Diesels in the News

houdini1

I noticed this morning in the Kansas City area that reg. gas was priced at 2.01 and that diesel has crept up to 2.51, or 25% higher than reg.

I have posted before that the oil companies will attempt to keep the savings from the use of diesel in their pockets and not in the consumers pockets. Perhaps I am being cynical, but if diesel is cheaper to make, then why is it 25% higher? I don't want to hear about demand, cleaner diesel, distribution problems and the like. Reg gas has the same problems. Diesel should be about 25% cheaper than gas, period. It is not and the only reason is greedy oil companies. Diesel should be selling for about 1.75 per gal instead of 2.51.

coontie57

Fairly simple answer. Ted Kennedy and his same thinking buddies have kept oil refineries from being built now for some 30 years. Of course none in MAASSSAACHUUCHETTES. lol...

I am packing for a trip now... taking my Chev diesel out on the road for a while and see what the real mileage is down on flat land pullin a 11K load.

houdini1

I agree with you on the oil refineries but that still doesn't explain why diesel costs 25% more than reg.

jimlockey

The oil companies do not want diesels cars to catch on in the US like they have in Europe so they are keeping the price high to discourage the sell of diesel vehicles. Congress is not going to do anything about it because they are bought and paid for by the oil companies.

Can't you see what would happen if fuel prices was reduced by 30%?

gagrice

It could be games the oil companies are playing. It could also be from the Katrina switch over at a couple refineries. That and seasonally diesel is higher than gas. I do believe the oil companies would like to sell product by BTU content. It kind of makes sense. They could hold the price of gas down to where ethanol would only be an additive. I think the oil companies are still smarting from getting shot down with their MTBE fiasco.

scooterdiesel

There is alot of pining on here about diesels of the future. But I think the smallest version of the Dodge Sprinter can be a quite reasonable family vehicle. I would love to have one. They are kind of pricey starting at 30K. But it is amazing how they hold their value. The ones I've looked at on Ebay Motors hold their value quite well and attract many multiple bidders.

Any Dodge Sprinter drivers on here? I would love to hear your real world mileage figures - especially for the small version.

Also, does anyone know what FedEx and DHL and UPS do with their old Sprinters? I would love to score one of those at a cheap price.

ruking1

Indeed the northeast has a very high percentage of fuel oil or heating oil houses. (aka diesel has "portability additives")This is according to the government web site http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/oog/info/gdu/gasdiesel.asp a reason for the rise and/or firmness. So all you have to do is to find out how much a gal of home heating oil sells, (sans the tax )and that is truly what it sells for on the market. Another is since the cost for a barrel of crude is easily 30-40% cheaper than light sweet crude, making diesel might be more profitable?

ruking1

Actually it redefines the mileage parameters on so called "used vehicle". There is really no reason why a "reasonably" cared for diesel engine (like the Sprinters MB diesel) should not be able to go 25,000 hours (@50 mpg avg or a min of 800,000 miles). This of course really warps the sensibilities if the statistics on auto salvage are true. 12,000 - 15,000 miles per year is the average yearly mileage. 7-8.5 years is the average age of the fleet. 84,000 -127,500 miles. 7% per year of the fleet hits the bone yard.

dhanley

"Fairly simple answer. Ted Kennedy and his same thinking buddies have kept oil refineries from being built now for some 30 years"

That's complete nonsense. Oil companies haven't built refineries because they have no incentive to. The supply ends up tightening, prices go up, and they make more money.

I mean, come on, have a little common sense. How long have we had oilmen on the whitehouse?

ruking1

Well let's put it another way. Why would any one/corp/consortium want to invest literally billions of dollars, have it tied up in court/s for literally decades with NO assurances of success, having actually more chance of it being denied or built and stopped before completion, so they can make even LESS money?

jimlockey

No, No, No. Not the whitehouse but on the hill. The VP is not from an oil company but form an oil well service company. Halliburton, which is the best oil well service company in the world.

