Diesels in the News

qbrozen

new diesel engine from Benz that sounds impressive, supposedly 6 new VW diesels, and a Volvo diesel C30">link title.

ruking1

Wow, 235 hp/295 #ft of torque with 1.8 liters with 39/40 mpg to boot! No doubt MB has built it stoutly!

If I were to modify my 1.9 TDI to close to those numbers, I would be creating a diesel "hand grenade" As a comparo 90 hp/155 # ft of torque. The Jetta weighs in at 2950#'s. Man, can you imagine if you load that onto a Civic at 2500#'s?

It probably should be mentioned "that" diesel would require an almost as well engineered mating to a 6/7 speed manual. Cruising at 100 mph is a can do easy now! (but truly don't try this in your municipality, I do not in mine). This engine and trans combo would literally make a one day 1000 mile leg across America a can do easy! On a 14.5 gal tank, I have a 700 mile range now! A 20 gal tank (50 mpg) would be; pull into a hotel and fuel in the morning, before another 1000 miles!!

qbrozen

and that's 39 mpg in an S class! Imagine that engine something small and light. It would be a 50 mpg rocketship!

derrelhgreen

Read that article with much interest!

Seems like MBZ does not rest, and IF all is true, they've really opened up something new and exciting. :surprise:

As stated above, imagine how that motor would perform in a lighter vehicle?

roland3

... Maybe my guess about (you didn't know that was a guess ?), the adblue is correct. Build the engine the way it should be built: heat, compression, ring seal, boost, super high injection pressure, crisp timing, NO EGR, and then treat the exhaust later; however I am still undecided on the urea.

jrct9454

...the Dies-Otto engine runs on gasoline, not diesel. It's built to switch back and forth between compression ignition ["Dies"] and spark ignition ["Otto"]. It may be the most impressive breakthrough yet in finding that magic combination between power, emissions, and fuel use.It uses variable compression, among other interesting ideas.

There is a complete technical description out there, but I can't remember where - an earlier Autoweek article? Someplace else? Anyway, do a websearch and see what you find.

Here's one:

http://jalopnik.com/cars/teutonic-efficiency/mercedes-reveals-diesotto-engine-it- -runs-on-gas-282231.php

And another:

http://www.thecarconnection.com/Auto_News/Green_Car_News/Mercedes_Preps_DiesOtto- _Engine.S196.A13049.html

ruking1

Well no, it was not missed. It clearly sez gasoline/bio fuels, such as ethanol, etc. One break through is diesel LIKE compression, resulting in diesel like fuel mileage, etc, etc.

My question would be: what could they do mpg, power,hp, and emissions, etc., wise with a DIESEL engine!?

qbrozen

yer right! I did miss that. I think the "dies" in the name throws you off when reading it.
Autoweek did do an article that is linked to the Frankfurt preview.

Anyway, its still great. Heck, I don't care what it runs on as long as it has the longevity of a diesel, great efficiency, and great power.

ruking - the autoweek article states, "Because it runs on ordinary gasoline..."

roland3

... Actually, I think somebody on Greencar did refer us to some article on this type engine, but yeah I did see it in Autoweek or somewhere.

ruking1

Sun's Temper Blamed for Loss of Water on Mars

http://news.yahoo.com/s/space/20070823/sc_space/sunstemperblamedforlossofwateron- - mars

hypnosis44

A message from home perhaps?

ruking1

Place is ripe for mass tranportation eh? Tick Tock!

roland3

... Ruking, of course most of this is made possible by the Modern Marvel, common rail fuel injection. It is much more tolerant to a lack of lubricity than older plunger type injector systems, and gasoline is a rather non-lubricant. Due to Diesel fuel's much lower octane and gasoline's much higher RPM potential, this engine may very well be the future. So the lower octane and Diesel's love of NOx generating heat may be our undoing. On the other hand the Dies-Otto will be a very expensive option and might never reach enough market saturation to help our overall fuel use.

ruking1

For my .02 cents the new MB engine is currently a so called "boutique type" engine. Ultimately I would subscribe to the notion that it needs to fulfull a deep enough market saturation to stay viable, let alone to reach a criticality to cross over into so called more mass markets.

