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
Also of interest, I am seeing used 2005 HSD Prius (multiple) sitting on a dealer's used car lot for weeks on end. Why? The three I have looked at have less than 50K miles on them each. I have no intention of buying one.
Recently, I met a gentleman from the Maryland MVA who works in the emissions part of the state agency. He told me that diesel emissions from clean diesels are not as nasty as even some of the cleanest gassers. They have done testing on several clean diesel models and find that they cannot measure several of the pollutants because the engines emit almost none of them. NOx is about three times the usual for equivalently powered gassers. With VW and Honda soon delivering their NOx solution without aqueous urea, the need for schlepping batteries and a complex drive train will be passe.
Urea systems, automakers such as Mercedes-Benz have argued, have several advantages over other technology to reduce diesel emissions because they can be used to meet emission limits in all markets, and they cost about half as much ($880) as an NOx trap ($1400). The EPA has been concerned about what happens when AdBlue runs out, thus requiring a warning system which could disallow refueling vehicles with low AdBlue tanks.
While all automakers who want to sell diesel cars, trucks and SUVs to boost fuel economy ratings will benefit, the ruling is especially a boon to DaimlerChrysler. Its Mercedes-Benz division has plans to market four clean-diesel models in the U.S., including the E320 BLUETEC, as well as the soon-to-be-launched BLUETEC diesel-powered versions of its popular M-, R- and GL-Class sport-utility vehicles in the United States beginning in 2008.
"Mercedes-Benz welcomes and supports the EPA's announcement on Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) guidelines, which represent a critical next step for the future acceptance of diesel vehicles in the U.S. market," said DCX chairman Dieter Zetsche. "This decision, teamed with the Agency's recent mandate for Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel (ULSD) fuel availability, serves to reinforce diesel's benefit as a viable alternative to help reduce fuel consumption and ultimately, reduce oil imports."
Corvette to get diesel power for 2009
Chevrolet has announced that they will introduce a diesel-powered Corvette next spring as a 2009 model. The 2009 Chevrolet Corvette TDI will be powered by a specially-designed 5.7 liter V8 diesel with twin turbochargers. Output for the engine, developed in cooperation with Isuzu, is estimated at 350 horsepower and 675 lb-ft of torque.
"We feel that with its high fuel economy and strong low-end torque characteristics, the turbodiesel is the perfect engine for the Corvette," says a General Motors spokesperson. Early tests indicate that the Corvette TDI accelerates from 0 to 60 in just over 4 seconds and achieves real-world fuel economy of 25 to 30 MPG.
Chevrolet has hinted that if the Corvette TDI is a hit with buyers, they may consider phasing out gasoline-powered Corvettes altogether and making the turbodiesel engine the exclusive powerplant for the iconic American sports car. -- Aaron Gold-end quote
GM is back in the diesel auto biz.
What is there to say? The MPG will simply go down. That's it. The "full" hybrids are persist in nature, so drawing electricity from the engine instead is no big deal.
JOHN
Curious how you didn't mention the problem requirement:
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/cert/dearmfr/cisd0707.pdf
"For diesel-cycle light-duty vehicles and light-duty trucks, emission-related maintenance, such as the adjustment, cleaning, repair or replacement of the catalytic converter can not occur before 100,000 miles of use or before 100,000 mile intervals thereafter."
Carrying enough urea to last that entire duration is totally impractical, to the point of being absurd. So instead, automakers must satisfy all five of the following alternative criteria for vehicle compliance:
1. Driver warning system
2. Driver inducement
3. Identification of incorrect reducing agent
4. Tamper resistant design
5. Durable design
They present an interesting set of challenges, definitely enough to disqualify non-hybrid diesel supporters from ever using the KISS argument anymore.
JOHN
How many years old is the OLDEST hybrid? Is the answer 3 perhaps? Maybe 4!
I didn't see that answer in any of these posts..
My first hybrid purchase was 6.5 years ago.
The very first Prius was sold over 9 years ago.
JOHN
Just wondering
ps. You know years ago... ( I am getting old) there were electric cars. I remember seeing one in the 40's probably as a kid in Minnesota. I always thought that was neat.
Where have you been this year? You're in the business I believe, right? Last month was the record month for Prius sales. From direct impressions, this month ( March ) might even be better.