Put this in your pipe and smoke it. The oil companies control congress, both houses & both parties. They have been doing this for 50 years.

gagrice

I have an MB Cruiser that is built on the Sprinter fullsize chassis. It has gotten me great mileage for the 5200 miles I have put on it. They do have a reputation for longevity. From a site that is Sprinter all the way. I would expect no less than 25 MPG from the little Sprinter. My 8500LB RV Sprinter gets over 22 MPG around town.

Sprinter drives 22 times around the world without repair
Klaus Schade drove his newspaper courier Sprinter 900,000 km without repairs in the 10 years he owned it. Only regular maintenance was necessary, of course. That's 559,234 miles, the equivalent of driving 22 times around the world. Since the introduction in 1995 more than one million Sprinters were sold while also receiving multiple "Transporter of the Year" awards. (from MB press release) 12/22/2005

Sprinter news

gagrice

I would also point out that when Cheney went to work for Halliburton he was a government executive out of work when the Dems took over. To him it was a good paying job. All staff people get good jobs with big companies when their party is out. If it was IBM we would be bad mouthing them for selling computers to the government.

dhanley

":Well let's put it another way. Why would any one/corp/consortium want to invest literally billions of dollars, "

Exactly. Which is my point. It's economics, pure and simple. They have no incentive to spend money to build plants that would reduce their profit.

That's why i think locally-grown biofuels are the answer.

larsb

OH Pulleeze - there is no "Grand Big Oil Conspiracy" against diesel in this country.

Diesel is not the fuel of favor for one reason - the particulates and soot from it's exhaust and the negative, deadly health effects they cause.

Nothing more. Simple. Case closed.

I want just as much as most people to have clean air. The EPA is in charge of keeping the air clean in this country. When they do the vehicle testing and declare the 2008 model diesel cars as "50-state clean" then diesel will be on it's way to becoming a more popular choice and option for more people.

The oil companies have nothing to say about it because they have ABSOLUTELY ZERO CONTROL over what car a person chooses to buy.

ruking1

From a market point of view, I would agree with your points leading to, and conclusion. However from an attitudinal and regulatory point of view, the attempt to put a so called "human" face on the regulatory frustrations does have merit and in fact is more "sound bite able".

ruking1

..."OH Pulleeze - there is no "Grand Big Oil Conspiracy" against diesel in this country.

Diesel is not the fuel of favor for one reason - the particulates and soot from it's exhaust and the negative, deadly health effects they cause.

Nothing more. Simple. Case closed.

I want just as much as most people to have clean air. The EPA is in charge of keeping the air clean in this country. When they do the vehicle testing and declare the 2008 model diesel cars as "50-state clean" then diesel will be on it's way to becoming a more popular choice and option for more people.

The oil companies have nothing to say about it."...

If indeed you truly believe that, then I would say that is a good indication that marketing and advertizing and propaganda mechanisms have worked.

However the facts do not support your conclusions.

Example One: Again a large percentage of housing uses home heating oil, in the winter running 24/7 with NO/NONE/NADA emissions control and or none that even come close to mitigations on passenger vehicle fleet diesel engines.

Example two: almost ALL rail transportation

Example three: a HUGE majority of FARM equipment

Example four: a HUGE majority of construction equipment.

Example five: 100% of jet transportation

Example six: shipping

Indeed they regulate ALL of the example emitters and more. In fact ALL !!!!

So which of these examples does not affect most EVERYBODY?

Indeed upwards of one/half of fuel consumed in this country is UNMITIGATED diesel !!!!????

larsb

As Borat would say: "You are not knowing so too much about the EPA, no?"

The EPA has clean air programs across the industries of this country. Not just cars.

Go to the epa.gov website and look around at all the various parts of the clean air program.