But in terms of the overall fuel use, I think the real story is being unveiled and told by oems/models like 2008 Toyota Camry/Honda Accord. To cut to the quick, the EPA is FAR less rather than FAR better. The platform is physically bigger. MORE HP/Torque, etc etc. This is despite being in the shadow of the so called threaten legislation of the 35 mpg litmus test.

So if it is true the average age of the fleet is between 7-8.5 years, average yearly mileage driven is 12,000 to 15,000 miles, etc. etc. one could make the case that any decrease in fuel use (as reflected in less [-54] miles driven on average) this has been EFFECTIVELY mitigated AGAINST by the choice of less EPA mileage vehicles hitting the markets and STAYING on the markets for a even longer time (average age of the fleet- from 7-8.5 years AND increase prices in said commodity!!!?? I would even guess more premium models use premium unleaded.

roland3

... So I guess what you are saying is that even a caveman would drag more logs to the fire if his woman(s) liked the smell and or the smoke was intoxicating ???

ruking1

Short answer? YUP! So even as the powers that be call for greater MPG, the rules allow for even less!!?? Indeed if they had their druthers, they would have found a way to ban the 50 mpg TDI!? They were successful in 5 states for a period of time Indeed the ones that so call "pass muster" get increasingly less MPG !!?? :lemon:

Long answer is more directional or even more encompassing. If (-54 miles) LESS is the average per year. Doing the math would indicate the utter ABSURDITY of it all.

roland3

... To further answer your question about what this level of R & D could do for Diesel, I think the piezo-ceramic, common rail revolution makes this engine study more concurrent. Unfortunately we need a PAC (pol action committee) to wake up CARB, EPA and EURO that even a caveman likes heat and that the total carbon concerns are more important than their counter-productive NOx regs, and that a Ben Bernanke like, emergency, immediate, incentive of a minor reduction in NOx regs is needed to jumps start our small to midsize Diesel car sales and market availiabilty.

ruking1

Correct! Even the venerable gasser Chevy "V8" which used to get 10-12 mpg, is now capable of 19/28 mp EPA's g (2001 Corvette). So in rhetorical terms, if the 2008 Toyota Camry/Honda Accord "V6" gets 19/28 mpg is the mpg more or less?????!!!

A diesel V8 with the 20-40% fuel advantage would translate to a min of 23/34 mpg!!! I think Larsb posted some time ago, a TT diesel sports car getting 70 mpg at 65 mph!! AND with a 4 sec 0-60 mph!!

Also one must factor in the ultimate unseen/seen gate keeper. That gate keeper is the YEARLY NEW CAR % percentage (16/17 M/ 235.4M) passenger vehicle fleet ( 7 to 7.5%) yearly new car offerings. On the grim reaper side, the other gate keeper is the yearly SALVAGE rate (7%).

Some might argue it is a mere coincidence that after 20-30 years, the diesel passenger vehicle fleet are less than 3%; or the flip side: upwards of 97% of the passenger vehicle fleet are GASSER.

If one believes that, the single bullet theory (injured a Texas governor, killed Kennedy, and wound up in pristine condition on the car seat next to one of them) is right up the entertainment alley

roland3

... Talking about unseen, it turns out that the carbon emissions are worse than the seen NOx; however the entrenched bureaucracy owes it's cushy jobs to NOx. To some extent I understand this; because CARB and EPA actually made a change in the atmosphere; however it's time for them to admit they were not entirely correct in that it drove the engine manufacturers to hurt the atmosphere with huge efficiency losses. There are two reasons the Diesel market is what it is in the USA: cheap fuel and CARB and EPA. Ruking please drop all that conspiracy talk, I doubt you have any better knowledge of the facts than most of the general public.

ruking1

Policy and systematic enforcement (there of) might be better words that conspiracy? I did NOT suggest the C word! YOU did. But, I do NOT believe in the Magic Bullet! (goes against ballistics science)

Do I know anything about the Kennedy assassination? Let's see, as I recall I was sitting in a 7th grade classroom when the news hit the TV, app 1,750 miles away. The teacher at the time light a cigarette and did an impromptu civic's reality lesson. She talked about the succession to the the VP, Lyndon B Johnson. All I knew was what was in the papers and what the news anchor, Walter Cronkite said at the time.

