Hybrids & Diesels - Deals or Duds?

ruking1

To say what you are highlighting did NOT happen to a (minority population (of) diesel owners would be a serious disservice, and NOT a true indication of what really happened.

However in that highlighting, we in effect gloss over what happened to a MAJORITY population of gasser owners who were also done a disservice who experienced higher gasser levels of pollution and fuel usage (modified a tad by the lower cost of fuel at the time). Yet, attitudes toward gasser technology remains benign.

larsb

gary says, "I agree, and wonder if the EPA will try to pull some other rabbit out of the hat to delay diesel cars."

Gary, the EPA has nothing against diesel cars. They just base what they do on air cleanliness.

If the new diesels are indeed as clean as we hope they will be, the EPA will recognize that. Don't be so cynical - life's too short for that stuff....

ruking1

I would add a c'mon c'mon now AGAIN. !! The EPA has in effect regulated for at least a generation by NOT regulating those areas that I have used as examples in prior posts!!! One example 1 cargo ship with NO pollution abatement = 12,000 cars !!! Yet this is the underlying assumption in limiting to banning the number and percentages of diesels that are in fact in compliance with far far stricter pollution laws/regulations.

ruking1

This really is one of the most disingenuous things about ethanol: BURN MORE ETHANOL (lesser mpg) to SAVE FUEL !!!!!

I will be the first to say the good news is ethanol IS an alternative fuel.

larsb

let's get off that cargo ship thing, why don't we? The EPA has no authority to control the emission levels of foreign vessels.

CARS, in the USA, they can and do regulate.

When and if diesel CARS become clean enough to meet EPA requirements, they will indeed be given pollution scores in accordance with said cleanliness........

ruking1

Then you would agree that the undelying assumptions I have mentioned are used to keep the growth of diesels artificially low?? This is the real point.

The real problem with the artifical segregation that you propose is the emissions such as school buses, mass transportation, air planes, cargo ships, etc. etc is they do not stay segregated in the real world. In fact some or all of these non regulated areas are the very things the environmentalist recommend we go to in lieu of the highly regulated passenger vehicle fleets. The point to clearly see is the WHOLE passenger vehicle fleet can put out NO pollution (they clearly do not), but it STILL will NOT mitigate unmitigated emissions such as cargo ships, school busses etc etc!!!!!

I think Gagrice hit on the core issue and that is with vehicles such as Hybrids and Diesels getting (50 mpg or) MORE MPG where LESS (than 35 mpg ) was the rule, DOES portend much lower unleaded regular taxation revenues both in volume and percentage.

gagrice

When and if diesel CARS become clean enough to meet EPA requirements, they will indeed be given pollution scores in accordance with said cleanliness.

Just to show how wrong you are. The Jetta TDI is rated higher by the EPA than the Corolla Sport for overall emissions. Yet you can buy the Corolla Sport and not the Jetta TDI in all 50 states. So how is that dealing even handedly? The Subaru Impreza is also worse emissions than the VW TDI.

larsb

No one in the US govt in ANY branch is doing ANYTHING to keep the growth of diesel cars artificially low......puh-leeze....

Diesels have problems because their pollution is deadly and atrociously harmful to humans.

That's the problem.

Not politics.

Not the secret govt "Anti-Diesel" task force.

Not tax revenue.

Health Issues. That is the reason. Nothing more.

Kirstie_H

Host eraser liberally applied. Reapplication may be necessary to prevent recurrence of symptoms.

ruking1

"Health only" reasons are truly a red herring. If so why would the fuel putting out far more carbon monoxide (spell that DEADLY) be the fuel of choice?

The governments' in fact allows unmitigated emissions, as I have already said any number of times and given some real life examples. So the governments and reality categorically rejects the assertions that it is due to "health only" reasonings. So that I am clear, diesel fuel was used WAY before and will be used long into the future.