In fact, I'll make it easy for you:

Plain English Guide to the Clean Air Act

ruking1

Perhaps you are truly failing to acknowledge the "unmitigation" is indeed "MITITGATION". So let me make it easy for you. You are incorrect.

larsb

Unmitigated: Not diminished or moderated in intensity or severity; unrelieved

If the EPA and every state in the union all have clean air programs which address pollution from many, MANY different sources both public and private, how can the non-vehicle pollution you are citing be classified as unmitigated?

ruking1

..."Unmitigated: Not diminished or moderated in intensity or severity; unrelieved

If the EPA and every state in the union all have clean air programs which address pollution from many, MANY different sources both public and private, how can the non-vehicle pollution you are citing be classified as unmitigated?"...

Lets see the USA Ports Say Long Beach CA, are modernizing to accept even MORE traffic. lets use the Panama Canal, of whose government just approve I think 7 BILLION dollars to increase the handling capacity of even LARGER ships. Since the overwhelming majority of those ships are NOT nuclear powered, but burn the 3000/4000 ppm fuel oil, would you say a much larger ship would burn more or less fuel?Being as how there is little to no emissions controls, will that meet your quoted definition of unmitigated? Also why would you surmise these much bigger ships are not powered by say the fuel you advocate: unleaded regular gasoline?

Back on topic, mitigated (emissions controlled) diesel offers a range of benefits over unleaded regular gas that is getting increasingly difficult to ignore.

gagrice

I researched this subject a couple years ago for the diehard anti-diesel bunch. If memory serves me correct, it was not the EPA or CARB that would take on the pollution from cargo ships. It was the port authority. What they did was offer free electricity as shore power so they could shut those big engines down while loading and unloading. The report I posted stated that one cargo ship idling in the Harbor put out more pollution and GHG than 12,000 cars. They have not addressed the fact that most of those diesel engines are burning as you said 3000 PPM sulfur diesel. It is cheap. What is even cheaper is bunker oil. Some of the newest cargo ships are designed to run on that stuff right out of the well.

The insignificance of the pollution that a few thousand modern diesel cars would put out, would be far outweighed by the savings in fossil fuel and GHG emissions. That is the position taken in the EU. We follow them like little puppy dogs on every thing else. Why not diesel cars?

dhanley

However from an attitudinal and regulatory point of view, the attempt to put a so called "human" face on the regulatory frustrations does have merit and in fact is more "sound bite able".

Hm. It may be, but once again, my point is that this is far less of a regularatory issue than an economic one. There's no reason to think that if we gave the oil companies permission to dump carcinogens on playgrounds that they'd suddenly start building refiniries--that would only cost them money and reduce their profits.

gagrice

if we gave the oil companies permission to dump carcinogens on playgrounds

Are you referring to the 1/2 million diesel school buses with no smog control whatsoever. Who is going to shut down a school bus program because they cannot afford super clean buses? A diesel hybrid bus costs about $300,000 to $500,000 more than a conventional diesel bus. And they are finding out the fuel savings are minimal. The studies by different cities show a payback on buying hybrid buses to be 37 plus years. No bus is going to last that long.

Is that the dumping of pollution onto school grounds you are referring to?

ruking1

Indeed unmitigated school bus exhaust is a closer to home example. Another might be a school that is heated with fuel oil.

larsb

Your favorite word again - Unmitigated.....

There are NO U.S. states where school bus diesel exhaust is "unmitigated." Every state has some sort of a program for reducing idling, or retrofitting old engines with clean diesel technology, or replacing old buses with newer cleaner ones, or using more biodiesel, or switching to ULSD, or improving air quality in their maintenance facilities, etc etc ad infinitum.

You want me to provide links or can you take my word as a man for that?

ruking1

So it sounds like a growth in diesel passenger vehicle fleet populations to say 25% would be something you could get behind?

larsb

Sure, as long as all those diesel cars are truly CLEAN diesels....50-state eligible and good EPA scores...Sure...

