT longer before they take hold here.
What dismal press is that?
In no article or test drive I have seen has the car gotten less than 70 mpg overall, including the EV portion.
Sure, there are the tests with the "27 mpg" and "31.7 and 36 mpg" figures, but those figures were accomplished by driving after the initial battery charge is finished.
Lest we not forget the purpose of this car:
It's not "designed or intended to be used" for cross-country trips. There is a diesel car for that ( and by that I mean just one, the Jetta.)
It's designed as an electric commuter car to be used by those people who drive 40 miles or less on their daily commute.
The gas "extended range" benefit is just to prevent those commuters from being stranded once their initial electric charge is gone.
I'd say people are not falling off the Volt bandwagon in droves JUST yet.
P.S. Maybe GM should have used a DIESEL generator in the Volt. Hee Hee. :shades: :shades:
1. Diesel becomes "considerably cheaper" ( i.e. about 20 cents cheaper) than gasoline, and stays that way PERMANENTLY. No reversals, no fluctuations.
Not sure I agree with that. Yes, of course, it would be very nice but the better economy of diesels should negate a slight fuel price disadvantage. It certainly does here in Europe.
Your other points are spot-on, in my opinion. Until such time as the manufacturers offer viable diesel vehicles then it will be a struggle. Silly thing is - all the makers have good diesel ranges in Europe and elsewhere, (why, they're even left-hand drive in continental Europe). We don't have a diesel Bentley or Rolls, yet, nor any oil-burning supercars but those are all minority markets and not economy-driven. However, Audi and now Peugeot diesels keep on showing the gasser guys how to win long distance races, (Le Mans 24hr, for example), so who knows what the future might bring.
One of the very best of the diesels is the Jaguar XF with it's 3.0 TDi. A real gem in every respect. Hopefully you guys will see the good diesels sooner rather than later.
Speaking of "diesel payoff"
Scene: A clutch of motoring press gathered before an intoning car-company guy. Guy singing the praises of its model electric. Ah, so. All car songs these days seem to be in the key of E. Electric smelectric. I grow weary. But the ears of carmakers are turned to consultants and focus groups who persistently whisper therein that American car buyers want to be plugged in.
I have a favorite song, too, so I ask Guy what is his company's excuse for not at least offering a diesel engine. So a continuing large number of American car buyers still believe that diesels are noisy, dirty and trucklike--doesn't it matter that they are wrong? Won't anyone disabuse these misinformed masses of their faulty impressions? How much trouble is it to tell someone who declares he would never buy a diesel because it sounds like a spoon down the disposal and it streams out smelly smoke that he is a stupid clod years behind the facts and wrong, wrong, wrong? Or words to that effect.
And furthermore, that diesel cars are still more fuel-efficient than electric cars and arguably more fun to drive.
No, these focus-group folks simply collect any misinformed mutterings as if they were gems and glitter them on to their clients. Their professional conclusion: Americans won't buy diesels. Thus, more electrics are announced and more diesels are canceled.
“Well,” Guy answers me in a scripted tone, “our research shows that with the additional cost of a diesel engine and the uncertainty in diesel fuel prices, it would take seven years to achieve payback.” Ergo: Americans won't buy diesels.
Sigh. Yes, true diesels are costly. The strict emissions requirements, despite the continuing improvements in diesels, see to that. And tax benefits and diamond-lane privileges favor electrics. But what about this “payback” stuff?
Later, one-on-one with the Guy, I say, “You're wrong about seven years to payback.” His antennae bristle. “With a diesel, payback is immediate--it's called torque and range.” (To his credit, Guy acknowledges that I have a point.)
All any driver needs to do to appreciate the torque part of instant payback is drive a diesel-powered car around the block. One of my first memories of riding in a car was of my daddy admiring its “pickup.” He would have loved a diesel. Quick off the line, quick up the freeway ramp, quick past the heavy truck on the two-lane. Pickup is payback. Right now.
