Hybrids & Diesels - Deals or Duds?

john1701a

I knew that some of you were reading my blogs looking for ways to undermine, but had no way to prove it... until thinking of that subtle trap... which obviously worked. (It was actually just a new 2006, but still irritatingly noisy.)

That explains the vague nature of many of the replies, intentional attempts to prevent solid conclusions from ever being drawn.

The SULEV rating combined with MPG and now the threat of ethanol make the sour appeal of diesel very easy to see. Well, too bad. Of course, the lack of any promotion plan on your part pretty much self-defeats anyway.

JOHN

gagrice

I figured it was a story made up by you. I just had not seen it posted. The only thing I can say is MN must have horrible diesel. Too bad the state did not worry about the quality of diesel sold as much as the ethanol they are making big tax dollars from ADM on. By contrast CA is now totally ULSD for all on road vehicles. My Kubota diesel tractor loves it. Runs so SMoooth. My Passat was very quiet and my MB Sprinter diesel is the best RV for mileage on the road. Show me an 8000 lb hybrid that gets 24.8 MPG. Heck the 4000 LB RX400h has a hard time delivering that kind of mileage.

PS
John, You can probably sell your Prius and find a Jetta TDI. Just search the web. Someone posted there are six at a dealer in Upstate NY. Of course they never mentioned the town or the dealer. Probably just anti diesel trolling. Similar to your modus operandi.

moparbad

Don't get the wrong idea that I am reading your National Enquirer of Hypebrids blog, the quote was emailed to me by a friend that owns a Passat TDI and a Prius and believes in reduction of energy consumption, not fanatical pursuit of a single solution to automotive energy consumption.
I'm not a fan of your opinions.

I knew that some of you were reading my blogs looking for ways to undermine, but had no way to prove it... until thinking of that subtle trap... which obviously worked.

Subtle trap LOL :P You do more damage to hybrids than good. The constant and consistent attack on diesel has alienated many supporters of energy efficient vehicles and alternative fuels. Many of us do not have blinders on and believe that hybrid, diesel, biodiesel, ethanol, electric, and hydrogen are all needed in the mix of solutions.
That explains the vague nature of many of the replies, intentional attempts to prevent solid conclusions from ever being drawn.

The SULEV rating combined with MPG and now the threat of ethanol make the sour appeal of diesel very easy to see. Well, too bad. Of course, the lack of any promotion plan on your part pretty much self-defeats anyway.

JOHN

Threat of ethanol? Ethanol can only supplement gasoline, not replace it. The only threat that ethanol can possibly provide is an increase in food costs.

Diesel has greater promise to replace much larger percentage of our energy needs without disrupting the food supply. Being in the midwest I would have thought you would understand this. There are many more options of sources to make biodiesel than there are for ethanol and less destructive to the environment than the main feedstock for ethanol of corn.

john1701a

Remember, the scope of this forum pales in comparison to the web at large. So the lack of any plan to promote beyond it is a failing on the part of those here repeating making vague claims. The goal to reduce both emissions & consumption will be fulfilled by non-diesel solutions, simply because people won't know about diesel.

As for yours... "Ethanol can only supplement gasoline, not replace it." ...I hope you don't actually believe that, because it isn't true. There are vehicles that run on 100% ethanol (no gas at all). Combine that with plug-in hybrid technology, the need for diesel in passenger vehicles becomes nil.

JOHN

gagrice

There are vehicles that run on 100% ethanol (no gas at all). Combine that with plug-in hybrid technology, the need for diesel in passenger vehicles becomes nil.

More "Pie in the Sky"

People are rejecting the Prius because it is not practical for mainstream buyers. Toyota has done nothing they said they would to lower the cost of hybrids. They continue to build more expensive hybrids. No mention of a $17k Corolla hybrid that I have seen. Next on the block is a LS600h. Just what we need is another gas guzzling behemoth hybrid. Wasn't the GS450h plenty of pork? You are dreaming if you think Toyota is interested in saving fuel. They have one goal in mind "MARKET SHARE". For Toyota the Hybrids are a necessary evil to satisfy CAFE standards. Toyota's motto sell a Prius so you can sell an FJ Cruiser.