Let me repeat AGAIN: I have nothing at all against clean diesels - but I have a lot against DIRTY DIESELS.

larsb

No you have not and no one has.....just wanted to see that you believed me and if not I can provide links.... :shades:

ruking1

And I would assume for dirty gassers? So tell me something new!!?? Then welcome to the club! Then a real no brainer, already has 45 state eligibility. EPA scores meet or exceed gasser cars. I bought my diesel NEW in CA. It was 50 state compliant.

larsb

Diesel payoff reaches a whole 40,000 miles !!!

More motorists than ever bought diesel cars last month in the search for greater fuel efficiency, but they may not be saving money as a result.

The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders reckons fuel economy and environmental concerns pushed diesel sales to their highest point so far this year, with four out of every 10 cars hitting the road running on the fuel.

If motorists are hoping to save money at the pump by buying diesels they need to do their sums very carefully, however.

Many motorists may not cover enough miles within a typical three-year ownership period to ever pay off the price premium diesels hold over their petrol counterparts.

Motorists would have to cover around 40,000 miles before they even started saving money in an entry-level diesel Ford Focus, for instance.

qbrozen

but i wonder what the resale value is of, for instance, that diesel focus compared to its gasser equivalent.

kyfdx

Resurrecting the discussion from last week about the price of the VW Touareg V10 Diesel...

I stopped by the local dealership, and they had one '06 model on the lot... and, it indeed had a base price of just under $68K...

The salesperson (so, take this with a big grain of salt) said that VW will import no '07 model diesels (of any kind... Jetta, etc), as they don't meet the new standards, or at least can't meet them until all diesel is 100% ULSD. He said that they are still building '06 TDI models, and will continue to import them until 12/31/06...

Then, no diesels until after July (or sometime around there) when all diesel is required to be ULSD. He thinks that '08 models will probably come out in August..

Now.. you can check here on Edmunds, and an '07 TDI Touareg is under $60K base, and the '06 is $67,XXX.. But, if you go to VW.com, it doesn't give you the option to build a V10 TDI, only V6 and V8.. so... maybe this salesman knew what he was talking about.. He didn't seem the kind of guy to blow smoke, if he didn't know.

So... there..

regards,
kyfdx
(not the host)

kyfdx

That is a great point..

The extra cost to buy the diesel is not how much higher the MSRP is.. It is the amount of actual depreciation over three years. If the cash price is $3K higher, you can bet that the value at the end of three years is at least $1500 higher.

The "payback" calculations that I've seen are much to simple to reflect reality.

regards,
kyfdx

gagrice

The two at Drew VW in San Diego were 2006 models. My question is why did CARB allow a diesel SUV to be sold and not a Jetta TDI. I dare say the Jetta is cleaner than the V10 Touareg?

I followed a 2006 Jetta TDI this morning with CA plates. They are getting brought in with I am sure the required 7500 miles. If you are determined to have a diesel car it can be done even in the [non-permissible content removed] state of CARB.

ruking1

They actually sell Civic diesels in the UK at a 590-600 dollar premium. So a quick and dirty B/E goes something like this 36-42 mpg gasser @2.20 and 30% better of 46-54 diesel @ 2.50 @ 12,000- 15,000 miles per year (385 gal @ 2.20)= 847- 720= $127. (288 gal @ 2.49)= /600= 4.72 years. So actually the news is better! So obviously if a hybrids' cost premium is greater than 590-600...... ya might take longer than 3/4 years to break even. 3500 to 7500 dollars? Do the math!?

ruking1

Again the point is well taken the issues are multi dimensional. However I looked in passing at the used car price of a 2003 VW Jetta TDI a few dealers prices and the so called private sale "street prices". Essentially if I sell it "correctly" on private sale, I lose NO money for driving the car 3 years and 83,000 miles!!!!???

moparbad

There will indeed be 2007 Toaureg TDI's sold in USA. Not so sure about CA emissions states for the 2007, though I am 100% on the 07's part.

ruking1

"Let me repeat AGAIN: I have nothing at all against clean diesels - but I have a lot against DIRTY DIESELS. "

...Every state has some sort of a program for reducing idling, or retrofitting old engines with clean diesel technology, or replacing old buses with newer cleaner ones, or using more biodiesel, or switching to ULSD, or improving air quality in their maintenance facilities, etc etc ad infinitum. "...

