... You are right to take me to task for an oversimplification. So I'll try to be more specific. Extreme high pressure injection: less unburned HC, less particulate, better MPG, some increase in NOx. Sophisticated fueling maps, less unburned HC, less particulate, better MPG. Better turbocharging, better MPG, some increase in NOx, small engine doing big engine work. EGR, increased particulate, increased engine wear, increased unburned HC, more frequent oil changes, less NOx, less MPG. Could use a little help from the lurkers on the CO, and maybe some definitive of the above and or argument.
Here is a link to an artical from RAND Corporation (a nonprofit research organization) The discussion is a comparison of Diesel -vs- Hybred -vs- E85 vehicles focusing on operating cost over the life of the vehicle.
The big news I see in here which pertains to diesel is surmized in the following quote from the artical:
"For all three vehicle types, the advanced diesel offers the highest savings over the life of the vehicle among the options considered. These savings increase with the size and fuel use of the vehicle: $460 for the car, $1,249 for the SUV and $2,289 for the large pick-up truck; "
A more significant and meaningful post is “Hybrids have a competitive edge for urban consumers who experience more stop-and-go city traffic.” and "Both the hybrid and diesel vehicles are more fuel efficient than their gasoline-powered counterparts: 25 to 40 percent better for hybrid and 20 to 30 percent for diesel, depending on the vehicle." Diesel comes in second for most situations and drivers. Italics are mine.
Good balanced report. Its emphasis on overall cost is what the vehicle buyer needs to be aware of. I think it is significant that it is a future projection from the time frame 2010 to 2020. The gaps between the technologies will become wider as the price of fuel increases. It shows just what a huge waste our tax investment in ethanol has become.
“While it is assumed that the hybrid vehicle will save more fuel than the advanced diesel, the overall advantage goes to the diesel because of its lower technology costs and better performance such as increased torque,” Graham said. “For E85, it is the cost of producing the fuel, not vehicular changes, that drives the negative results.”
The key findings from the societal perspective are similar to those of the consumer perspective, including:
* The advanced diesel again shows the most promise, particularly for the larger vehicles: $289 for cars, $1,094 for SUVs and $2,199 for large trucks. * The net benefits for hybrids are somewhat less positive, with moderate-to-small values of $481 for SUVs and $132 for light trucks, and an increased cost for cars (-$317) over the life of the vehicle * Results for E85 remain uniformly negative, even more so for larger than smaller vehicles: -$1,046 for cars, -$1,500 for SUVs and -$2,049 for light trucks
“While the net benefit of E85 is generally unfavorable compared to hybrid and advanced diesel technology, the diesel's edge over the hybrid is not as significant,” Graham said. “If the cost of hybrid technology falls significantly, the benefits of the hybrid could equal or exceed the diesel.”
I translated an article of a test by Auto Bild of the LS 600H against the S420CDI, A8 4.2TDI and BMW 745d. This test showed a clear consumption advantaged in mixed driving to the 3 diesels.
My guess however is that with a majority of city driving, the LS could be on par or better than the three diesels. regretfully, those are not available in the US yet
>Now let's hope they will offer a Passat Wagon in that configuration as well.
I would recommand the Passat SW 2.0 TDI 170 with DSG. This wagon is being sold in Europe for one year already and comes with counter balancing shafts to reduce diesel vibration. with 170HP and 350 NM of torque (250 lb/f ?) it moves the wagon with authority.
0-62 is the quickest for the passat, but the Volvo takes advantage from 80-120 (all with manual gears) Passat second. the passat wins this comparison test through the best performance /consumption ratio and more accomodation for passengers and luggage.
This is true and supported by tests, DSG transmissions can increase both Fuel Efficiency and performances.
A friend of mine has a Touran TDI 1.9 (105HP) with a DSG and told me he has an average consumption of 47 MPG doing a lot of city. He is also satisfied by the performances. he cruises at 150 km/h on the motorway and has no technical problem whatsoever.
My 2005 Passat Wagon with the older TDI 2.0 and Tiptronic transmission was a delight to drive. If it was slightly bigger and easier to get in and out of I would not have sold it. I did sell it for $3000 more than I bought it for new, after I put 8000 miles on it. I have been watching for a TDI Beetle with DSG for a runabout. They are not easy to find new or used for a decent price.
The RAND Corporation really does excellent work in the areas of their expertise and "markets" they chose to do business. For my .02 cents, over the years I have always had respect for their ethos.
As it applies to passenger diesels, while there are literally TONS of data about diesel vs gasser in Europe for example, we can only point to a few areas of comparison/s here in the "US markets". One easy example is the VW Jetta, two gasser models; which if lucky, will get 29 mpg vs TDI 46-50 mpg. Mine has just clicked the "milestone" 100,000 miles. One can easily do math, given whatever figures and:
1. decide which makes more sense 2. what one would really chose 3. what one would really chose ( given greater numbers, volumes and percentages of diesel models).
At current prices of $3.49 RUG/ $3.41 ULSD, that is $12,034/$7,256. This translates to $4,778. almost 40% MORE for RUG., !!!
Indeed one practical conversion would be buy more diesel fuel for commuting. So at $4,778/$3.41= 1,401 gals SAVED * 47 mpg=65,855 MORE miles for the same (GASSER) money. For those of you still awake, that is .04778 cents per mile MORE!
To keep the comparisons, one of those gasser engines (1.8T) requires premium ((@ the current price of $3.71 per gal) puts those figures @ $12,792, or almost 43.3% more than diesel.
I know what I have been and would rather pay!!