And oh, would Daddy have admired that other instant payback: range. I've never known anyone who actually likes stopping for fuel, but Daddy was a champion avoider. As a child, I thought everyone routinely ran out of gasoline, because we did. Daddy strove to wean every car he drove. How he would have delighted in a diesel, which with a full tank gets you almost anywhere and back.
And furthermore, about that “payback” business, does anyone ever talk about the payback time on, say, leather seats? Leather is an option that costs something like a diesel engine. And what about high-end sound systems? Those concert-hall sounds add beaucoup dollars to bottom lines. What about payback time on music? Or on a sunroof? No one asks, because payback is immediate and ongoing. When you slide into luxurious smooth leather, when rich sound fills your soul as well as the car, when leaf-patterned sunshine spills into your lap through a hole in the roof, you experience real-time payback. Like when your right foot prompts a diesel engine to swell quickly into action and then roll on all day without ever whining to be fed.
Not to mention the good a diesel engine does for your resale value. Payback, indeed.
Most American car shoppers, when they are looking at buying a car, and who will see diesel at 25 cents more per gallon than gasoline (those are the numbers today in the USA: $2.82 versus $3.07) will be dissuaded right there.
"And the diesel is $1000 to $1500 MORE on the sticker price TOO? WTH?"
Americans are short-sighted enough to NEED to be able to say, "Well, diesel fuel is cheaper, so I want a diesel car" for it to really make an impression.
Right now you have the "perfect storm" of a diesel-killing scenario:
1. Diesel fuel costs a lot more.
2. Diesel CARS cost more.
3. Supply is limited.
4. Your choices for an "affordable" diesel car in the USA are: VW Jetta TDI, or the VW Jetta TDI,, or, perhaps this VW Jetta TDI will interest you?
Diesel prices will have to drop to get the attention of the American car buyer, other than the 2%-4% who buy diesel cars now.
I should live so long. So long as CARB and their sycophants define what a "proper" diesel is, we're screwed.
The good news is that I've a business trip scheduled for early November, after which I'll take a diesel rental and flog it through the Alps on a few personal days. Not quite a decade ago I did something similar and became enamored of the European turbodiesel car.
Ignorance is bliss, or perhaps not so much, given what the U.S. seems to think of diesel cars. Oh, wait, don't the diesel VWs sell like hotcakes? And, how about the Audi version?
Unless you are towing, I would argue that such a selling point does not and never will exist. Diesels need electric auxiliary heaters in severe cold, which is a drawback for some of the US and all of Canada.
BTW, there's also a Golf and A3 TDI but the sales figures are miniscule next to the Jetta, so I hear ya.
Sure, the 84 miles on 2.36 gallons technically “IS” getting only 36 miles per gallon.
But that’s only PART of the picture. Not the WHOLE picture.
There is the FACT that they indeed drove 299 miles and only used 2.36 gallons of gas. That’s a FACT.
Now, the REST of that fact is that they used and paid for electricity to drive the other portion of the test.
But it’s not a lie to say they got 127 Mile Per GALLON of gas used. Because that’s what the math says. And math can’t lie.
In my world, if I drive 299 miles and only burn 2.36 gallons of gas while doing it, then I got 127 miles per gallon of gas burned. If I do that 10 times in a row, it's STILL only gonna be 23.60 gallons of gas burned.
If you want to “calculate in” the cost of the electricity, and convert that to an equal cost of gasoline, then I think that still leaves the total “adjusted MPG” at somewhere around 70 miles per gallon.
That’s better than anything you can buy in the USA right now.
Gimme a $41,000 diesel sedan that gets 70 MPG and I'll buy it today, right now.
I do not think diesel costs all that much more. I live in metro D.C. RUG is $2.89 while diesel is $2.99 or about 3.5% more than RUG where I generally fill. Most disparity in fuel prices (RUG versus #2) that I see are less than 10%.
My wife and I are planning a road trip to Florida in November and the price disparity is still less than 10% more than RUG in most cases. Considering my Jeep Liberty CRD gets 30 MPG I am not complaining. That is better than many cars with smaller engines than I have.
Diesel is not going to ALWAYS stay 10 cents diff in your area. It will fluctuate like everywhere else does.