In addition, the failure in the 1970's to regulate the sulfur in diesel fuel and limited diesel emissions was in a manner of speaking, NOT a failure at all. It was indeed deliberate POLICY to NOT regulate it, such as done on the unleaded regular side; to go from leaded regular gasoline to unleaded gasoline and lessen the sulfur content and encourage technological mitigation, etc, etc. So indeed when I indicate it was a mistake, it was a mistake only in the context of the emphasis on using diesel fuel as an "alternative" fuel (to the mainstay unleaded regular) and the fact that diesel fuel has (had has the whole time it has been used as a fuel) a 37% advantage over unleaded regular.

larsb

Diesel exhaust may increase the speed of Global Warming:

"The reason the issue of diesel versus gasoline is important, says Jacobson, is that, in Europe, one of the major strategies for satisfying the Kyoto Protocol is to promote further the use of diesel vehicles and specifically to provide a greater tax advantage for diesel. Tax laws in all European Union countries, except the United Kingdom, currently favor diesel, thereby inadvertently promoting global warming, Jacobson says. Further, some countries, including Sweden, Finland, Norway, and the Netherlands, also tax fuels based on their carbon content. These taxes also favor diesel, he notes, since diesel releases less carbon per kilometer [mile] than does gasoline. Nevertheless, the small amount of black carbon and organic matter emitted by diesel may warm the atmosphere more over 100 years than the additional carbon dioxide emitted by gasoline."

Entire article here:

http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/prrl/prrl0233.html

The components of diesel exhaust (DE) emissions are a public concern for the following reasons:

Emissions from diesel engines include over 40 substances that are listed by the EPA as hazardous air pollutants. Components of DE contain potential cancer causing substances such as arsenic, benzene, formaldehyde, nickel, and PAHs. The diesel particulate matter (DPM) is very small (90% are less than 1um by mass), making DPM easy to respire into the deep lung. DPM has hundreds of chemicals adsorbed to their surfaces, including many known or suspected carcinogens. There are many irritants and toxic chemicals in the gaseous phase of DE. Oxides of nitrogen, component of urban smog, are in the gaseous phase of DE. There is a likelihood that people in both ambient and occupational settings can be exposed to DE. DE has the potential to cause adverse health effects including cancer, pulmonary and cardiovascular diseases. Studies show workers exposed to higher levels of DE are more likely to develop lung cancer. In 1990, the state of California identified DE as a chemical known to cause cancer. The International Agency for Research on Cancer has concluded that DE probably causes cancer in humans. The EPA has proposed classifying DE as a probable human carcinogen.

Acute Effects of Diesel Emmission Exposure:
Workers exposed to high concentrations of diesel exhaust have reported the following short-term health symptoms:

irritation of the eyes, nose and throat,
lightheadedness,
heartburn,
headache,
weakness, numbness, and tingling in extremities,
chest tightness,
wheezing, and
vomiting.

Yum....sign me up !!

Kirstie_H

heartburn,... headache,... vomiting.

Hey, I kinda know the sensations of which you speak! They can also be induced by excessive exposure to off-topic conversation and personally-directed comments.

Please pay attention to posts - if they include the word "You," especially in ALL CAPS, it probably needs editing.

gagrice

Diesel exhaust may increase the speed of Global Warming:

It may also diminish CO2. May is a big word.

larsb

If the health effects of diesel exhaust make it a "dud" then it not off topic, no?

No, just kidding....I just didn't want the uneducated first time visitor to be left with my pro-diesel buddy's assessment of the harmlessness of diesel exhaust.....

Now, back to the regularly scheduled program:

Notice there are 12 hybrids avaialbe in the USA these days. Makes for good choices among the hybrid shoppers....

jeffmc

Diesel has also been linked as a possible cause for the increase in babies born with peanut allergies, which can be deadly as well as annoying. I don't think anyone knows yet why diesel would cause this, but a correlation has been found. It'll be interesting to see how the coming rise in diesel use here affects us peanut-happy Americans.

cerberus300

The UK government's also looking at using a GPS based tax per mile scheme. The trouble is that no-one's clarified whether this will be in addition to current fuel and car tax, or as a substitute, and the public have been given no idea who will do the reto-fitting of the millions of cars on the road with the GPS systems and the detectors to make the measurements, and how much it will cost (also who pays?).

I also don't see classic car enthusiasts liking their old Morgan or Roller having electronics and GPS arials fitted to their priceless works of art.

Ultra-low sulphur Diesel (<50ppm) has been available in UK since around the mid nineties that I know of. From 1997-2001 tax concessions helped it to become mainstream,

Zero sulphur diesel(<10ppm) was introduced last year and is due to replace ULSD by mid-2007.

hwyhobo

Diesel has also been linked as a possible cause for the increase in babies born with peanut allergies

I would love to see the methodology of that study.