Everyone is getting on the hybrid bandwagon now, see Mercedes recent announcements. GM and Toyota will be pulling this wagon together since neither has made any serious moves or announcements about diesels here. Maybe in the next 5 years each will have some diesels, but for now GM and Toyota are both going full force with hybrids if their announcements are to be believed. Now Mercedes is coming around as well.
Three continents and the three leading companies on each.
I sold the first one in southeast VA in July of 2000. It was delivered in Jan 2001.
These won't reach the warranty time limit until 2009. Now there are many that have gone beyond the 100K mileage limit.
One friend is on his second. This one is 3y 3m old and is right at 145,000 miles... 48 mpg every day.
My take: best of luck in those efforts. I took a look at the Lexus line up the road (Porche, MB, Lexus to name a few high end names) and I do not think many folks would come away with any thoughts that some of these (HYBRID) name plates will be hitting the higher (sales) numbers market any time soon. Hybrid high end new car prices are truly breathtaking, over already (like models, sans hybrid) breathtaking prices.
While I respect your opinion in regards for GM/Toyota HERE, the fact is WW they have been in diesels for a very long time. I think the major issue they are trying to flesh out is will the government sanction diesel only to reverse course at some later date making the necessary investments for logistical production obsolete. An recent example in CA was the MTBE mandate. BILLIONS of dollars of investments dollars were WASTED.
This is NOT a hybrid discussion, nor a hybrid/diesel comparison discussion.
Take it to the Hybrid Vehicles Board if that's what you want to discuss.
Hybrid posts will now be removed. Got it?
kcram - Pickups Host
http://cars.about.com/b/a/217021.htm
I already get the low side of the diesel mpg (gasser) and at xxx speeds with A/C full blast. Depending on the actual power curve I probably would get the higher side (30 mpg)
Again, as in the current offerings, I would think Corvette will probably not deviate from the price/performance ratio building block, which has made it truly one of GM's success story's: as in the current Z06. I can understand some folks would truly NOT be impressed, but Corvette does sell out its yearly production. Also getting the current Z06 performance at sub 70k is a hit.
I really liked the idea with the one that Larsb posted about the 70 mpg at 65 mph and 48 mpg on race day, twin turbo!!!
These guys are awesome !!
2009 BMW 335i, 2003 Corvette cnv. (RIP 2001 Jaguar XK8 cnv and 1985 MB 380SE [the best of the lot])
They are saying what I (among others) have been saying all along. Less burning creates less pollution. We just have been mentioning diesels' real world advantage of up to 40% less over gassers. When compared to ethanol even MUCH better than that. How one burns 25% more than gassers in ethanol to have less byproducts, trumps the laws of physics and chemistry. When you stack this up against diesel, the advantage is along the lines of 65%. But the truth is we all have a self interest in happy farmers.
You should apply at the EPA and get 'em all straightened out.
Seriously - was that a recent epiphany or eureka moment for you? Do you honestly think that no one else but the "select educated pro-diesel few" have come to the conclusion that "less burning = less pollution?"
Everyone understands diesel's "real world advantage" when it comes ONLY down to mpg capability, fuel versus fuel.
The problem for the diesel evangelists is that people ALSO understand the "real world disadvantage" that diesel has when it comes to pollution.
Once the truly clean diesel vehicles get here en masse, then that will change somewhat. But for now, you can only get a couple of 50-state EPA certified diesel model cars in the USA.
The only thing that happened is this: "The Supreme Court has reaffirmed.....that The Clean Air Act gives EPA authority to fight global warming."
It says nothing about diesel or implies that the EPA should regulate differently in regard to diesel or anything else related to diesel at all.
In the same breath folks rail against so called "dirty diesel" and folks are perfectly content to let "dirty diesel go UNABATED 24/7. because the so called "big boys" are doing it. I (among others) have given numerous examples. You continue to tolerate massive disengenuousness while vilifying folks who actually do use LESS fuel.
Diesel is FAR more advantageous than unleaded regular. As said above and before you can use alternative fuel. It indeed takes the majority of folks, who happen to do the majority of the passenger fleet usage I might add, a very long time to change their operative behaviors. Limiting those choices so that population can not increase ... we all know what side THAT bread is buttered on, don't we?!
2009 BMW 335i, 2003 Corvette cnv. (RIP 2001 Jaguar XK8 cnv and 1985 MB 380SE [the best of the lot])
E320 Bluetec 2007:
13.1 barrels of oil per year
7.2 tons of greenhouse gas emissions
E350 Gasser 2007:
16.3 barrels of oil per year
8.5 tons of greenhouse gas emissions
The BlueTec wins by these measures.