Coincidently, I had the chance in 1984 to meet him IN Dallas, TX. :shades:

bhill2

The situation that is playing out here is a well-known one in bureaucracies. It is, at some point in time, determined that a product has to meet certain standards in order to be acceptable. In order to be sure that a product meets these standards, the bureaucracy appoints a group of people "Keepers of the Standards (KotS)" and charges them with testing the products for compliance. To the KotS, the actual acceptability of the product is irrelevant; only the standards matter. If something happens to change the definition of 'acceptable', this has no effect on them; in fact, the new definition presents a risk to their continuation as KotS, and they will resist it. In this case, diesels have many advantages, including emitting lower amounts of some pollutants and emitting much less CO2, but that doesn't matter; they don't meet the standards and the KotS are not going to let them through.

blufz1

It was a fmj bullet. Shots were only about 55 to 80 yds. Best book is Case Closed by Gerald Posner.

roland3

... Your statement makes quite a bit of sense; however CARB and EPA and their children have to breath "the product". So I too have wondered "why", and I'll stick to my, "any large and powerful organization has a very hard time admitting that they were wrong, or wrong enough to commit to self confessing course correction". Some of this lies in the fact that they still don't make the engines but rather "the regs", ergo they are not responsible, even if the engine manufacturers can't change the laws of physics.

kreuzer

probably off the course of our current subject, but...? I was wanting to know if all diesel engines will have a turbo attached to the new clean diesel engines coming out? Is this the norm with diesels? Can a diesel be built without a turbo attached and still perform like a gas engine? Finally, how reliable are the turbos? Thanks

stevecebu

probably off the course of our current subject, but...? I was wanting to know if all diesel engines will have a turbo attached to the new clean diesel engines coming out? Is this the norm with diesels? Can a diesel be built without a turbo attached and still perform like a gas engine? Finally, how reliable are the turbos? Thanks

Diesels need lots of air and the best way to get it is with a turbo. The days of the old Chrysler units with the bearings wearing out are long gone.
I have a turbodiesel in my Hi-Lux and it's beautiful, works great and you don't get lag like you do with a turbo on a gas engine. Although the Hyundai Matrix CRDi turbo diesels take a while to spin up and it's like pulling a rubber band back and then letting it go. I didn't care for it but my friend bought one.
I'd be amazed if any modern diesel didn't have a turbo. They even put turbo's in most airplane engines now. I'd say they are light years more reliable than back in the 1980's K-Car days.

ruking1

There is no regulation that says regulations have to make sense!! Indeed admitting that a government organization is wrong is tantamount to guaranteeing a (WINNING)lawsuit against the admitting organization. Now there are SPECIFIC LAWS against THAT !! Remember we have the innocent till PROVEN guilty system of justice!!??

ruking1

The real question should be: why there has NOT been more widespread use of turbos by GASSERS: :)You can google to find out why.

Actually the (downstream) turbo uses (waste and wasted) exhaust gasses generated by the upstream ICE gasser or diesel.

1. the turbo operation itself does not generate exhaust gasses

2. the power boost is so called "free" of upstream fuel use.

3. use of already present exhaust gasses contributes to greater power and better fuel mileage as the turbo does not directly use fuel

One hint, HEAT HEAT HEAT! This contradiction is part of what makes single to multiple turbos a good marriage with diesels.

roland3

... One of the main things about the ubiquitous (as in turbo use) turbo-Diesel and how it saves fuel is that it almost always is doing the job of a much larger engine. It's main reason for being so far ahead of the gassers is that there are almost no detonation (called fuel knock in Diesel) problems as there is no fuel on the compression stroke until just the right time. As matter of fact if it were not for: turbo, high pressure injection, sophisticated electronic fueling algorithms, and low on no sulphur fuels I could not be ranting and raving about CARB, EPA and EURO and how they seem to ignore these developments.

ruking1

As a downstream turbocharger, why should YOU care? :P If not for HEAT HEAT HEAT?

roland3

... Ruking, I realize this is like baseball and you can look up everything I posted here; however I am for one cat and a particulate trap, at this time. Did you see my edit above ?

ruking1

I didn't look up anything before response to your above 2 posts. I did not see your edit till way past the time I could edit.

hypnosis44

" Ruking please drop all that conspiracy talk, I doubt you have any better knowledge of the facts than most of the general public."