Some places diesel is 30 cents diff, some only 10. But the USA average is 25 cents right now.
Have you heard the odd story about Renault developing a Hydraulic Electronic Unit Valve (HEUV) system, as a full authority digital (electro-hydraulic) induction/exhaust valve mechanism, for their next generation Formula 1 race engines? You might find the subject at the following URL interesting and helpful. I found this on the Internet recently; it refers to current development work that it claims Renault is doing in Formula 1 race engines; its the only thing I've been able to find about it so far.
http://scarbsf1.com/valves.html
Interestingly, in my correspondence with Renault’s race engine development engineers, they have neither denied nor confirmed this work is being progressed.
I've been promoting HEUV and HUV systems for over 20 years; nobody ever wants to be the first, however, if Renault goes ahead with this in 2013, when the current riduiculous restriction on engien development expires, it can be expected to be seen as the first engine compliant with the intensive digital engine format. The implications of this are profound.
In direct comparison with a contemporary overhead camshaft engine each of the two configurations I would propose has the following advantages:
The HEUV advantage –
·Infinitely variable valve timing,
·Digital reprograming of race engine characteristics,
·Reduced moment of inertia of valve operating mechanism and more responsive engine
·Improved valve cooling,
·Combustion chamber and port configuration independent of valve actuation,
·Reduced parasitic loads of valve drive mechanism
·Simpler and lighter engine
·Reduced cost of manufacturing
·Ease of disassembly/re-assembly
The HUV advantage –
·Reduced moment of inertia of valve operating mechanism and more responsive engine
·Improved valve cooling
·Optimal combustion chamber and port configuration independent of valve actuation
·Reduced parasitic loads of valve drive mechanism
·Lighter engine
·Reduced cost of manufacturing
If you folks find this iteresting, I'll chace up some other items on the net you might find equally worth a thought or two. You see, I'm the bloke who actually wrote the first patents covering HEUI/HADI & ACR and a related HEUV/HUV mechanism; all of these were specifically components of a new form of reciprocaitng internal combustion engine, generally referred to as the Advanced Hydraulic Engine. Don't worry, it does exist, and guess what. In diesel form, it has a Specific Power (kW/kg) better than a gas turbine and it's gear set, probably should mention, it is also three times more fuel efficent than any existing diesel engine. This could have been in the market 20 years ago, but nobody wanted to know about it; well, nobody except the Russian military, that is.
Let me know if you want to chat about this in this diesel forum.
Regards to all.
Just thought I'd point out, the above post, represents not 36 miles to the gallon, but something more than 108 miles per gallon, in the same application, with no loss in performance; how much more economical, depends entirely on how you want to drive it. For instance, in one military application the Russian military confirmed the vehicle was more fuel efficent running over broken ground than running over a smooth surface. This was one of the claims made for the type prior to the Russian military's evaluation of this powering system. You see, in an automoitve application, the suspension is part of the powering system, and unlike every other vehicle, every bump, little or small, improves the vehicle's over all efficeincy.
I am aware that the price of diesel varies from place to place as well as station to station.
When I travel any great distance, I look at the price of RUG and the price of #2. I also look at the fuel economy and driving range of both vehicles I own and it usually turns out that it is cheaper to drive of the diesel in spite of the higher fuel cost. On average, I am finding diesel about 15% more expensive than RUG but driving 550 miles on 18 gallons of #2 in a Jeep Liberty CRD more than makes up for that 15%.
But my point was that to convince "Joe uneducated about diesel Public" and appeal to the MASSES and thus MILLIONS of buyers, you are going to need a solid case of diesel always being less expensive.
To help change the "I don't want a diesel car" culture in America.
The same argument could be used to convince people to cram into an econobox when gas is not all that expensive. Right now people are used to $3 gas and have chucked the hybrids and are back buying PU trucks and SUVs.
To me the advantage of diesel is the driving experience of gobs or torque and driving range which is always better than the gas counterpart.
When you say 3 times more efficient does that mean that rather than 30 mpg this engine would get 90 mpg?
Thanks for your reply and welcome aboard !
