By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
Diesel not only gets 20-40% more than a like unleaded regular model; but can be refined manufactured grown from a variety of sources: waste streams: old processes, new processs, adapted processes and processes yet to be R & D'd, natural consequence of unleaded regular fuel production etc etc and on and on. The ratios or the differences can literally be STUNNING. Bio diesel from Algae cultivation can range from a low of 5000 gals per acre to 15,000 gals per arce. Corn is good at 18 gals per acre !!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biodiesel
I would have to disagree with you about the above statement. I had a 1981 Isuzu I-Mark diesel car for many years. It was smooth and quiet at idle with no vibration being transmitted to the cabin or through the steering wheel. It had a double firewall and was quieter than the gasser version and yet gave me 50+ MPG on long road trips and near 40 MPG around town.
I drive a 2005 Jeep Liberty Limited CRD and the engine is even smoother and in some respects quieter than the engine in the Isuzu. It is a large 2.8L four cylinder turbodiesel and it is far from truck like. It is powerful across a wide RPM range and yet will get 30+ MPG on the road.
My wife's next car will be a diesel. The GL class V-8 diesel will have in excess of 300 HP and over 500 lb-ft of torque, gets in the mid-twenties on the road and only displaces 4.0L.
I suggest you try a new turbodiesel form MB before you consider it truck like.
kcram - Pickups Host
Don't make kids smell that crap
No stinky diesel ships? We can hope.....
That is what I have said all along. Cars are insignificant in the scope of global pollution. All that is happening now is I use 3 times more fossil fuel than I need to run my errands because of regulations that keep small diesel PU trucks off the market in the USA. I can drive one up from Mexico if I live across the border and want to shop in San Diego.
That is a completely incorrect statement.
Name me one renowned global environmental scientist or group who agrees with you.
(waiting, waiting)
It is like washing a banana before you peel and eat it, compared to eating an apple right off the tree covered in pesticides. We have gone crazy with regulations on cars. Enough is enough. SULEV today PZEV tomorrow and ZEV the next day. While all along we let the real polluters do as they will. When I say insignificant I mean the difference between a car built in 2000 and the same model built in 2007. Even though the little scale was changed to confuse the masses. The difference between a vehicle having a 3 rating and an 8 rating as your TCH has is so little it is not worth the extra cost. Those ratings are maximum allowable for each type pollutant. My 1990 Mazda passed with flying colors not even close to the maximum allowed. It could be cleaner than a 2 year old vehicle that has been run on high sulfur gas that was sold up to last year in 45 of the 50 states.
I would be willing to bet that a 4 cylinder diesel engine in a mid size PU truck that statistically gets 45 MPG, will pollute less than my GMC V8 hybrid. We know the GHG will be a third or less. If they ever develop a test for diesel vehicles we will know the truth. I have not seen any test results using the mandated ULSD. If you have a good comparison chart feel free to share with us. I want to see the comparison with a like size gas vehicle also. Not the EPA maximum allowable charts. They do not tell the real story.
Turns out that even we have been sugar coating the truth reading that ships have been using 4000 ppm fuel. Seems like 27,000 ppm is more tha average vs 15 ppm for our "dirty diesels", tsk, tsk. This is disingenuous as unleaded regular has more ppm sulfur. When you compare it against 27,000 ppm that is exponentially WAY over the top, that is a RATIO of 1,800 to one. This stuff should simply boggle the mind.
The report found that in 2001, heavy-duty diesel trucks, buses and cars burned more than a billion metric tons of fuel, and emitted 2.2 million metric tons of sulfur oxide. The same year, ocean-going vessels burned 280 million tons of fuel, far less, but emitted 3.4 million metric tons of sulfur oxide, about 17% of the global total.
That means that land based diesel trucks, diesel cars, and diesel buses were 11% of the global total in that year. So ships produce a HUGE 6% more pollution than diesel trucks and cars. Big whoop.
That does not even include all the famously "unmitigated" sources like generators, off-road equipment, etc.
So ships are not exactly "blowing away" diesel cars and trucks in the SO pollution field.
Diesel cars and trucks still are SOME of the problem.
Again the overwhelming majority of those emissions sources come under the "UNMITIGATED" category. The other important point being (now) up to 27,000 ppm sulfur!!!
Passenger car diesel are mitigated and use 15 ppm ULSD. With bio diesel sulfur content approaches NON existent!
"since ships pollute SO MUCH MORE than my little car we should just IGNORE the pollution my car makes and just let MILLIONS MORE of them on the road !!"
Is that your thought?
No, I of course do not support "no oversight" on the ships. I of course think it should be done.
But both Gary and you have repeatedly said things to the effect of "why are you picking on us poor little TDI lovers by regulating our exhaust?"
Well, the reason is clear as a bell to me and others:
Pollution in any form is, in fact, POLLUTION.
Control what is cheap and easy to control (cars) and go after the other, harder stuff in steps (as Congress is doing now, FINALLY.)
Then truly just by virtue of your below quote, it is your defacto position regardless of your protest-a-tions!! But in truth you have stated your disengenuou position many times.
I have always consistently said: I have nothing at all against CLEAN DIESEL fuel and cars but will protest mightily against DIRTY DIESEL.
There are varying levels of pollution. Some types are less harmful than others.
You say this like your quote is a revelation !!?? Yes and wheels are round.
Not a misintrepretation at all. Just citing your exhibited operative behavior.
Then in accordance with the laws of this country operating the passenger vehicle (diesel TDI) meets the definitions doesn't it!?
No one is producing so called dirty diesel for sale in the USA. Indeed just burning 15 ppm fuel meets the CLEAN diesel definition!? So you are protesting at straw men/women.