Lets see I give you 6 examples, and Gagrice gives you another close to home example of "DIRTY DIESELS", which are really only the tip of the ice berg and all you can say is your above quote about passenger diesels that are in compliance with emissions regulations? At the best you are misguided when it comes to the passenger vehicle fleet. Disingenuous is more the mainstream concept.

larsb

ruking1 says: "At the best you are misguided when it comes to the passenger vehicle fleet." -end quote

Exactly in what area am I misguided? Do Tell, please...

ruking1

"Exactly in what area am I misguided? Do Tell, please..."

I already have.

larsb

which post number?

highender

Hello:

SO far, I have used 2 full tanks of biodiesel. One tank from the co-op in Berkeley, and another from a private home brewer. I filled it up from the 55 gal tank in my backyard..but it was kinda messy, since I still do not have a transfer pump yet...so I did it using a siphon and suction (almost got some in my mouth ..ugh.)

so far, this is what I think:

1- biodiesel smell is better, both before combustion and after.
2- biodiesel makes the engine run quieter, less banging
3- biodiesel costs more, at either $3.70 at Biofuel Oasis,or $2.70 from private brewer.
4- biodiesel is less toxic than regular #2.
5 seems to work fine, but some people say that there is a decrease in mpg..but others say the cetane numbers are higher..so ??
6- To home brew it is definitely for someone with determinationa and stout hearts. IT is messy, smelly and possibly dangerous. IT is very time consuming...maybe 8 hours plus, though you don't have to be there all the time.

I think it is a great alternative fuel...coupled with a diesel engine,,,,can decrease our oil dependency, and maybe decrease prices. I think, IMHO, that Americans should embrace diesel engined cars, and further, if possible, try to use biodiesel.

So far, so good........I really like the stuff.

ruking1

I used to be in the safety business, so it slipped my mind when folks have described storing 55 gal of bio diesel. Yet I would have much more concerns in comparison storing correctly 1 gal of unleaded regular!!

ruking1

Pretty interesting how the price of gasoline and DIESEL go down right before the election. Pretty interesting how the prices of gasoline and DIESEL go UP the DAY and after ELECTION DAY !!!

larsb

Interesting in a "that's not what happened" kind of way, you mean?

Gas prices have been either steady or slightly upward for the last 14 days. Were the Republicans doing that? LOL

Oil prices have dropped since July 14th, which was 3 and a half months ago.

USA Average was $2.20 on 10-24 and was $2.20 yesterday also.

Bloomberg reports:

``The election will mean nothing at all in the short term, as far as energy is concerned,'' said Michael Fitzpatrick, vice president for energy risk management at Fimat USA in New York. ``In the long term, a Democratic victory might mean higher taxes for big oil, which has become their hobby horse. But it won't mean a heck of a lot for prices.''

Report out today listing fuel stores shows lowered inventories. Supply low = price up.

ruking1

"USA Average was $2.20 on 10-24 and was $2.20 yesterday also. "

Wish we could pay the "AVERAGE" price OR BELOW, when it sells for more in reality!!

Low supply does not mean higher prices without higher demand.

Local priced #2 diesel right before election day was 2.49. Today it is 2.65.

I'm with you, reality sux.

larsb

Well, if you have an example of a single station which went up 16 cents in one day, then you need to report that price gouging to your state's Attorney General. There are laws against that in many states.

A price jump such as that had nothing AT ALL to do with the election.

qbrozen

wellll... it might have SOMETHING to do with the election. Maybe the station owner didn't like who won. ;b

ruking1

Well I did fill before the election at the cheaper price! Let's hope in 500 or so miles the price settles DOWN !