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
Face the facts Gary - that sentiment only applies to the 3-5% of the USA buyers trying to buy a TDI Jetta.
Most people could care less about torque. Ask 25 people walking on the beach in San Diego how they feel about "torque" and I bet you get 3 people (maybe) who think it's an important factor when buying a new car.
And isn't the term" econobox" kind of outdated?
Does anyone even sell those anymore ?
Econobox is a US slang term for any of a series of small, boxy, fuel-efficient car with few luxuries and a low sticker price.
The Environmental Protection Agency’s newly published list of fuel economy greatest hits, 1984 to 2010, divides the top 10 fuel-sippers into two broad categories. The first group includes small stripped-down econoboxes from the mid-1980s to the mid-1990s. Cars like the Chevrolet Sprint (1985 – 1987), Geo Metro (1989 – 1994), and Honda CRX (1985 – 1989) boasted combined city/highway fuel efficiency ratings in the high 40s.
The second group is hybrids from the past decade, the Honda Insight, Toyota Prius and Honda Civic Hybrid. These high-tech hybrids are rated from the high 40s to the low 50s. (The EPA’s list allows you to mouse over a “similar models that qualify” link to see that all the generations of these three hybrid vehicles, from 2000 to 2010, qualify as fuel efficiency greatest hits.)
It’s easy to look nostalgically at the Sprint, Metro, CRX and Suzuki Swift, and view that generation as some sort of heyday of fuel efficiency. But using a rose-colored rear view mirror has a blind spot: Those cars lacked most of the comfort, convenience and safety features—from power steering to automatic transmissions—that today’s car buyers see as absolutely essential.
Cheap & Small vs. High-Tech
“You used to get fuel economy by cheap and small. And now, you get it through technology,” said John DeCicco, faculty fellow at the University of Michigan Energy Institute, in an interview with HybridCars.com. “For example, you used to get a car without a radio. Now an entry-level car has a great sound system and you can plug in your MP3. What kind of system did a Chevy Sprint give you?” DeCicco said. He believes the vast expansion of features represents a shift in priorities in society.
Green car fans might see the trading of fuel economy for more features and more comfort as a sad shift in natural priorities (although a few weeks behind the wheel of an econobox might change attitudes). Regardless, there’s no turning back. The era of the econobox is gone and won’t be coming back. The good news is that the era of hybrids is here, and the technology will make an inexorable move into broader range of mainstream vehicles.
“The success of hybrids is that our priorities have changed,” DeCicco said. People are buying hybrids even though they carry a premium, because they offer great fuel economy without sacrificing all the driver features that econoboxes lacked. “They are a ton more safe, quieter, and a lot cleaner on the tailpipe,” DeCicco said.
So, we don't even have Econoboxes like the ones sold in the 1980s and 1990s any more. Maybe a stripped down Cobalt qualifies? When the Toyota Echo went away, Toyota stopped selling them.
What qualifies as an econobox now? Certainly no hybrids I know about.
Maybe you oughta update your terminology Gary..
.
:shades:
:shades:
:shades:
The Prius fits that description. I think that is what Gary was referring to !!
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
Not small - considered Midsize.
Many luxuries - solar panel roof, you ask? Why, yes we have that !!
Low price - Um, no.
P.S. Why is "diesel/Hybrid" always an "either/or" situation? If ebony and ivory can live together in perfect harmony, side by side on my piano, keyboard, why can't they? :shades:
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
Does anyone even sell those anymore ?
I think that term fits the new Honda Accord I am driving in Indiana to a "T"
It is a cheap, uncomfortable, noisy POC. It is the perfect reason for owning a good sized SUV or PU truck if you can afford to.
The Honda Accord is an ECONO-BOX with curves.
And the Jetta TDI is not the only choice for a US sold diesel. The BMW 335D and the wonderful X5 diesel. Along with several diesels sold by Mercedes and Audi. At least a dozen now not including the very popular diesel PU trucks by the majors.
And I mention the Jetta TDI because it's the only AFFORDABLE diesel sedan for sale in the USA.