(if I had to pay it, for the mass transportation and anti dieselists, mantra ist's amongst us)
For the record, please do NOT think I am anti mass transportation, I am not and FAR from it!! . I was part of a county transportation effort that help both to wrangle and shepherd $1.75 B dollars for local transportation issues: a large part being bike lanes, mass transportation, electric vehicle feasibility: such as light rail, ADA fleet options, hydrogen (beta test) buses, etc, etc,) So instead of soap boxing it here on an inappropriate topic site, might I encourage those with that seeming passion to volunteer at ONES' governmental levels to advance/fight those issues. (yes, I have also fought for one's right to DISAGREE)
GM, Ford, Chrysler, etc. literally for decades have been selling both diesel and gasser models of their 250/2500 series.
In TDI circles, the wagon models (in the Jetta and the Passat) are (primo) held in high regard.
I am not sure this might be useful or otherwise just stating the obvious: but whatever alpha numeric designation it takes, the concept is a manual clutch system; the clutch pedal work controlled by an on board computer and done by supporting mechanisms. This interface of course runs the gambit from being an incredibly simple to wildly complex.
Some advantages are, less: weight, cost, (partly, on one side) complexity, loss of hp/torque due to heat, developmental, manufacture, depreciation costs
better fuel mileage. smoother operation synchronization of the driving experience.
..."As of October 2007, the Energy Information Administration estimated that U.S. petroleum consumption declined 0.9% in 2006 and would increase 0.4% in 2007 and 1.0% in 2008."...
So in the context of US average yearly mileage of 12,000 to 15,000 miles .9 % (historical look back to 2006) that would convert to (-minus) 108-135 miles, or to -9 to -11.25 miles per month. At a 22 mpg fleet average that is up to 6.14 gals per year or .51 gals per mo.!! (slightly more than 1/2 gal for us math challenged folks) Judas Priest, I"M HELPING !!!
So you can imagine the almost exponential rise in per gal fuel prices with an WIDESPREAD almost 40% efficiency !!??
NO GOOD DEED GOES unpunished!!?? :lemon: :confuse: :sick:
In the past few weeks, a growing number of stations that sold ULSD are now reverting back to LSD. Has anyone else seen this trend? Anyone have any ideas as to why this might be happening?
It is occurring primarily at Chevron/Texaco and Sunoco stations.
No. But I would be just guessing here, but there are some states that fall into a later mandatory implementation period. As such, if they are experiencing ULSD supply issues, they can still substitute to LSD.
I believe the federal implementation covers all non-CARB states and 80% of stations must carry ULSD as of June 2006, if I remember correctly. A supply issue seems reasonable but unacceptable.
The link was not easy to access and also required a significant set up, which I did not want to do.
Here in CA, there was much ado about not much, before the implementation of LSD to ULSD. It was and has been hugely advertised, publicized. It was widely publicized that any failure to do mandatory conversions would result in HUGE daily fines. Even failure to post so called required regulatory signs called for further fines. Yet before during and after, in places where I have taken on fuel, there was not sign number one!!! Indeed now, there are RARE tp no signs announcing ULSD. So while I TRUST that I am taking on ULSD, the truth is I do not really KNOW if I am. Indeed the actual implementation date had been slipped at least once. (that I know of)
While I can tell the difference for example between RUG and PUG, I have noticed almost NO operational differences between, 1. 49 state 500 ppm or less, 2. CA 140 ppm or less 3. ULSD 15 ppm or less. Since the so called conversion, I have fueled in at least 4 states. I understand that the red dye product (in some places sold at the same fuel station different pump, can be up to 500 ppm, in CA it can be 140 ppm.
but I guess this is the place to do such. I wish the big 3 would get their act together and start supplying their vehicles with the new diesel engines instead of promoting their new models with these gas sucking ones! I'll probably be ready for a new vehicle by late next year, and there just isn't much out there in the way of smaller cars and small pick-ups. I'd really like to buy "American" if the big 3 would be as reliably comparable to the Asian and European markets, but I think that's wishful thinking at best! I see them advertising new models but none with diesel engines.
I wonder if it is the winter mixture with number one diesel that adds to the sulfur content. I do not think that number One diesel/kerosene/JetA is part of the ULSD mandate. Most Northern dealers mix 1 & 2 to avoid gelling.
It might possibly be. I am far from sure whether those winter additives meets the technical description of ULSD. I just assumed (which can be incorrect) that it is similar to the winter blend of RUG/PUG.
For those who do not have MS Power Point I have copies 8 of 15 pages of the ULSD Downgrading link.
ULSD Downgrading
A general overview of the Clean Diesel Fuel Rules on downgrading as defined by the US EPA
It is the responsibility of each person to understand and follow EPA’s rules.