AS far as plugin hybrids that is strictly a rich man's folly. $12k to save a few hundred in gas will not sell on Main St. I don't see any mention of E85 let alone E100 from Toyota. You must have GM, VW or Ford in mind.

Today a stripped down Prius in San Diego has a TMV of $24,855. Almost $5000 more than they started out selling them for. A Prius with option pkg #8 is $30,270. After tax and license it is about $33,000. So you can save a few dollars in gas a month. I don't think so. If it were not for HOV access I don't think they would have sold half as many Prius.

ruking1

If what John1701a saying is true, then China's governments' and the oem's doing business in CHINA have a completely seminal opportunity in marketing hybrid only in that nation. Not to drift onto the Kyoto Treaty but it allows China's (and India, etc) oems in China (and India, etc) to market vehicles that don't even meet Euro standards, let alone the 49 states i n the USA !!?? Pipe dreams in those countries for sure also !!!!

ruking1

..."Remember, the scope of this forum pales in comparison to the web at large. So the lack of any plan to promote beyond it is a failing on the part of those here repeating making vague claims. The goal to reduce both emissions & consumption will be fulfilled by non-diesel solutions, simply because people won't know about diesel.

As for yours... "Ethanol can only supplement gasoline, not replace it." ...I hope you don't actually believe that, because it isn't true. There are vehicles that run on 100% ethanol (no gas at all). Combine that with plug-in hybrid technology, the need for diesel in passenger vehicles becomes nil. "...

JOHN

While there is literally TONS of information that can researched on the web, here is one that might help shape the discussion outside of making wild claims about ethanol.

How far can you drive on a bushel of corn?
Crunching the numbers on alternative fuels.

BY MIKE ALLEN
Lead Photograph by Christian Patterson

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/earth/2690341.html

I have always liked Popular Mechanics, in that it attempts to put numbers to promising popular new technology.

Also there IS a reason why it is NOT call Popular FANTASY's

As a practical consideration, it would be interesting to know what a Prius EPA and reality would be given those two fuels 1. B 85 2. 100% Ethanol

So if your goal is to reduce consumption, hate to wake you up from your fantasy, but B85 and 100% ethanol is more consumptive MPG wise NOT less! (than unleaded regular) Just not as consumption OF unleaded regular!!!

qbrozen

Here is some more good reading:

http://www.caranddriver.com/features/11174/tech-stuff-ethanol-promises.html

gagrice

That is a good article. I especially like the big chart with realistic cost to go from CA to NY. It looks to me like electric vehicles are first and natural gas second with ethanol, methanol and hydrogen far out in the ozone. I am really looking forward to driving a hydrogen powered car with a 10,000 PSI tank inside. I will leave that for the early adopters and their heirs to sort out.

alternative fuels

ruking1

Kind of interesting the governments have to mandate ethanol use? Seems that on a marketing and individual purchase level ethanol is not logical at all. Not to mentioned the fact that if priced the same as unleaded regular is 4.50 per gal to a 3 dollar a gal unleaded regular in terms of mpg (work produced or btu's)

On the other hand, governments have systematically kept OUT European diesel cars that already have been on the world wide market for literally decades. It of course has a 37% advantage over unleaded regular and if you put together 50% unleaded regular advantage over ethanol and 37% diesel has over unleaded regular, that is 87% advantage over ethanol!!!!!! Gee I wonder if that is more or less consumptive per gal????

gagrice

More meaty information that needs to be displayed in the Ethanol thread. thanks,

gagrice

if priced the same as unleaded regular is 4.50 per gal to a 3 dollar a gal unleaded regular in terms of mpg

Some will make a real killing on this ethanol boondoggle. Ethanol is trading at about $3.80 per gallon. It has hit as high as $5 per gallon. The bright side of that story is the use of ethanol is accumulative. So the more we get crazy people in the heartland to drive using E85 the less we have to use in our cars on the Coasts. That C&D article is the first I have read that explains the mandate in lay terms.

zodiac2004

I am really looking forward to driving a hydrogen powered car with a 10,000 PSI tank inside. I will leave that for the early adopters and their heirs to sort out

We should caution the early adopters not to drive in it with their heirs !!!!!

ruking1

Last time I used to have to remember these things a high PSI tank used to have to be hydrostatically tested each 5 years.

moparbad

As for yours... "Ethanol can only supplement gasoline, not replace it." ...I hope you don't actually believe that, because it isn't true. There are vehicles that run on 100% ethanol (no gas at all). Combine that with plug-in hybrid technology, the need for diesel in passenger vehicles becomes nil.