Affordable for whom? The 335D BMW should be well within the price range of the Prius owner that makes an average $85,000 per year. And the 2010 GREEN car of the year the Audi A3 TDI is under $30k priced right with the Prius. Without the stigma of being snooty.
Dear Wang Shichun,
Reference: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=hydraulic-hybrid-vehicle
“High-Pressure Hybrids: Fuel-Efficient Hydraulic Vehicles Come of Age”.
I found this article quite interesting, as it independently supports part of the technology path being proposed for manufacture by China’s industry.
The US EPA never took advantage of an explanation of the AHE powering system, and never understood this mechanism, the basis for it’s mechanical advantage or it’s potential for significant improvement in fuel economy. However, the advantages of the High-Pressure Hydraulic Hybrid component of the AHE powering system is easily understood, without explanation and as a result, they have obviously progressed this aspect, independent of any involvement of myself. I would point out however, the system the US EPA promotes is vastly inferior to what I am proposing be manufactured in China and in this regard, I would refer you to the simple Table towards the end of this document.
Irrespective of whether the AHE power plant, is manufactured in a contemporary form with cam controlled induction/exhaust valve systems or is in the most advanced form and fully complies with the intensive digital engine format, the AHE powering system will result in a threefold improvement over the improvements already identified in the referenced article: “High-Pressure Hybrids: Fuel-Efficient Hydraulic Vehicles Come of Age”.
Using the referenced article to demonstrate the point, the 315% direct improvement in mechanical efficiency of the AHE Power plant in combination with the integrated hydraulic powering system, will provide an improvement in fuel economy of any application of better than 300%. In certain applications, as clearly supported by the article regards the US EPA promoted High -Pressure Hydraulic Hybrid format, this improvement in fuel economy, will be as much as 600% better than that of a equivalent contemporary vehicle doing the same work and using the same fuel; typically, in the circumstance demonstrated by the US EPA’s own work, a diesel fuelled application.
The effect of replacement of the contemporary diesel engine and hydraulic pump, with an AHE power plant, will not simply compound the advantage of the EPA’s original format, providing a threefold improvement in the fuel efficiency of the EPA's vehicle and a sixfold improvement over the contemporary baseline vehicle. But due to the significant reduction in componentry, the reduced in vehicle mass will further improve fuel economy and similarly, a reduction in manufactured cost and through life maintenance costs as well.
The 300% general improvement in fuel economy of the AHE type, is a conservative statement and is specific to an identified 315% improvement in Mechanical Efficiency of the type, in a direct comparison with a contemporary cranked reciprocating internal combustion engine of equivalent swept volume, compression ratio and fuel type; and is the direct result of the mechanism used to convert combustion space energy into useful work. With the above in mind and given specific mention is made in the referenced article of a 50% fuel saving of the US EPA High-Pressure Hydraulic Hybrid, in direct comparison with a baseline contemporary drive line. What I’m proposing is the following situation, in which all vehicles have an equivalent Kilowatt capability:
Standard Basic Driveline Vehicle 188 gm/kW.hr x 100% Efficiency = 188 gm/kW.hr
EPA Hydraulic Hybrid Equivalent 188 gm/kW.hr x 200% Efficiency = 94 gm/kW.hr
AHE Hydraulic Format 94 gm/kW.hr x 300% Efficiency = 31 gm/kW.hr
Mil & Aero Blog
http://www.pennwellblogs.com/mae/2009/09/russian-t-95-main-battle-tank-could.htm- l
This is about a <50 tonne Main Battle Tank that is the first identifiable instance of a higher Specific Power diesel engine (1,500hp) replacing the usual gas turbine (1,240hp) in the space limited environment of the engine bay of these small Russian Main Battle Tanks. Before it was censored the engine was described in a Russain web page as an X-form hydraulic machine. The Russian military funded an third party evaluation of this concept in 1996. The outcome of the evaluation was positive, in under a year they had the first of the series of prototypes (T-80U M1 BARS Tank) with the hydraulic driveline and pre-announced the ability to replace the 1,240hp gas turbine wit a 1,400hp heavy duty (diesel) engine; a few months later they publicly demonstrated the second of the series of prototypes (T-80 UM2) at the Russian Arms Expo Omsk 1997; subsequently, they demostrated the Niznhy Tagil Project 775 Prototype to Marshal of the Armies, Igor Sergeyev, Russia's Defence Minister, who immediately accepted it for production and gave it the designation T-95. The T-95 incorporates all of the components and systems I originally proposed in the supporting documentation provided to the Russian military as part of their initial evaluation - X-Form AHE power plant, hydraulic driveline, Regenerative braking and active hydraulic suspension. As a result, the T-95 is cheaper, simpler and uses less than 1/3rd the fuel of any other Russian MBT in the same 50 tonne class. This means it has better than three times the unrefuelled range.