What is Downgrading? • Refiners and importers classify diesel according to its intended use • Downgrading is where an entity changes the classification of 15 ppm sulfur highway diesel (ULSD) to 500 ppm sulfur highway diesel (LSD) • Re-designating/re-grading – or moving highway diesel out of the highway pool (i.e. to non-road, locomotive & marine, or heating oil) is not considered downgrading in this regulation and is not subject to downgrading limitations • Downgrading or re-designating ULSD (motor vehicle fuel) may occur if ULSD is sulfur contaminated or for product availability, pricing or other marketing reasons • Mixing ULSD and LSD in an end user’s vehicle fuel tank is not considered downgrading (vehicles with 2007 or later model year engines must use ULSD) Anti-Downgrading Provisions • All diesel fuel facilities are subject to anti-downgrading provisions beginning October 15, 2006 – Including pipelines, terminals, tank trucks, centrally fuelled fleets & retail stations • Up to 20% of the diesel fuel a facility dispenses per compliance period may be ULSD that has been downgraded to highway LSD* • No limit on re-designations/re-grades of ULSD to non-road, locomotive & marine diesel or heating oil • Anti-downgrading limitations only apply to #2 15ppm diesel fuel, not to #1 diesel (kerosene) Anti-Downgrading Compliance Periods • Oct. 15, 2006 - May 31, 2007 (7 ½ months) • June 1, 2007 – June 30, 2008 (13 months) • July 1, 2008 – June 30, 2009 (12 months) • July 1, 2009 – May 31, 2010 (11 months) Who is Covered? • Each facility is subject to the downgrading provisions and their own 20% downgrade limitation – Pipelines – Terminals – Tank Truck Operators – Retail Stations – Wholesale Purchaser-Consumers (i.e. Fleets) • Includes: private fleets, government fleets, farm or construction site tanks, and other private fuel facilities with a tank that exceeds 550 gallons. • End users (including wholesale purchaser-consumers) may mix ULSD and LSD in a vehicle’s fuel tank (note: vehicles with 2007 or later model year engines must use ULSD only) • All highway non-road, locomotive & marine diesel fuel consumed in California must be ULSD and the anti-downgrading provisions do not apply. Recordkeeping • All entities are required to keep records for five years and be able to submit them to EPA upon request (reproducible electronic copies are acceptable). – Including but not limited to: • Quality Analysis and/or Quality Control records • Product Transfer Documents • Tank truck operators, retailers, & fleet operators are not required to submit reports to EPA
Special Provisions for Retailers & Wholesale Purchaser-Consumers (fleets) • Parties that sell or dispense both highway ULSD and highway LSD simultaneously are exempt from the downgrading limitations • Parties that sell or dispense only ULSD are exempt from the downgrading limitations • If any highway ULSD is sold or dispensed as LSD, that fuel is subject to the 20% downgrading limitation • Parties that sell or dispense only LSD are subject to the downgrading limitations • 20% of the highway LSD that they sell/dispense can be fuel that they received as ULSD and downgraded to LSD Downgrading Examples: • Example 1: Location dispenses ULSD and, due to supply disruptions, has to temporarily purchase LSD • Example 2: Location dispenses LSD and, due to supply disruptions, has to temporarily purchase ULSD • Example 3: Location dispenses LSD only and spot buys ULSD to supplement inventory due to pricing disparity
...where we rented a Chevy minivan. While it performed adequately in most areas, the fuel economy was pretty bad by my standards. I told my wife that I couldn't see owning one of these things until they get a diesel under the hood. At best, I got about 23 mpg, on flat terrain, low traffic, at posted speeds, with three people and luggage onboard. If a diesel would get the highway mileage above 30 mpg and the city mileage above 20, I'd be all over a minivan.
While the article dealt with a gross analysis and the article does state that for most individual drivers in most situations gas hybrids today have the advantage. It is not a technology I am enamored of but does have the edge in city, stop and go driving which is the majority of driving done. As to future possibilities for diesel, or anything else - they are moot in this context. If you are buying a car today for general use today, not in some future, then gas hybrid has the edge. The article also failed to cover next generation gas technology which should alter overall outcome, as well as diesel hybrids.
I have two friends who worked at Rand for decades. As to Rand's track record; they have had to retract, or modify, or ignore the failure, of some of their analysis and predictions.
Also what is "moot" are gassers. What makes gasser germane is that fully 97% of the vehicle fleet is on it, because of some level of cost effectiveness either real or perceived. But if you look at it in terms of FUEL cost per mile driven, as I have documented in detail, which you have not refuted only dismissed, are diesels are up to 40% more efficient given like models. The gas engines mated to hybrids generally are smaller and way underpowered, given like gasser models. Hybrids can only realistically beat gassers if like models are actually cheaper- they are NOT! Indeed the only way they can do that is to make gassers- MORE expensive!!?? Indeed folks get royally wigged out for a $1,000 diesel premium. I in fact bought a diesel based on 50,000-60,000 miles B/E and keeping it more than 400,000 miles. The realities are of course FAR better than my worst projections!
When I considered the Prius it was 25,000 on up vs 18,000 for the diesel. When I considered the Civic Hybrid it was 20,000 vs 13,000. Funny how the 1,000 dollar premium for diesel over gasser is a HUGE sticking point; but $6,000 to 7,000 hybrid premium over gassers are totally glossed over. So which oem would not like to sell their gassers for MORE:say half of that or 3,000 to 3,500 more!!??
Fortunately virtually no one but refiners and enforcers needs to know all of of this information. It is all done by the time it reaches the gas tank. It is an interesting academic sequence though.
Most folks don't know and dare I say could care LESS what the fed, state, and locals' taxation take is on a gal of either RUG/PUG or #2 diesel. Government has a long term vested interest in higher taxation vs lower taxation as reflected in the cost per mile driven, i.e., tax per mile driven.
Actually it is one reason why diesel fuel for passenger diesels is tax both at a higher vol and percentage over RUG/PUG.
Indeed. I do not disagree with THAT RAND study! It was not I who wanted to introduce doubt by inferring their studies and protocols needed to approach speaking -"ex cathedra" (aka, 100%) Strict scientific inquiry only needs to meet the .05 correlation levels.
My own personal experience with "A" diesel leads me to believe the RAND study to be highly conservative. But it is hard to REALLY compare like models when there are hardly any like models: diesels, ethanol, E85, gasser hybrids, electric cars. etc, etc!!
Indeed Honda has admirably taken the bull by the horns by having quite a few (but not all) different model Civics: gasser, gasser hybrids, natural gas, hydrogen (FCX ? platform), and in Europe, a diesel Civic.
..." I am prevented from responding. I have been advised that my discussions of economic policy, or decision making policies are confrontational by nature."...
Actually I am ok with that, but in the context which you opine, your discourse is almost totally off topic with diesel passenger vehicles, which has been said many times is less than 3% of the passenger vehicle fleet population. The other side of that is your real windmill is the 97% of the vehicle fleet that uses RUG/PUG.