JOHN

My statement is correct "Ethanol can only supplement gasoline, not replace it.".
It is a fact that gasoline can not be replaced by ethanol. Not with the current amount of tillable land. Not with current technology.

The below quote illustrates the problem.
quote-
Here’s the bad news: America would need 340,936,640 additional acres of corn cultivated to replace all of the US imports of oil—acreage greater than the area cultivated for all crops in any given year. Keeping with the assumption that America cannot divert current crops to large-scale fuel production, we would be faced with having to more than double the amount of land that is currently cultivated. Yet there is a limit to how much land is available for cultivation: cities take up a significant amount of land, national parks take up yet more land, and a great deal of land is simply unsuitable for cultivation of any crop. The cold reality is that we likely cannot dedicate enough land to completely convert to E85.-end

It is not possible to convert to E85, let alone E100, what are you thinking? Maybe sugarcane could be put in rotation with corn in Minnesota to allow more ethanol production.

Vehicles that can run on 100% ethanol have existed long before the Prius was ever on the market.
Does not matter.
There is not enough material to make ethanol.

Biomass to diesel is cost effective and feasible. Biomass to ethanol is not.

ruking1

I would also agree!! In addition the math indicates the problem can be solved any infinite number of ways. So for example if we do in fact import 65% of our oil from foreign sources, there are gov web sites that indicate how much is imported from so called target countries such as Iran, Libya, (sorry Libya is back on the "FRIENDS" list) or whomever and jack up the % of alternative fuel % to compensate. Letting the passenger vehicle fleet go to say a target of 45% diesel, would cut like for like unleaded regular use by the same amount and each and every car would now have an additional 37% advantage over unleaded regular. In addition one can process # 2 diesel from a myraid of so called non traditional alternative ways. This of course CAN NOT be done with unleaded regular.

winter2

Several nights ago on CNN, the CEO's of Chevron, Shell and ConocoPhilips were discussing Ethanol (ETOH). On the spot market, ETOH is/was $5.00/gallon versus about $1.20 a year ago. Not particularly thrifty. They all agreed that corn based ETOH was a very short term bandaid. They all agreed that secondary sources like wood chips and certain grasses would become the primary source. They were talking 20 - 30 years before ETOH becomes more mainstream. No one spoke of E100 becoming a primary fuel.

gagrice

Do you think diesel will finally have a chance in the United States?

We think there is a good chance. Diesels could reach a share of about 15 percent of newly registered light vehicles in the U.S. within the next 10 years. Diesel will be in strong competition with hybrids. You read more and more reports that people are not satisfied with the mileage of hybrids because in day-to-day life, there are significant differences between what is printed in the manuals and the actual fuel consumption.

I'm not saying the figures in the manuals are wrong, but the conditions under which they are derived are very different from the way people actually drive. If we compare a diesel and a hybrid, we find that in general there is no advantage in the mileage of a hybrid. In the U.S., the average yearly distance driven is almost double that of Europe. That's the reason why many people are not satisfied with the hybrid, because the hybrid shows its advantages in city traffic and not in the long distances typical for the U.S.

Why did Toyota beat Bosch to the market with a hybrid?

When I was in charge of Bosch's electrical business in the early '70s, we were working on electric drives based on battery storage. We had experience in that area because we were also a supplier of electrical equipment for battery-driven forklifts. At that time we decided that an electric car based on battery power would never succeed. Therefore we reduced our work on electric drives substantially. In the '80s and '90s, we had several hybrid projects with OEMs in which we had test fleets of about 20 to 50 cars. But none of those projects proceeded past the testing stage. At that time the battery storage technology that is used today by Toyota was not available. Toyota was first to merge the gasoline engine and the electric drive successfully.

Will we soon see a diesel hybrid?