Now if the Russian Army, as short on funds as it was in 1996/97, could produce not one, but two functional prototypes in the form of a Main Battle Tank, just how cost effective would it have been for America to have introduced high performance diesel automobiles, of all types, in the same year?
Now most people have heard of the "Butterfly effect"; so here's a good example of the modern day equivalent.
Think of it this way, the global introduction of the AHE power plant type would have reduced global demand for crude by something like 24%, this would have initiated a collapse in the price of crude due to the massive downturn in demand. Eliminating the funding source of much of the world's terrorist organisations, reducing America's expenditure in defending and acquiring foriegn sourced energy stocks, etc. etc. There may never have been a need for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It's not a joke, without funding, terrorsists, whether government or organisations, are ham-strung without funding. If the countries that support and fund terrorist organisations are busy trying to feed their people, there is no money left over to support terrosism.
Incidentally, a better than three fold improvement in diesel fuel economy, means an equivlanet improvement in the percentage of the supply provided by bio-diesel, without any actual increase in bio-diesel production.
If you people want this type of improvement, you have to work for it. Don't leave it to industry to initiate such progress, they don't need to, and don't want to know about it. If you want diesel vehicles with better performance than petrol equivalents of today and three times the economy, then you, the American people must demand it. In my case, I haevn't made a cent out of any of this, and it is far easier to promote such an environmentally friendly technology elsewher; if tehy can see a substantial advantage other than the environmental component, they'll take it up. In 20 years, I've never been able to get a US government body to evlauate this work. Like I said, industry doesn't want to know about it; they're manufacturers and very short sighted. You try telling Mack Trucks it doesn't need a clutch, gearbox, tail-shaft, differentials, half axles or brakes in the vehicles they produce and see what happens.
Any Questions?
They also have potent 1.6L, 1.8L four banger diesels that are quite gutsy as well as very frugal.
The cost of emissions certifying a new engine in this country is ridiculously expensive. Also, most of the public does not realize that BMW makes four bangers that are as smooth as their six cylinders.
In Europe, they offer the i series BMW with the four cylinder diesel.
Which were heavily influenced by CARB.
Previous to 2007, I believe it was merely a lack of consumer demand that resulted in next to zero diesel cars for the US and Canada.
I just searched BMW 335d in Phoenix area- lowest cost was $48K, most were $52K-$54K.
Not affordable.
For the Audi A3 TDI, the LOWEST prices were around $35K. But that was higher than all 434 Prius cars I found in the Phoenix are, where the HIGHEST Prius price was $34K.
So I'd have to now include the A3 TDI in the list of "Affordable" diesel sedans. So that's two.
.
.
:shades:
Apparently it is....around $27K for a fairly loaded one.
Another affordable option. Good !!
What has stifled diesel sales in the U.S. are as follows:
1. As Larsb has correctly put it in so many words, "the mindset of the U.S. public toward diesels".
2. The exorbitant cost to have a new engine, especially foreign, to be EPA certified.
3. The excessively higher tax on diesel fuel in the U.S.
4. The exportation of U.S. diesel fuel to Europe, thus contributing to the higher cost of diesel fuel in the U.S.
5. The lack of advertising put into selling diesels.
6. The perception that diesels cost more to own and to operate.
To completely place the blame on U.S. emission laws is just not looking at the whole picture.