Was pulling 12,000lbs trail up a hill truck would down shift but would lose power until about 40 mhr then would pick up speed again. Did that once then went into limp mode would not go over 25mhr and check engine light came on. Turned off truck restarted ran fine but light was still on only for a few days then turned off. Once home hooked up code reader and came up low fuel rail pressure reset code then a day later truck stopped running going down the road and would not restart I replaced the fuel filter right there primed the system and it started right up. Have not hook reader up to it to see what codes are there do you think it was just a filter problem or do I have an injector going out .
It could be the filter, an intermittent fuel pump problem, or an engine management module problem. Did you use an unfamiliar fueling station where you could have gotten contaminated fuel? Did you check on the discussion site for mechanical problems for your make and model?
I read that the rollout of the ULSD as we go into 2008 is expanding to also include OFFROAD diesel (farm tractors, bulldozers, backhoe....etc)
Also, since virtually ALL of the Diesel and heating-oil arrives here in Vermont by rail...... It is not difficult to surmise that even home-heating-oil will also be ULSD since it is ILLEGAL to transport LSD in a container which has been "approved" for ULSD (the residual sulfer in the tank can put the sulfer-levels over the 15PPM)
Yes it was an unfamiliar fueling station just hooked up reader and there were no codes. I'am new to this site sill trying to find my around to the different discussions.
I had read in passing that home heating oil was up to 3000 ppm!!?? (Say it ain't so, Joe DiMaggio) I was literally stunned. Home heating oil burns 24/7 during the course of a LONG winter. It also burns almost totally unmitgated !!!
So a ULSD source would be up to .005 % less!!! That is literally the definition of exponentially LESS. Or 200x more.
I do not doubt it used to be that high.... The oil-companies needed SOMWHERE to selll all of the dirty fuel. I know that when my oil-burner is running, I can somtimes smell the sulfer outside while I am shoveling snow.
Yes- my furnace is well-tuned and only 2 years old. I paied extra for a "Thermo Pride" furnace with the copper heat-exchanger which is more efficent than welded sheetmetal plating.
I cant help wondering what the sulfer-level is for #6 fuel oil. I have seen HUGE tanks (the size of a 2-story home) labeled "#6 fuel-oil" at a nearby factory. In the winter they must have some kind of internal heaters to keep the stuff from turning to jelly.
Yes I read on the Primrose.com site, they sell additive treatments for many applications.
Indeed I have been and currently use a Primrose 405C (1-3000 dilution) as a fuel treatment,emulsifier, fuel pump lube (lubricity) and cetane boost. They claim it helps mpg, but truly I can not tell, as I have been using it since the vehicle was delivered.
It may have been water in the fuel, so you may want to check or replace the filters. Good luck - there is lots of info and experience around on the owner sites, sometimes it needs a little sorting out. You can do a subject search - try several variations.
Have to put in my 2 cents.. My '79 VW diesel had an average total mileage from 0-120,000 mi when I sold it, of 42 mpg. I have been looking at today's models and they ARE NOT improved any in the mileage department at all. There may be other things that are better, but not mileage. I would have had better mileage but most of the time I traveled I had a dog aboard, and so kept it idling from start to end of trips, which included meals, and a few overnights as well. I was happy to just have over 40mpg. My 3 tank high was 50+ some tenths., and the low was 38 with one tank at only 21 because of engine problems.,all that is included in the overall average. Too bad today's technology hasn't improved on that. Oh well..... FYI Ooops forgot to include that I had and used air conditioning, and went from Illinois to Fla to Arkansas and around.. for over 4 years of time in all weather, hot/cold, snow, etc. van
I think you will find most drivers of the newer VW TDIs are getting much better than the EPA estimates. EPA tests are so flawed that it is amazing people even read them. I guess it is the BIG numbers on the Mulroney sticker that catches their attention. If you look on the fueleconomy website for a 2006 Jetta TDI. The average driver is getting 41.9 Combined MPG. The estimate is 33 Combined MPG, a 22% error. Typical of the diesel estimates. The EPA skewed the whole test to try and make the estimates closer for the Hybrids, that were way off. Now all but the hybrids are screwed up. Progress is slow at the government level.
.."After Katrina a couple refineries were switched from diesel to gasoline production"..
I also remember the news reporting that President Bush ask/directed/mandated (not sure what form it took) to emphasize Rug to Pug rather than D2. This resulted in RUG to PUG prices being artifically kept low and D2 prices skyrocketing. Seems like P Bush stepped on the glee of environmentalists who think RUG to PUG should be more along the prices of $9 per gal. One day before Hurricane Katrina hit I bought D2 in a burb of New Orleans, LA @ 2.85 per gal as I recall. Of course years later, D2@ 4 per gal is causing or one symptom of economic crisis and inflation. See msg 5162.
You know, both your post and Gagrice's response to yours for some reason got me into a rumination mode, also given the context that the demos just passed the 35 mpg standard- 12 years 2019 target date oem implementation.
As an "earnest" citizen (if a citizen can be earnest) it saddens me at (the wind mill tilt) huge costly effort with almost no tangible result. Indeed if not cancelled, modified, vetoed, WE literally will be paying for this legislation for the 12 years ramping up to the target date and at least 12 years after.
Indeed it will exponentially increase the cost of EVERYTHING transportation related!!! As a normal political observer (like a fair weather sports fan) on the other hand, it is a source of hilarious amusement. There are others, but sticking with the diesel subject- my .02 cents, again we do NOT need "new" legislation about 35 mpg. We need cars that we can buy that actually GET 35 mpg. (if the real goal IS 35 mpg!!!!
A few examples that really show NO legislation is NEEDED to do so, YOURS '79 diesel obviously, 2004 Honda 29/38 mpg, 2003 Jetta 42/49 mpg. Funny that one of the HIGHEST mpg (diesel) vehicle was literally the target of a legislative enforcement BAN !!!