But it's STILL not 50-state clean until the 2009 model:
The main ingredients to clean emissions for the '07 Bluetec are a combination of specialized catalysts and a particulate filter in the exhaust system. Although its name is derived from a system called AdBlue, which further cleans the car's emissions, the system won't be part of the package until the 2009 model year. Until then the E320 is only up to EPA diesel emission standards for 45 states. That makes the eco-stingy states of California, Maine, Massachusetts, New York and Vermont off-limits.
This has been advertised as the "cleanest diesel passenger car in the world" and yet it still (because of EPA rules) does not meet 50-state regs.
It will soon, but not yet.
I actually took a chance buying a diesel product that was specified FOR ULSD LONG before ULSD WAS implemented from LSD. Indeed the so called cleaner diesel was hampered in this country by the not too distance past switch (Oct 2006) to ULSD. It is still not fully implemented across all 50 states.
Several of us have asked for you to come up with tests showing that a current in use diesel car such as a VW TDI using the recently mandated ULSD is not as clean as a comparable gas burning car. You totally ignore facts and use old data to push your anti diesel agenda. So if you want to make up stories that are not based on fact I suggest you do it in the Hybrid forum where folks live in a fairy tale world.
EPA regulations are not being followed CA. CARB makes up their own rules as they go along. Many times they are in lawsuits with the EPA for making rules that are not approved of by the EPA. Case in point is the recent fight over GHG.
I also think the only "dirty" diesel which you vilify and rail against are the very same diesel you say is just fine to run; i.e., just because they are the "big boys/girls". Indeed that very same CA agency sanctions those dirty diesel emitters using bunker oil with up to 27,000 ppm sulfur that dock at places like the Port of Long Beach, etc, etc, etc, So to say you are for clean diesel?? How clean is 27,000 ppm vs 15 ppm? My gosh LSD is up to 500 ppm. So while you might be just fine with REAL dirty diesel, it is disengenuously WAY off the charts.
Incidently passenger diesels by definition, meet emissions laws and regulations. Mine does and I would venture a guess most do.
One example, While CA does not allow new car diesel sales (Euro), starting with the 2005 model year, for they certainly allow new diesel light truck sales: and have uninterrupted from model year to model year, WILL register a USED diesel car sale/s (with over 7,500 miles). Further it will do so WITHOUT a smog certification. In contrast, a smog certification is required of ALL gassers.
Just checking around Oregon and Washington for a new Mercedes GL320 CDI they are selling as fast as they get them. Makes it hard to negotiate. Part of the reason is gas being more than diesel most places. They all wanted to sell me the GL450 gas model.
A few dealers in So California have brought Mercedes diesels in with the required 7501 miles. At a premium over a new one. I may have to fly and buy again.
On the subject of pollution. We spent a little over a day up in the Riverside/San Bernardino area. I do not know how those folks survive in the bad air. I will tell you it is from the ships and trains that are all but unregulated. It is blown in from the coast and lies up against the mountains. It was terrible. We are still getting over a bad headache from being in that smog. Traffic was bad though no worse than here. So it has to be mainly the ships at San Pedro and Long Beach. Thank far sighted city planners that San Diego has clean nuclear navy ships and not those uncontrolled cargo monstrosities.
I JUST POSTED a comparison of the MB diesel versus the MB gasser which showed the diesel was cleaner.
Did I not?
Then how am I living in a fairy tale world?
And about the "several of us have asked you to come up with a clean diesel car tested with clean diesel fuel" question:
Apparently, that test has NOT BEEN DONE. Unless the EPA used ULSD in the 2007 MB BlueTec test, a question which we cannot know the answer to.
I do not have an "anti-diesel" agenda. How many dang times do I have to say that?
I do have an "anti-DIRTY-diesel" agenda, and so should you and everyone else on Planet Earf.
You have finally admitted one truth. The EPA has not posted any tests of any older diesel vehicles using the current ULSD. So why do you continue to make reference to OLD tests with diesel that was 500 PPM sulfur? It not honest of factual.
We are after the same things you and I. Just you are so blinded by the folks in hybrid land that you cannot decipher the truth from the fiction.
Truth is we would all be better off walking or riding a bike. That ain't going to happen, so we do the best with the hand we are dealt. I just see the diesel/biodiesel direction as best overall.