Funny how it's Bush's fault when BRAZIL converted to ethanol.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol_fuel_in_Brazil
You have not convinced me that my owning a diesel car using ULSD is as bad for the environment as a gasoline car. It is a stand-off. You need to work on regulations in your part of the country. The air is much worse in Phoenix than San Diego. I would say the heavy equipment and un-controlled building is the main source of pollution.
1. I have NO PROBLEM AT ALL with ANY STATE that allows ANY CLEAN DIESEL vehicle. I am not opposed AT ALL ONE IOTA to CLEAN DIESEL VEHICLES which meet EPA or other state emission criteria and are allowed on the road. GOOD. That's GOOD. The more the merrier.
toward this comment: "All the folks on the diesel forum want is a vehicle that does not use a lot of fossil fuel."
Maybe some of them want to use biodiesel or veggie oil in their diesel vehicles, and I say GREAT - DO THAT !! Build a biodiesel manufacturing lab in your garage - there are plans all over the web. Guys have sold kits on craigslist for those operations. Get a high school science teacher to let his students convert your engine to use veggie oil and contract with the local McDonald's to get oil !! Cut that fossil fuel !! I agree with ALL THAT.
I do not hold any of that to be "distasteful" at all.
Here's my only beefs:
1. People who think that diesels should be held to the same pollution standard as regular gasoline cars. I completely disagree with that, because medical science KNOWS that the particulate matter in diesel is exhaust is more damaging both long term and short term than the ALSO DAMAGING medical effects of gasoline exhaust. Diesel is just worse for you, and there is no valid argument about that. Diesel exhaust also contributes more to the smog problem, and just having two weeks ago traveled through 1200 miles of California, I can tell you that the smog ruined so many great views that I almost cried.
2. People who say that "diesel cars and bus and truck exhaust is just a minor problem." That's just not correct, as a post above showed - it's about 11% of the world's sulfur oxide pollution, not to mention all the other damaging effects. I pass 18-wheeler trucks every day that are sitting IDLING. Can you imagine how much wasted fuel and useless pollution is caused by unnecessary idling in this country? It's got to be a phenomenal amount !!!
I am 100% FOR allowing as many clean diesels which pass EPA 50-state guidelines as the market will bear. If every one of my neighbors and half my co-workers bought a 50-state BlueTec car or SUV, I would be fine with that. If I pass 1000 of them a day on my commute to work, I'm fine with THAT too, because I know they are TRULY CLEAN.
That's all I want - TRULY CLEAN diesels on the road, and all the others OFF the road.
Good post! The love affair with diesel folks seem to be operating under a 1950's idea that diesel or ... will save the world. It brings as many, or more problems than it purports to solve. Many of the responses are more along the lines of what one would expect from PR and advertising hacks out to sell yet another unneeded product, while never addressing the issues of unnecessary driving.
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator
Go spew your crap some other place.
I don't believe that Larsb is anti-diesel, but anti-smog. It would seem that the disagreement loses alot of its value with the switch to ULSD and cleaner passenger car diesels. There is a sub-text arguement of hybrid vs. diesel which does not seem relevant to a 'Diesels in the News' forum (or it would be 'diesels vs. hybrids in the news').
My question is, if we are talking about diesels in the news, does anyone have information of any plans on the part of Ford or GM to use the existing diesels they have to make light-duty trucks and their SUV fleets more mileage friendly?
Seems like we could take a greater chunk out of our use of gas if there is some impact in this gas guzzling sector with diesel engines.
You are right, the ULSD resolved the major problems with diesel. Sulfur caused most of the Soot(PM), SoX, and NoX. I think the oil companies would not want a big part of the consumer fleet to become diesel. They have a balance to maintain. In every barrel of oil you get only so much distillates which are used in Jet planes, trucks, trains, ships and heavy equipment. If the balance were to tip too far we would have a lot of gas that would be worth a lot less. Which it should be as there is about 1/3rd less energy in a gallon of gas than in a gallon of diesel.
23 mpg V8 grand-touring gasser or 47 mpg VW TDI?
However, it was just barely enough to catch diesel up to the minimum criteria: Tier-2 Bin-5. Dirty gas vehicles already deliver that, which doesn't help for a smog-related emission improvement.
SULEV and the even better PZEV emission rating indicate a genuine cleaner choice. Only diesel prototypes have achieved that; none are planned for production.
Most hybrids, on the other hand, already deliver SULEV or better.
JOHN
PS
If you no longer like the way MN handles pollution you can lobby to be a CARB wannabe like our Eastern brethren.
Fear of change is difficult to overcome.
JOHN
KISS for me and my diesel PU... Now I am just waiting for the next car and getting a diesel in it too. "DAMN THE TORPEDOES--FULL SPEED AHEAD"..
Now that there's a US Prius approaching 300,000 miles on the original battery-pack, the FUD doesn't draw much attention anymore.
I bet this is quite similar to when automatic transmissions were knew. The FUD faded away as acceptance of the new technology grew older. Now people think nothing of it. Looking back, that step forward was a sensible choice.
JOHN
How many of them were from rechargeable devices that prevented deep-discharging? I bet virtually none of them were.
With a cell-phone or MP3-player, deep-discharges are allowed. That shortens the life of a rechargeable battery.
But for hybrids, like the design from Toyota, the charge-level is prevented from dropping below 40 percent. That guarantees slower aging. So comparisons to others are inappropriate.
JOHN
Bring on the small diesel trucks. Heck I would even buy a Toyota if they offered a small diesel PU.