That would pretty much close down the activity on this site though.

hypnosis44

"...the new definition presents a risk to their continuation as KotS, and they will resist it."

If cars ran on the conspiracy theories and hyperbole posted here we could turn our unused oil into an export item.

ruking1

..."If cars ran on the conspiracy theories and hyperbole posted here we could turn our unused oil into an export item. "...

Actually that is one reason why Europe is able to do that as a direct result of having UPWARDS of 50% of the passenger fleet being diesel and GROWING! But if the majority wants to buy gassers that use more fuel than not; as long as I am able to buy diesel and diesel variants... works for me!! It has actually worked for me since 2003 and going on 100,000 miles. Yet YOU ( among others) must have totally ignored the 5 state ban on new diesel CAR sales starting with the 2005 model year.....

You also might want to take a look at the take on a owner operator who got LESS THAN 18 mpg in a (GASSER) Honda Civic!!?? His GASSER mpg report is a far cry from my "shabby" diesel 46 mpg driving in a 3 hour stop and go funeral procession in the same city, with the A/C BLASTING. Of course this is down from my more normal commute range of 48-52 mpg. Keep in mind the Civic is one of the premier acknowledged economy cars. I guess in your "denial logic" getting 18 mpg is FAR better than 46 mpg. :confuse:

..."I just bought an EX sedan automatic a few weeks ago, and on my first tank of gas, I got 17.6 mpg, with 95 % city driving (San Francisco). I never used the AC, and I drove fairly conservatively. I can only assume that all you people who get crazy high mpg don't live in big cities.
I'm not surprised at the low mpg I am getting either as I was already told by Consumer Reports that the Civic only gets 18 mpg city. Consumer Reports gave the civic a 18/43/28 mpg for city, highway, overall, respectively. Seems to me like Consumer Reports has it pretty accurate."...

Honda Civic Real World MPG #1133.

roland3

... One of the main reasons gassers get such terrible MPG in the city is that the engine is almost always fighting against a partially closed throttle plate; therefore a Diesel strong suit. Wife had a two liter gasser that would only get 28 MPG @ a steady state (cruise control) 65 MPH. She is in a state of shock over her new V~6 Liberty gasser that does not see 21 MPG anywhere (still waiting for breakin @ 10 k). I might have been able to talk her into a CRD had they not droped it for '06.

kdhspyder

Beginning this year it's now an 8-state ban. 3 more have signed onto the CARB program.

jkinzel

And what might those three additional states be?

ruking1

It isn't that

"... One of the main reasons gassers get such terrible MPG in the city is that the engine is almost always fighting against a partially closed throttle plate;"...

THIS (your above quote) and other technical impediments have NOT been known and KNOWN for a long time!?

But speaking purely from a so called consumer point of view, given SIMILAR performance characteristics, it is seamless to (to a consumer) whether they get 50 mpg in a diesel or gasser. But even in that instance, diesel has the advantage in that diesel is a REAL pathway to alternative fuel, i.e. getting off the so called unleaded regular/premium "addiction" which the eco types like to say we are on. Another advantage is in the production of unleaded regular/premium there is an almost inevitable production of app 23% diesel like product. So a Prius while good at 42-48 mpg, still uses unleaded regular!! This fact is routinely and almost totally ignored by the very same critics who vilify diesel!!

Ethanol still needs MASSIVE R& D. as it is a min of 25% MORE consumptive than unleaded regular/premium. So using the Civic Jetta TDI comparo of 18 mpg to 46 mpg, if I had a ethanol (actually B85) Civic (if they could overcome the almost MASSIVE technical problems), the MPG would now be 14 mpg vs 18 mpg vs 46 mpg. So I guess we need to add another math challenged hypothesis that 14 mpg is WAY better than even 18 mpg which was better than 46 mpg under similar operational parameters!!!!!??? :lemon:

roland3

... BTW, wife's V~6 Liberty gasser is a strong example of a smaller engine, with turbo, being able to do the job. A normally aspirated Diesel four could handle it, but it would be rather tardy. As to my comments about throttle plate strangulation, of course it's been known forever; however I pointed it out as a possible strong variant in real world MPG figures.