If CARB were not so screwed up we may have more ZEV electric vehicles on the road. We would be on the road to cutting GHG if more diesel cars were allowed in the state. And without adding to the pollution, as CA has had cleaner diesel than any other state since 1990. Too bad CARB let the real polluters off the hook.
Have
Been
Through
That
stuff
Ad
Nauseum
For
Two
years
now.
Gas is dirty, diesel is dirtier. Anyone who doubts that fact is just flat wrong.
And we do not KNOW if the EPA used ULSD for the BlueTec test or not. Since MB "calls for" ULSD in that vehicle, I think the best, most logical assumption is to say they DID use ULSD.
Of course the truth is that all fossil fuel vehicles pollute in some fashion. Even Electric vehicles, unless charged by solar or wind, also pollute, due to the pollution created when the electricity was generated.
Biodiesel is a good option. A biodiesel plug-in hybrid car that gets 125 MPG is a very good option.
What is the fiction that I cannot discern from truth?
This is not the right thread. We have also hashed that over many times. I will try again in the hybrid thread to explain.
Right, tell us something we don't already know. 27,000 ppm does indeed trump 15 ppm, now doesn't it!? Gas is dirtier than ULSD. Sure doesn't seem to be any movement to get that down further or on par with ULSD!?
ULSD that I have used had very little odor. Much less than gasoline.
I think this might be overlooked, but #2 diesel is expotentially safer than unleaded regular. I would shudder to think what would happen if unleaded regular were mandated in place of heating oil.
Lets see on my diesel, that would be say a 300 mile electric range with a 700 mile diesel range @ 50 mpg for the diesel portion for a over the 1000 miles. So 71 mpg on the diesel aint bad eh?
Therefore, I repeat my question; does anyone know the EPA estimates for the CO, HC, and NOx emissions for the E320 Bluetec and the E350?
2009 BMW 335i, 2003 Corvette cnv. (RIP 2001 Jaguar XK8 cnv and 1985 MB 380SE [the best of the lot])
PS
I took my Passat TDI in to have it tested and the fellow told me they have no tests for diesel cars. So how do they come up with all this anti diesel rhetoric now that ULSD is mandated? I will not believe any opinions without some solid data to back it up. The EU is fine with ULSD.
"REQUIRES'
ULSD fuel.
So that must mean, logically, that the 2007 EPA test results at fueleconomy.gov was done with ULSD fuel.
"With the exception of a ULSD-only sticker on the dash, the Bluetec interior is unchanged from its E-Class siblings. (Photo by Josh Jacquot, Senior Road Test Editor)
So now Gary I guess you can stop saying:
"I have not seen any test results from any diesel vehicle using ULSD."
"I have not seen any test results from any diesel vehicle using ULSD." "...
Respectfully that was NEVER the assertion, logic.
It was more along the lines of LSD and its market variations 500 ppm and its LSD published emissions results, VS ULSD 15 ppm vs NO published ULSD emissions results in NON REQUIRED vehicles, i.e., a 2003 TDI that can run on LSD, but was DESIGNED to run on ULSD, but LSD results were published instead of ULSD.
The closest gasser graphic/comparison would be: how would the emissions be affected in a hybrid if it were required to run on LEADED regular vs required unleaded regular.
ULSD is required for any diesel MY 2007 and newer otherwise the PM filter will be clogged and the NOx catalysts will be poisoned by the sulfur.
As for testing a diesel for pollutants, in Maryland where I live, the state will not do a tail pipe test on a diesel, even if you beg them to do so. The rational is that there are so few of them on the road and that their emissions are not as pervasive as those of gassers. Maryland is considering the adoption of some form of the CARB rules in hope of cleaning up the air in the state. The benefit to diesel is that the fuel will be more like EU fuel, higher cetane, fewer aromatic compounds.
Why is there anti-diesel rhetoric? One reason I can come up with is that there has been no widespread advertising of ULSD by the refiners. I have seen maybe one or two ads and that is it. Today, the API sponsored an ad on TV touting the benefits of ULSD but they showed the application of the fuel in a semi only and not a passenger vehicle. The next reason I can think of is that there has been little or no education of the public about clean diesel. One last reason I can think of is GM. They are about as anti-diesel as they come for a domestic automaker. Ford is not to far behind in that department either but they are in a financial pickle to boot.
Earf? Is it a nice place? If so, how can I get there?