In the long term, I would give the diesel hybrid a better chance of succeeding than the gasoline hybrid because you start with the diesel as the base engine. You end up with even lower fuel consumption than with the gasoline hybrid. I think we will soon see those hybrids.

ruking1

Actually the quotes hit on some real key consequences. To get the benefits of a gasser hybrid you have to in effect be ok with a very puny engine with less torque. To reap the benefits of the 20% hybrid advantage, you also have to totally change the way you drive. And you wind up paying a non break even price for the punishment.

Diesel starts off with a 37% advantage. This of course puts it on par (fuel mileage wise) with the current Prius. If indeed it is mated to a (20% advantaged) hybrid drive train, you are still 37% ahead of any same sized gasser/hybrid. The 2.0 TDI is still "puny" but a 100 hp engine has got close to 175# ft of torque, vs say one of THE hottest compact cars, the Honda Civic with 140 hp and 128 # ft of torque. So in my own case the fuel mileag (same same) is 39-41 vs 48-52 mpg. So for example if you add a hybrid to both that is 46.8-49.2 vs 57.6-62.4 mpg. On the TDI the performance side is easily upgradeable to 200-250# ft of torque. This is not even considering Honda has a 500# (LESS)weight advantage.

So as one can see the diesel presents or is more adaptable to different driving styles. and still puts down better numbers.

Karen_S

A large daily newspaper is looking to interview consumers who are not in favor of diesel vehicles. Please send an e-mail to ctalati@edmunds.com no later than Friday, June 23, 2006 by 2:00 PM PST/5:00 EST containing your daytime contact information.


Thanks,
Chintan Talati
Corporate Communications
Edmunds.com

winter2

For about twelve or more weeks running, diesel fuel has been consistently less expensive than regular unleaded fuel. In fact today, I paid 2.79.9 for diesel while regular unleaded was 2.979 at the same station. The gas station down the road has diesel for 2.859 and regular unleaded for 2.959. I just cannot see the sense in buying a supposedly more economical car that uses a more expensive fuel! :confuse:

ruking1

I personally thought the price of diesel vs unleaded regular was a bit of a strawman argument, ie 2.97 unleaded regular is less than 3.15 diesel. However when folks start to understand that diesel is actually CHEAPER to refine than unleaded regular and that you currently can not refine unleaded regular with out a % component being diesel, it starts to slowly sink in. Add to diesel having 37% energy advantage over unleaded regular this becomes an absolute no brainer. The tale of 2003 VW Jetta's illustrates:

24/31 mpg gasser (.12375/.0958 cents per mile)

vs

42/49 mpg TDI (.075/.06428 cents per mile)

would one rather spend 33% more or less per mile? I certainly know which I would like to chose for ALL my vehicles!!

I will leave out the other myriad of ways diesel can be refined; being an almost ideal alternative fuel.

gagrice

In San Diego it goes back and forth, diesel vs gas. Diesel is taxed higher in CA, because they can. No wonder the truckers fill in AZ or NV before coming into CA. It was shown what CA ignorance cost the state in revenue and it made no difference to that bunch of dummies in Sacramento. CA legislature needs a complete clean sweep. Then term limits to keep the "good ole boy" network from getting re-established.

winter2

Actually, CA taxes diesel at the same rate as gasoline. Here is the link:
http://www.taxadmin.org/FTA/rate/motor_fl.html

Several states Alabama, Georgia, and a couple of others tax diesel at a higher rate. There are a few that tax it at a lower rate than gasoline.

ruking1

It is interesting that even in the high tax diesel states it is almost like it almost always is cheaper per gal than CA.

gagrice

I think they left some surtaxes out. For example there is a 4.5 cent additional tax for gas that comes from imported oil. I will find the links.

gagrice

Here it is. This additional tax was imposed starting in 1998 at $.083 per gallon. As of 1/1/2006 it is $.15 per gallon. Making the state tax on diesel $.33 not including sales tax of 7.75% to 8.5% depending on your area. The Feds tack an additional $.244 onto diesel which is 6 cents more than gas tax. So that is at least an additional 21 cents on diesel.

California Interstate User Diesel Fuel Tax (DI)
Program

http://www.boe.ca.gov/sptaxprog/spftdrates.htm#3

winter2

What a screw job people in CA are getting. They still have air quality problems up the wazoo, diesels are hardly around, and yet they tax the dickens out of the fuel.