ruking1

Being as how you seem to have a interest in the technical, you might like to detail how the oem has engineered around the heat issues.

roland3

... I will be posting soon a rather shocking example of how the OEM has NOT been able to engineer around a haet issue. I'll put it in my: "more about EGR".

kdhspyder

PA, CT, RI

Link here from 3 more states adopt CARB standards

Not verified but I heard that FL, TX and possibly IL are also seriously considering adoption.

ruking1

Makes even more sense to drive that TDI PAST 500,000 miles and more directly to the target goal of 1,000,000 miles. (The TDI motor has a 25,000 hour @80% loading specification) All I really need do is to change the (non diesel) consumables that will need replacing ANYWAY. One example might be buying a new car when all that really needs changing are the shocks, struts, springs, tires, alignment, brake pads, rotors, battery, etc. I am not sure most folks know this; but the TDI achieves full compression (550 psi) at app 60,000 miles. This is unlike gassers that begin to LOSE compression almost from full break in at 1,000 miles.

roland3

... I will be explaining a shocking, current problem, but first what is going on, I mean what is really going on. Is it that CARB and EPA are the worst bureaucratic bungling since Prohibition? Is it that these well educated, dedicated, engineers are actually capitalistic swine that will build any iorn regardless of what spews out the tailpipe? Is it intelligent design, funded by evil oil companies to make obscene profits? Well, I think it's a lack of communication between the reg makers and the engine builders.
... So here's an example. All big trucks from 2006 on need EGR to pass the regs. CARB and EPA don't put this on the engines, but the engineers can't change the thermodynamic and petro-chemistry laws. Now, this 15 or so percent of exhaust gas, that is sent back into the intake tract is too hot, and heat makes NOx, so it has to be cooled. After the exhaust passes a 14 hundred dollar valve, it has to go into an intercooler and of course the intercooler needs a bigger cooling system, and that means a large fan. Just about all large trucks needed 35 (not a misprint) horsepower to run the engine fan, now it's 50 horsepower (nominal). Before this (ca 2005) the Diesel was about 90 percent (correct me if I am wrong) cleaner than it was 15 years ago.
... Fortunately the fan does not run all the time, it is thermostaticially controlled; however in the city it runs most of the time. There are thousands on the road now, soon to be tens of thousands. So every new truck you are (to some extent) looking at has a 15 horsepower, fuel wasting, carbon spewing, engine, running to appease the reg makers.
... But wait, the big engine (because of EGR) will wear out sooner and be pouring unregulated blowby out the crankcase breather, and use more crankcase oil, and use at least 5 percent more fuel. Some accounts are much worse on the fuel use. The vehicle will also spend more of it's life in the shop.
... The only thing I can say on CARB and EPA's side is that if they were the grant a Diesel incentive, (in consideration of Diesel's better carbon footprint) for on-highway Diesel, by a minor reduction in the NOx regs, the container ship companies would probably cry (let them) because they are soon to be regulated. Too bad, the ships are terrible (and unregulated now) and we would better off if they were somewhere near as clean as the trucks.

ruking1

So what part of the harmony do you want me to do in your post!

Just to spline into your point. It is those very same agencies that regulated/DICTATED the higher sulfur content FOR LONGER (1 generation or 30-40 years TOO LONG, than necessary for my .02 cents) that paradoxically tends to gum up the intakes and makes the EGR malfunction on machines designed for LSD and ULSD. This in turn creates and created FAR MORE pollution that using LSD/ULSD !!!!!!!! So now they can say that diesel makes pollution!!!??? Too bad they bypassed the concept of self fulfilling prophesies in scientific method CLASSES taught in freshman high school!!!

roland3

... Ruking, what is your opinion of sulfur content regs today ? I think the NOx regs are an abuse of power.

ruking1

Well, unleaded regular/premium and ULSD are @ 30 & 15 ppm respectively!! I have also read that there are efforts to implement ULSD @ 6 ppm, but can link non of the particulars. Indeed you can do this with the various blends of B. Math also indicates unleaded regular/premium is 2x "dirtier" (30ppm/15 ppm) Being as how the gasser advocates seem to be math challenged, this is completely glossed over or ignored. There is NO call to restrict unleaded regular/Premium products to even close to the extent ULSD products are subjected. It is well documented using LSD, the mitigation adopted in years' passed match the NOx emissions for a gasser Toyota Camry.