The local rag, SJMN Dec 4,2008 pg 1A ran almost a half page horizontal (but tipped vertically, titled the following: Ex-official cashes in on ethanol critics charge former secretary of state bill jones uses influence to drive state's alternative energy policy... by Kimberly Kindy
While all of that may be true, I was thinking more of the comments re: "up to a 40% gain" in mileages by today's diesels as some would have us think. It just isn't so, or we would be seeing the Ratings at about 60 mpg or better. That was my point. van
Oh yeah, don't get me started on this farce by our government. In the 70's we were told about averages to be in the high 20's as an average, and the only way they did it was to changed from V8's to 4 cyl, and American made to foreign vehicles, and they still don't have it.. Now we are going to try for 35 mpg... HA !!!! Never happen !!! They need to say "EVERY VEHICLE WILL AVERAGE xxxmpg " and they won't do that. Sorry, but it is a sore point with me. :mad: :mad: :mad: van
Given the hype I can see your point. Given the fact the REAL average passenger fleet mpg has been and will probably remain 22 mpg, diesel passenger cars are almost over the top, overachievers in the mpg dept. Perhaps that is the REAL problem.
but here is one ultimate irony about ethanol.
"...But he had a problem. While 6 percent ethanol helps gas burn more cleanly, at 10 percent the levels of smog-producing nitrogen oxide in fuel exhaust jumped considerably, state tests showed. That caused it to fall out of compliance with California's tough air quality laws"...
So ya gotta love E85 !!!!??????? :shades: :lemon: :mad: E85 burning products consume app 25% more than like RUG/PUG. So on a gasser Jetta which gets 29 mpg on RUG/PUG, an E85 Jetta ( the fuel delivery system would have to be almost totally re engineered) would yield 23.25 mpg. DIESEL Jetta: 47 mpg= 50.5% GREATER RUG consumption. BUT wait it gets better.... E85 sell on par with RUG. So is that less/more cents per mile driven that RUG/PUG or even diesel?? Grade school math sux eh?
It is a graphic no brainer to see there are already cars that met/meet the forward 35 mpg, 2019 target goal date, 29 years or almost a generation AGO!! Again NO legislation was necessary for those to hit the market!!
Unless ethanol products can at worst aid (not camoflauge), getting GREATER mpg, to at BEST meet, the 35 mpg stand alone, 2019 forward looking standard, the math and lack of R & D indicates it is technically and economically over for ethanol before it ramps up. ADVANTAGE: DIESEL.
Strictly from my point of view, my question would be: why would anyone buy ANY (new) vehicles that do not get at LEAST 35 mpg, going forward from 2008? In my case 2003. ???? The good news of course if Toyota (or any other oem could come up with SAY a twin turbo diesel SUV Landcruiser that gets 35 mpg... that would be a keeper for @ least 30 years!!
Government is further disingenuous for NOT allowing European passenger vehicles(or others for that matter) into the country that already meet the forward looking 2019 35 mpg standards. Hot CO2 rather than real results is the rule.
Instead they let in the fuel guzzlers like BMW's MB, Jaguar, Bentley's Ferrari's, Lamborgini's, etc etc that get FAR less than 35 mpg.
After rereading your post I got your drift. I think there are forces at work against each other in the Government. One part saying we have to improve on mileage and the other bunch crying about loss of gas tax revenue. I think your 79 VW with a newer TDI engine would get close to 60 MPG. We have loaded our vehicles down with so much safety crap that it just takes more fuel to get them moving. I think the new CAFE rules are totally bogus and unattainable with the rule makers in the other agencies fighting against them. I feel for the automakers trying to juggle all these conflicting agencies.
I regularly get a MEASURED 56 MPG with my 2003 VW TDI... I do not think there is any argument that Diesels can acheaive these MPGs..... The issue I perceve with Diesel powered vehicles is the total lack of knowledge on the part of the North American drivers.
VW/Audi has proven that Diesel powered vehicles can have enough power to pin you to your seat and also get great MPG all while riding in the lap of luxuary. (unlike the tin-cans that Hybreds seem to be.)
The pity of the situation is, it's not just VW. American companies also have decent diesels in Europe, but do not seem interested in bringing them here. As I wrote in a much earlier post, during my last trip to Europe, I drove Ford Fiesta diesel, two people plus substantial luggage, and in combined 50/50 city/highway (and I am lead-footed) I got 42 MPG (US gallons). I can never get anywhere close to that in all-highway driving in a gasser here in the US. Makes me gasp in frustration.
Comments
http://www.rand.org/news/press/2007/11/08/index1.html
The big news I see in here which pertains to diesel is surmized in the following quote from the artical:
"For all three vehicle types, the advanced diesel offers the highest savings over the life of the vehicle among the options considered. These savings increase with the size and fuel use of the vehicle: $460 for the car, $1,249 for the SUV and $2,289 for the large pick-up truck; "
A more significant and meaningful post is “Hybrids have a competitive edge for urban consumers who experience more stop-and-go city traffic.” and "Both the hybrid and diesel vehicles are more fuel efficient than their gasoline-powered counterparts: 25 to 40 percent better for hybrid and 20 to 30 percent for diesel, depending on the vehicle." Diesel comes in second for most situations and drivers. Italics are mine.
“While it is assumed that the hybrid vehicle will save more fuel than the advanced diesel, the overall advantage goes to the diesel because of its lower technology costs and better performance such as increased torque,” Graham said. “For E85, it is the cost of producing the fuel, not vehicular changes, that drives the negative results.”
The key findings from the societal perspective are similar to those of the consumer perspective, including:
* The advanced diesel again shows the most promise, particularly for the larger vehicles: $289 for cars, $1,094 for SUVs and $2,199 for large trucks.