Really sad. I guess they are using these monies to buy the rope to hang themselves by encouraging the use of gasoline, which pollutes worse than diesel. :confuse:

stevedebi

"What a screw job people in CA are getting. They still have air quality problems up the wazoo, diesels are hardly around, and yet they tax the dickens out of the fuel."

California suffers from lots of people who make decisions out of "common knowledge", rather than logic or facts. It is taught in the schools as well, which is why my two kids are in private school here.

I would have loved a diesel for my last purchase, but I didn't really need a 6000 lb (or larger) truck or SUV.

gagrice

So many Californians are sending their children to private schools and home schooling because the agenda in public schools is not good. Home schooled children are getting better scores on college entrance exams than kids coming out of CA Public schools.

The logic in allowing me to buy a monster diesel PU but not a smaller practical diesel car, SUV or PU truck totally escapes me.

ruking1

What is really interesting is the taxation is posted at fuel stations (by law I am surmising) visible to folks pumping gas. The bottom line is it is the TAXING authorities AT EVERY LINE ITEM that make more money than even those so called BLOOD sucking oil companies, if they make .05 cents per gal as the CEO of Chevron is to be believed.

Again

CA diesel .18 cents,

unleaded regular .18 cents.

Fed .18 cents.

State sales tax 7.5-8.75%

Buried taxation on the cost of investment (15%)

So while oil companies are the entities you LOVE to hate...

kdhspyder

An excerpt from an Auto Channel report today..

"There will be diesel hybrids, advanced gasoline hybrids, fuel-cell hybrids, ethanol hybrids.'' Mr. Press also noted that Toyota is researching diesel and fuel-cell vehicles, as well as hybrids that can be plugged in to an electric outlet for recharging, providing even more fuel economy, reports Bloomberg.

Toyota to continue with hybrids

Honda is also going both routes with diesel and hybrids..

Honda press release

ruking1

You know it took Honda (in 1998) less than six years "from concept to market" for the 2004 cTDI or its in house turbo diesel. Turns out it will take longer to jump through the regulatory hoops !! (not to mention further investments)

Kill more trees, write more regulations!!!

So by the time the cTDI comes to the USA market, it will be over 12 years old.

kdhspyder

Actually it's not just about regulatory hoops, it's just economics. None of the major offshore producers are going to ship diesels here in large numbers until diesel fuel ( ULSD ) is allowed in every state. The most populous states ( largest markets ) prohibit diesels thus no manufacturer - except a niche one like VW - is going to sell in only the 38 or 39 states in the center of the country.

In 2008 it will be different.

winter2

Plugin Hybrids, what a joke. Who are you trying to kid?

In concept a nice idea, however, you are just burning carbon elsewhere instead of in an IC engine. So you might get great fuel economy, but the greenhouse gas problem is just shifted elsewhere. If all or the vast majority of electricity was produced in an environmental sound manner such as hydroelectric, nuclear, wind or solar, then fine, but reality at this point and for many years to come says otherwise. Most electricity is produced by burning coal or gas. :mad:

kdhspyder

If all or the vast majority of electricity was produced in an environmental sound manner such as hydroelectric, nuclear, wind or solar, then fine

In certain areas this is exactly where plugin hybrids are of most interest.

In addition, there is 'wasted' output from the power generating plants during the 'offpeak' night hours. If these plants are going to be run in any event during these hours then why not use that time to charge motor vehicles which will then use less fuel and give off fewer emissions during the daylight hours? Instead of two sources of pollutants there could at best be just one... the power plant.

Your contention is that an increase of plugins will create an increase in pollutants from the power plants; i.e. more demand more output. It does not have to be so.

winter2

"Until ULSD is allowed in every state".

ULSD is allowed in every state and CA has had ULSD available for some time from BP.

Those states that follow CARB rules prohibit the sale of brand spanking new diesels, but not those with 7501 or more miles on them.

VW and DC will be selling diesels in at least 45 states. The MB Bluetec diesels are 50 state certified through at least 2009 or 2010. "38 or 39 state sale of diesels?" Am I missing something here? Did we give some territory back to someone and if so who?

ruking1

I am glad you agree with what I am saying even as you say you disaggree!?

kdhspyder

Those states that follow CARB rules prohibit the sale of brand spanking new diesels, but not those with 7501 or more miles on them.