Bio diesel has ZERO ppm. So if one indicates biodiesel at less than 1 ppm, that means unleaded regular/premium is now GREATER than 30 times more dirty.

I have said that the less than 3% diesel passenger fleet (mitigated) emissions is not even measurable, let alone statistically significant. Again where the Prius has the greatest population (LA, CA), the Prius' (lack of emissions) is not only immeasurable but has not changed the pollution levels and is not even again statistically significant. Further NONE of the environmental groups have made any statement of what percentage of the states 20 M passenger vehicle fleet would need to be Prius like to have even MEASURABLE levels let alone statistically significant further researchable levels!

The stuff that is, those very same agencies are LOATHED to mitigate such as airplanes, shipping, farm, construction, etc., etc., equipment and defense contracting.

gagrice

The EPA & CARB serve at the will of their legislative body. The legislative body serves at the will of the lobbyist that pays the most money. I think the oil companies do not want a situation as it has evolved in the EU. As you have pointed out many times, when they refine a barrel of oil you get many different products. The EU with its 50% diesel fleet is not using all the gas that is refined over there. We get a good portion of that excess gas. That does present logistical problems. It is easier and safer to transport crude oil than it is volatile gasoline. ULSD presents an even bigger problem. It is best refined from low sulfur or light sweet crude oil. There is a glut of dirty crude that the oil companies need to use. Gas is easier to produce from that poor crude oil. It is only in the last couple years that the EPA mandated 30 PPM sulfur in gas. Many states were selling the cheaper high sulfur gas. It was a major cause of catalytic convertor failures. All this adds up to an incentive to keep the diesel fleet at a manageable level. If a person drives a diesel car such as the 2005 Passat that I owned, they will not be satisfied with the performance of the gas version. If they build it with an engine to compete with the diesel it will get about half the mileage. I think we are ultimately bucking the oil companies on allowing the flood of diesel cars to enter our market. That and a few misdirected zealots in CARB & EPA that play into the oil companies hand. They would like people to think they are doing it for the environment. When all they are doing is being used to keep the flow of oil at a steady level.

Look for cheaper gas prices to counter-act the threat of diesel cars. The difference in gas to diesel, with the advantage to diesel has gotten shorter every year.

houdini1

Yes, in my area the price of gas is going down and diesel is going up. Today reg. was $2.65 and diesel was $2.95.

The diesel cars will cost more, the fuel will cost more and there goes your advantage. Diesels will be like hybrids...you will never be able to recoup your initial investment and the fuel cost.

The only real advantage diesel has is economy and longevity.
If that is taken away, why buy one? If the cost of diesel goes high enough, longevity will work against you because the longer you keep it the more you will spend on fuel, digging the hole deeper and deeper.

It is a shame, but Big Oil and Detroit have different plans for us. I know this sounds pessimistic and I sincerely hope that I am wrong!

ruking1

There are and will continue to be niche's in the markets. In response to your fuel price/s snap shot/s, the prices of diesel products are governed somewhat by (seasonality) the fuel oil used needed for home heating oil. The true advantage in terms of the environmental stated goals are the 20-40% efficiency of diesel products over gasser products, alternative fuel, less production of so called green house gasses and less importation of overall barrels of oil due to the production ratio of diesel vs unleaded regular/premium. Another is the balance of refinement of light sweet crude and other than light sweet crude and their price (and subsequent profit) profiles. I think longevity will work WAY past the normal lease or monthly payment time frames. (typically 3-5 years or 36-60 mos) A foil would be: it is still cost effective for me to keep a 10-15 year old SUV getting 15 mpg, if I am the normal 12,000 to 15,000 miles per year average American driver. Indeed I should have kept one 14 year old SUV which would be 20 years old this year, rather than pay 300-500 per mo to get a new economy car such as the Camry V6 getting 25 mpg.