* The net benefits for hybrids are somewhat less positive, with moderate-to-small values of $481 for SUVs and $132 for light trucks, and an increased cost for cars (-$317) over the life of the vehicle
* Results for E85 remain uniformly negative, even more so for larger than smaller vehicles: -$1,046 for cars, -$1,500 for SUVs and -$2,049 for light trucks
“While the net benefit of E85 is generally unfavorable compared to hybrid and advanced diesel technology, the diesel's edge over the hybrid is not as significant,” Graham said. “If the cost of hybrid technology falls significantly, the benefits of the hybrid could equal or exceed the diesel.”
vchiu, "Luxury Lounge" #8297, 30 Nov 2007 6:55 am!keywords=
My guess however is that with a majority of city driving, the LS could be on par or better than the three diesels. regretfully, those are not available in the US yet
.
I would recommand the Passat SW 2.0 TDI 170 with DSG. This wagon is being sold in Europe for one year already and comes with counter balancing shafts to reduce diesel vibration. with 170HP and 350 NM of torque (250 lb/f ?) it moves the wagon with authority.
http://www.channel4.com/4car/di/volkswagen/passat/1057/3
This German test measures the Passat 170 TDI against the Volvo S60 (185hp) the Peugeot 407 (173 hp) and the toyota Avensis (177hp).
http://www.autobild.de/artikel/Themen-Testberichte-Diesel-Duell-auf-hohem-PS-Peg- el_57329.html
0-62 is the quickest for the passat, but the Volvo takes advantage from 80-120 (all with manual gears) Passat second.
the passat wins this comparison test through the best performance /consumption ratio and more accomodation for passengers and luggage.
A friend of mine has a Touran TDI 1.9 (105HP) with a DSG and told me he has an average consumption of 47 MPG doing a lot of city. He is also satisfied by the performances. he cruises at 150 km/h on the motorway and has no technical problem whatsoever.
http://www.channel4.com/4car/rt/volkswagen/touran/443/2
DSGs are being announced by other manufacturers in Europe but so far only VW made it a reality
As it applies to passenger diesels, while there are literally TONS of data about diesel vs gasser in Europe for example, we can only point to a few areas of comparison/s here in the "US markets". One easy example is the VW Jetta, two gasser models; which if lucky, will get 29 mpg vs TDI 46-50 mpg. Mine has just clicked the "milestone" 100,000 miles. One can easily do math, given whatever figures and:
1. decide which makes more sense
2. what one would really chose
3. what one would really chose ( given greater numbers, volumes and percentages of diesel models).
So to bore all you non diesel types to tears:
100,000/29 mpg/47 mpg=3,448 gals /2,128 gals respectively.
At current prices of $3.49 RUG/ $3.41 ULSD, that is $12,034/$7,256. This translates to $4,778. almost 40% MORE for RUG., !!!
Indeed one practical conversion would be buy more diesel fuel for commuting. So at $4,778/$3.41= 1,401 gals SAVED * 47 mpg=65,855 MORE miles for the same (GASSER) money. For those of you still awake, that is .04778 cents per mile MORE!
To keep the comparisons, one of those gasser engines (1.8T) requires premium ((@ the current price of $3.71 per gal) puts those figures @ $12,792, or almost 43.3% more than diesel.
I know what I have been and would rather pay!!
(if I had to pay it, for the mass transportation and anti dieselists, mantra ist's amongst us)
For the record, please do NOT think I am anti mass transportation, I am not and FAR from it!! . I was part of a county transportation effort that help both to wrangle and shepherd $1.75 B dollars for local transportation issues: a large part being bike lanes, mass transportation, electric vehicle feasibility: such as light rail, ADA fleet options, hydrogen (beta test) buses, etc, etc,) So instead of soap boxing it here on an inappropriate topic site, might I encourage those with that seeming passion to volunteer at ONES' governmental levels to advance/fight those issues. (yes, I have also fought for one's right to DISAGREE)
GM, Ford, Chrysler, etc. literally for decades have been selling both diesel and gasser models of their 250/2500 series.
I am not sure this might be useful or otherwise just stating the obvious: but whatever alpha numeric designation it takes, the concept is a manual clutch system; the clutch pedal work controlled by an on board computer and done by supporting mechanisms. This interface of course runs the gambit from being an incredibly simple to wildly complex.
Some advantages are, less: weight, cost, (partly, on one side) complexity, loss of hp/torque due to heat, developmental, manufacture, depreciation costs
better fuel mileage. smoother operation synchronization of the driving experience.
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/oog/info/gdu/gasdiesel.asp
So in the context of US average yearly mileage of 12,000 to 15,000 miles .9 % (historical look back to 2006) that would convert to (-minus) 108-135 miles, or to -9 to -11.25 miles per month. At a 22 mpg fleet average that is up to 6.14 gals per year or .51 gals per mo.!! (slightly more than 1/2 gal for us math challenged folks) Judas Priest, I"M HELPING !!!
So you can imagine the almost exponential rise in per gal fuel prices with an WIDESPREAD almost 40% efficiency !!??
NO GOOD DEED GOES unpunished!!?? :lemon: :confuse: :sick:
It is occurring primarily at Chevron/Texaco and Sunoco stations.