Precisely my point.

Take the CARB states away from the continental 48 and you have?? HI and AL are not huge markets, the continental 48 are the focus of every seller. Nitpick elsewhere, it doesn't promote the discussion at all.

kdhspyder

Congratulations on coming to the understanding.

gagrice

no manufacturer - except a niche one like VW - is going to sell in only the 38 or 39 states in the center of the country.

A couple slight corrections. 45 states allow diesel cars currently. The new EPA regulations that go into affect in 2007 are the ones that CARB in CA has mandated. ULSD is mandated for all on highway use as of October 2006. CA mandated ULSD as of 6/1/2006. According to Mercedes Benz the BluTec diesel has been accepted for the 2007 emissions and will be offered in several models after October of this year, in all 50 states.

That will be good as it will be a direct choice for those looking at the hybrid SUVs offered by Toyota & Lexus. For those that want an honest 30 MPG on the highway plus off-road capability plus towing capacity the new diesels from DCX will fill the bill. A Grand Cherokee size vehicle getting 30+ MPG sounds pretty tempting. It may light a fire under Honda to get that diesel into the Pilot and give us several good choices.

ruking1

You aren't a follower of R.D. Lang's writings are you?

winter2

You obviously have not looked at the market for diesels in CA lately have you, even those with 7501+ miles? The market for them is huge so you cannot dismiss that fact.

As for the market for diesels in the other states that follow CARB rules, do you really know what kind of market there is or is not for diesels? How about AL or HI? Do you have figures or is this speculation?

heel2toe

I wish I had a link in front of me, but the Honda chairman recently stated to the press that they could be selling as many as 30% of their vehicles worldwide equipped with diesel engines once the new 50 state emissions technology is ready.

I don't think Honda sells relatively many cars in Europe, so this forecast is mostly about Japan and North America, which have not traditionally been strong diesel markets.

kdhspyder

Ok, you can continue to talk about the market for used vehicles in CA all you wish but that still won't encourage large manufacturers to provide NEW vehicles until all the continental 48 allow them to be sold.

AL & HI are peripheral markets. The focus is always on the continental 48.

kdhspyder

Come 2008 it's very likely that every major vehicle producer will have a full menu of diesels available from Rangers to Corollas to Odysseys.

Add a hybrid multiplier and they become even more efficient. :shades:

gagrice

AL & HI are peripheral markets.

I think you mean AK & HI. Alabama may not like you saying they are a niche market.

gogogodzilla

In concept a nice idea, however, you are just burning carbon elsewhere instead of in an IC engine. So you might get great fuel economy, but the greenhouse gas problem is just shifted elsewhere. If all or the vast majority of electricity was produced in an environmental sound manner such as hydroelectric, nuclear, wind or solar, then fine, but reality at this point and for many years to come says otherwise. Most electricity is produced by burning coal or gas.

-----------------

Seems like a perfect fit with someone like a NIMBY-er.

IE - I don't wanna pollute, but I don't give a rat's-@ss if I make someone else pollute for me.

ruking1

Unfortunately, your attitude has its reality base in the real world. The other truth: I do not see any of those type of methods on line for at least another generation or 30 years. We need a few more (for example) CA state wide up and down the state black outs) The other truth is that even a stop gap measure, such as solar panels for existing or even new housing; would signal how serious the regulatory agencies are. Given the current realities- not very serious at all.

So it is this simple, say your house has a max of 200 amps to the premises and they outfit your house (or fast track your electrical change permits for existing housing) with 2x or 400 amp solar production capacity (like in CA where there is an abundance of sun year round) . Anything less is hot air or pandering to the "GREEN" mantra. Saying it or repeating it a lot does NOT make it so.

winter2

Used, okay. But in my view it is new. If I can sell my CRD in CA for more than I bought it for, then there is a problem here. The same holds true for the TDI from VW.

The CARB rules are ludicrous and so full of holes, it is a wonder they have survived as long as they have. They have done almost nothing to resolve the pollution issue in CA. I was in Los Angles three years ago and had trouble breathing. The air smelled funky and there was a brownish haze in the air. It also rained that day.

As to encouraging large manufacturers, I guess, based on what you said. Daimler-Chrysler is a small and insignificant company.