You can get the 5dr hatch Golf TDI in the UK for about $7800 less than the Prius. And get far better mileage on the Golf TDI. As long as US taxes for vehicles and fuel are less the incentive to go diesel is hidden in the driving.
Something significant happened in 2007 that made diesel cars completely disappear for 2 years. And I contend that something is a continuing barrier to entry, as well as indirectly causing high pressure fuel pump issues.
I say indirectly because no one has yet conclusively determined if it is a low-quality fuel issue, caused by refining, distribution or storage, or if it is merely a technical flaw with the fuel pumps. However considering the issue can occur with many brands and models, cars and heavy duty trucks, it doesn't seem likely to me that everyone has designed faulty pumps.
I drive a Jeep Liberty with a European diesel. When I have a cetane approaching 51 or 52, the engine runs smoothly, quietly and gives great power as well as wonderful fuel economy. If I run on straight diesel (without cetane improvers), the engine is not as smooth or as quiet and it is less responsive. Fuel economy also suffers a little too.
The pumps on the engines are fine and are the same ones used in Europe. The main issue is the quality of the fuel used here in the U.S.
What happened in 2007 was that the emission rules for diesel got tighter and no one was ready for them in spite of knowing about the tightening for some years. That is what happened.
As for adopting European emission standards here in the U.S., such common sense would be turned down in a heartbeat. If it was not thought of or created here, then it is no good. Such is our advanced thinking in the U.S.
While true, it's not exclusive to the US. "Not invented here" is common most everywhere, Europe especially. Part of Asian automakers' success seems to be their ability to get past the pride and use good ideas, regardless of source.
Product Cost : 2.41
Delivery + Retail Margin : 0.30
Duty, (Tax) : 3.39
VAT @ 17.5% : 1.07
Total at the Pump : 7.17
Regular Unleaded Gasoline is in the region of $7.01 around here.
You will notice that VAT, (Value Added Tax), is levied on everything; including the Duty element so it's a tax on a tax. Cute. Oh, and from Jan 1 it is due to rise to 20%. As you can see, no-one's getting rich on retail fuel sales.
Getting the most mpg you can is a must for most of us. But at least we now have a government who are prepared to kick some sense into the public sector.
With reference to CARB and the EPA it looks, from over here, like protectionism masquerading as environmentalism. Could be wrong, of course.
But you can get cars that routinely drive 500 or 600 miles on a tank of fuel while most U.S. vehicles get closer to 300. That means in effect, your actual cost per mile driven is only about 50% higher in the end, since you typically fill up every other week versus every week. We also have longer drives to work as a rule and no public transportation in most of the U.S. worth contemplating if you need to get someplace quickly and on time.
So we have smaller gallons, use far more of them, and drive nearly twice as far to get anything done compared to Europe. In the end, it's actually pretty close to a wash except for people living in places like Downtown Chicago, New York, and Los Angeles, (and so on) where public transportation exists as an alternative.
But still I'd love a 40-50mpg diesel Civic or similar. Sigh.
According to RenTech, RenDiesel would reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 97 percent when compared to conventional clean diesel fuel as well boast greater emission reductions over electric vehicles.
I have debated that with reference to the oil companies not wanting a larger percentage of diesel sold in the USA. Most consider that some sort of conspiracy theory. We also protect our auto makers with unreasonable tariffs on small efficient PU trucks. I have never felt the EPA/CARB regulations were purely environmental.
“The car is very fun to drive, it’s quick for blasting between the lights..."
That single action annoys the heck out of me. :mad:
"Blasting between the lights" is wasteful and dumb. Most times, when I'm at a series of traffic lights, one or more cars in a lane around me will "BLAST" ahead to the next light. I take off at normal speed and drive the speed limit or slightly above to get to the next light(s). In almost EVERY case, whom do I see sitting beside me at the next red light? That's right - Mr./Mrs. BlastOff.
People need to quit that out. It's wasteful, and does not save you any time.
It's the lawyers and politicians who are making a mess of everything. As they usually have throughout human history.