Here is an interesting link http://www.clean-diesel.org/images/ULSDDowngrading.ppt
Here in CA, there was much ado about not much, before the implementation of LSD to ULSD. It was and has been hugely advertised, publicized. It was widely publicized that any failure to do mandatory conversions would result in HUGE daily fines. Even failure to post so called required regulatory signs called for further fines. Yet before during and after, in places where I have taken on fuel, there was not sign number one!!! Indeed now, there are RARE tp no signs announcing ULSD. So while I TRUST that I am taking on ULSD, the truth is I do not really KNOW if I am. Indeed the actual implementation date had been slipped at least once. (that I know of)
While I can tell the difference for example between RUG and PUG, I have noticed almost NO operational differences between, 1. 49 state 500 ppm or less, 2. CA 140 ppm or less 3. ULSD 15 ppm or less. Since the so called conversion, I have fueled in at least 4 states. I understand that the red dye product (in some places sold at the same fuel station different pump, can be up to 500 ppm, in CA it can be 140 ppm.
ULSD Downgrading
A general overview of the Clean Diesel Fuel Rules on downgrading as defined by the US EPA
It is the responsibility of each person to understand and follow EPA’s rules.
What is Downgrading?
• Refiners and importers classify diesel according to its intended use
• Downgrading is where an entity changes the classification of 15 ppm sulfur highway diesel (ULSD) to 500 ppm sulfur highway diesel (LSD)
• Re-designating/re-grading – or moving highway diesel out of the highway pool (i.e. to non-road, locomotive & marine, or heating oil) is not considered downgrading in this regulation and is not subject to downgrading limitations
• Downgrading or re-designating ULSD (motor vehicle fuel) may occur if ULSD is sulfur contaminated or for product availability, pricing or other marketing reasons
• Mixing ULSD and LSD in an end user’s vehicle fuel tank is not considered downgrading (vehicles with 2007 or later model year engines must use ULSD)
Anti-Downgrading Provisions
• All diesel fuel facilities are subject to anti-downgrading provisions beginning October 15, 2006
– Including pipelines, terminals, tank trucks, centrally fuelled fleets & retail stations
• Up to 20% of the diesel fuel a facility dispenses per compliance period may be ULSD that has been downgraded to highway LSD*
• No limit on re-designations/re-grades of ULSD to non-road, locomotive & marine diesel or heating oil
• Anti-downgrading limitations only apply to #2 15ppm diesel fuel, not to #1 diesel (kerosene)
Anti-Downgrading Compliance Periods
• Oct. 15, 2006 - May 31, 2007 (7 ½ months)
• June 1, 2007 – June 30, 2008 (13 months)
• July 1, 2008 – June 30, 2009 (12 months)
• July 1, 2009 – May 31, 2010 (11 months)
Who is Covered?
• Each facility is subject to the downgrading provisions and their own 20% downgrade limitation
– Pipelines
– Terminals
– Tank Truck Operators
– Retail Stations
– Wholesale Purchaser-Consumers (i.e. Fleets)
• Includes: private fleets, government fleets, farm or construction site tanks, and other private fuel facilities with a tank that exceeds 550 gallons.
• End users (including wholesale purchaser-consumers) may mix ULSD and LSD in a vehicle’s fuel tank (note: vehicles with 2007 or later model year engines must use ULSD only)
• All highway non-road, locomotive & marine diesel fuel consumed in California must be ULSD and the anti-downgrading provisions do not apply.
Recordkeeping
• All entities are required to keep records for five years and be able to submit them to EPA upon request (reproducible electronic copies are acceptable).
– Including but not limited to:
• Quality Analysis and/or Quality Control records
• Product Transfer Documents
• Tank truck operators, retailers, & fleet operators are not required to submit reports to EPA
Special Provisions for Retailers & Wholesale Purchaser-Consumers (fleets)
• Parties that sell or dispense both highway ULSD and highway LSD simultaneously are exempt from the downgrading limitations
• Parties that sell or dispense only ULSD are exempt from the downgrading limitations
• If any highway ULSD is sold or dispensed as LSD, that fuel is subject to the 20% downgrading limitation
• Parties that sell or dispense only LSD are subject to the downgrading limitations
• 20% of the highway LSD that they sell/dispense can be fuel that they received as ULSD and downgraded to LSD
Downgrading Examples:
• Example 1: Location dispenses ULSD and, due to supply disruptions, has to temporarily purchase LSD
• Example 2: Location dispenses LSD and, due to supply disruptions, has to temporarily purchase ULSD
• Example 3: Location dispenses LSD only and spot buys ULSD to supplement inventory due to pricing disparity
I have two friends who worked at Rand for decades. As to Rand's track record; they have had to retract, or modify, or ignore the failure, of some of their analysis and predictions.
Also what is "moot" are gassers. What makes gasser germane is that fully 97% of the vehicle fleet is on it, because of some level of cost effectiveness either real or perceived. But if you look at it in terms of FUEL cost per mile driven, as I have documented in detail, which you have not refuted only dismissed, are diesels are up to 40% more efficient given like models. The gas engines mated to hybrids generally are smaller and way underpowered, given like gasser models. Hybrids can only realistically beat gassers if like models are actually cheaper- they are NOT! Indeed the only way they can do that is to make gassers- MORE expensive!!?? Indeed folks get royally wigged out for a $1,000 diesel premium. I in fact bought a diesel based on 50,000-60,000 miles B/E and keeping it more than 400,000 miles. The realities are of course FAR better than my worst projections!
When I considered the Prius it was 25,000 on up vs 18,000 for the diesel. When I considered the Civic Hybrid it was 20,000 vs 13,000. Funny how the 1,000 dollar premium for diesel over gasser is a HUGE sticking point; but $6,000 to 7,000 hybrid premium over gassers are totally glossed over. So which oem would not like to sell their gassers for MORE:say half of that or 3,000 to 3,500 more!!??
Actually it is one reason why diesel fuel for passenger diesels is tax both at a higher vol and percentage over RUG/PUG.
My own personal experience with "A" diesel leads me to believe the RAND study to be highly conservative. But it is hard to REALLY compare like models when there are hardly any like models: diesels, ethanol, E85, gasser hybrids, electric cars. etc, etc!!
Indeed Honda has admirably taken the bull by the horns by having quite a few (but not all) different model Civics: gasser, gasser hybrids, natural gas, hydrogen (FCX ? platform), and in Europe, a diesel Civic.
..." I am prevented from responding. I have been advised that my discussions of economic policy, or decision making policies are confrontational by nature."...
Actually I am ok with that, but in the context which you opine, your discourse is almost totally off topic with diesel passenger vehicles, which has been said many times is less than 3% of the passenger vehicle fleet population. The other side of that is your real windmill is the 97% of the vehicle fleet that uses RUG/PUG.
Also, since virtually ALL of the Diesel and heating-oil arrives here in Vermont by rail...... It is not difficult to surmise that even home-heating-oil will also be ULSD since it is ILLEGAL to transport LSD in a container which has been "approved" for ULSD (the residual sulfer in the tank can put the sulfer-levels over the 15PPM)
Does anyone have any details on this?
So a ULSD source would be up to .005 % less!!! That is literally the definition of exponentially LESS. Or 200x more.
Yes- my furnace is well-tuned and only 2 years old. I paied extra for a "Thermo Pride" furnace with the copper heat-exchanger which is more efficent than welded sheetmetal plating.
I cant help wondering what the sulfer-level is for #6 fuel oil. I have seen HUGE tanks (the size of a 2-story home) labeled "#6 fuel-oil" at a nearby factory. In the winter they must have some kind of internal heaters to keep the stuff from turning to jelly.
Indeed I have been and currently use a Primrose 405C (1-3000 dilution) as a fuel treatment,emulsifier, fuel pump lube (lubricity) and cetane boost. They claim it helps mpg, but truly I can not tell, as I have been using it since the vehicle was delivered.
kcram, "Chevy Silverado and GMC Sierra Duramax Diesel Questions" #1, 17 Oct 2006 8:37 pm
van
I also remember the news reporting that President Bush ask/directed/mandated (not sure what form it took) to emphasize Rug to Pug rather than D2. This resulted in RUG to PUG prices being artifically kept low and D2 prices skyrocketing. Seems like P Bush stepped on the glee of environmentalists who think RUG to PUG should be more along the prices of $9 per gal. One day before Hurricane Katrina hit I bought D2 in a burb of New Orleans, LA @ 2.85 per gal as I recall. Of course years later, D2@ 4 per gal is causing or one symptom of economic crisis and inflation. See msg 5162.
As an "earnest" citizen (if a citizen can be earnest) it saddens me at (the wind mill tilt) huge costly effort with almost no tangible result. Indeed if not cancelled, modified, vetoed, WE literally will be paying for this legislation for the 12 years ramping up to the target date and at least 12 years after.
Indeed it will exponentially increase the cost of EVERYTHING transportation related!!! As a normal political observer (like a fair weather sports fan) on the other hand, it is a source of hilarious amusement. There are others, but sticking with the diesel subject- my .02 cents, again we do NOT need "new" legislation about 35 mpg. We need cars that we can buy that actually GET 35 mpg. (if the real goal IS 35 mpg!!!!
A few examples that really show NO legislation is NEEDED to do so, YOURS '79 diesel obviously, 2004 Honda 29/38 mpg, 2003 Jetta 42/49 mpg. Funny that one of the HIGHEST mpg (diesel) vehicle was literally the target of a legislative enforcement BAN !!!
web site link title but
The local rag, SJMN Dec 4,2008 pg 1A ran almost a half page horizontal (but tipped vertically, titled the following: Ex-official cashes in on ethanol
critics charge former secretary of state bill jones uses influence to drive state's alternative energy policy... by Kimberly Kindy
Imagine that!!!
van
Sorry, but it is a sore point with me. :mad: :mad: :mad:
van
but here is one ultimate irony about ethanol.
"...But he had a problem. While 6 percent ethanol helps gas burn more cleanly, at 10 percent the levels of smog-producing nitrogen oxide in fuel exhaust jumped considerably, state tests showed. That caused it to fall out of compliance with California's tough air quality laws"...
">link titlehttp://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_7630212
Read the article for the "surprise" answer, but logically would that mean E6 or E10??? :sick: :lemon:
Unless ethanol products can at worst aid (not camoflauge), getting GREATER mpg, to at BEST meet, the 35 mpg stand alone, 2019 forward looking standard, the math and lack of R & D indicates it is technically and economically over for ethanol before it ramps up. ADVANTAGE: DIESEL.
Strictly from my point of view, my question would be: why would anyone buy ANY (new) vehicles that do not get at LEAST 35 mpg, going forward from 2008? In my case 2003. ???? The good news of course if Toyota (or any other oem could come up with SAY a twin turbo diesel SUV Landcruiser that gets 35 mpg... that would be a keeper for @ least 30 years!!
Government is further disingenuous for NOT allowing European passenger vehicles(or others for that matter) into the country that already meet the forward looking 2019 35 mpg standards. Hot CO2 rather than real results is the rule.
Instead they let in the fuel guzzlers like BMW's MB, Jaguar, Bentley's Ferrari's, Lamborgini's, etc etc that get FAR less than 35 mpg.
After rereading your post I got your drift. I think there are forces at work against each other in the Government. One part saying we have to improve on mileage and the other bunch crying about loss of gas tax revenue. I think your 79 VW with a newer TDI engine would get close to 60 MPG. We have loaded our vehicles down with so much safety crap that it just takes more fuel to get them moving. I think the new CAFE rules are totally bogus and unattainable with the rule makers in the other agencies fighting against them. I feel for the automakers trying to juggle all these conflicting agencies.
VW/Audi has proven that Diesel powered vehicles can have enough power to pin you to your seat and also get great MPG all while riding in the lap of luxuary. (unlike the tin-cans that Hybreds seem to be.)