PF_Flyer

If you don't like what someone else has to say, maybe you should just skip those posts and move on. Instead, we get this repeated, childish, is not, is too-dance that seems to go on forever in this discussion.

Kirstie is right... if you have to direct a comment at another user, posting it probably is not a good idea.

ruking1

Can do easy. This is what one signs up for when one take a cruise, take mass transportation, buses, trains, airplane travel. As folks heat their houses, i.e., as in the northeast in the winter with "unmitigated" heating oil. This is also a guarantee when goods come into the USA from a foreign country.

But NO ONE is saying diesel exhaust mitigated by emissions controls is "harmless" as compared to unleaded regular exhaust.

ruking1

..."No, just kidding....I just didn't want the uneducated first time visitor to be left with my pro-diesel buddy's assessment of the harmlessness of diesel exhaust....."...

The buddy mentioned did NOT make that assessment at all of the "harmlessness of diesel exhaust!! .

Another example, go down to your local fire department and ask if the gasser and diesel fire engines meet that years emissions standards. Chances are they do not and in addition are EXEMPT.

While my 2003 VW Jetta could have used 15 ppm so called "low sulfur" fuel since delivered, the market legally regulated by that same EPA, allows me to buy up to 500 ppm sulfur fuel.

winter2

If you think diesel emissions are so horrible, please read these articles

http://tdiclub.com/TDIFAQ/TDiFAQ-5.html

http://www.envtox.ucdavis.edu/cehs/TOXINS/gasoline.htm

http://www.energyindependencenow.org/pdf/fs/EIN-WhatToxicAirPollutants.pdf

http://www.repairfaq.org/filipg/AUTO/F_Gasoline4.html

Emissions from gasoline powered vehicles whether they have a catalytic converter on them or not are as bad if not worse then diesel. Plus since there are so many more gassers on the road, they are even more responsible for health issues than diesels.

larsb

tanks for the linx....I never said gasoline exhaust is like breathing baby breath......

But the scientific community knows that diesel is WORSE, thus the CARB state ban, the hundreds of studies over the years which have deemed diesel deadly, and diesel's well deserved reputation of the "dirty diesels."

Google "dirty gasoline" and get 502 hits.

Google "dirty diesel" and receive 57,600 hits.

Hey, if the new high mpg diesels are clean, more power to them. I'll believe it when I see it. We already know the high mpg hybrids are clean.

winter2

Googled "Dirty Gasoilne". got 2,650,000 hits.
A9.com gave me 373,907 hits.

Got alot for diesel too.

Sleep well.

ruking1

..."But the scientific community knows that diesel is WORSE, thus the CARB state ban, the hundreds of studies over the years which have deemed diesel deadly, and diesel's well deserved reputation of the "dirty diesels." "...

Not true, the above quote is made in total denial of the point of fact that one segment was regulated in such a way as to be "non regulated." If unleaded regular were regulated in such a way as to have the ability to run without emissions controls.... well one can draw their own conclusions based on fair and even analysis.

The thing that will not be addressed by framing the argument in terms of the falsity of :" everybody knows diesels are dirtier than... ", would be does the 37% greater(better/lesser) burn rate of a fuel such as unleaded regular really conspire to bring down the use of fuel which seems to be a at least personal, if not national if not planetary goal. The reality of greater fuel usage (unleaded regular) does not match the rhetoric of decrease usage of fuel.

So as it applies to hybrids and diesels If a Prius gasser gets 50/60 mpg Which is very good if not some of the highest fuel consumption figures in the USA currently, would 37% better or 69/82 mpg be better/worse?

For diesel vs gasser on the VW Jetta would 31 mpg be better/worse than 50 mpg?

winter2

As more and more auto manufacturers are going to direct injection for their gasoline engines, they are starting to run into a new issue, PM. Also, NOx is more of an issue too.

larsb

There is nothing about that statement which is untrue.

We could go into a "posting war" about studies of the dangers of diesel exhaust, but my feeling is that my posts would be ignored.

If anyone can post ONE SINGLE STUDY that says diesel exhaust is NOT harmful to humans, I will quit saying it.

Kirstie_H

We could go into a "posting war" about studies of the dangers of diesel exhaust, but my feeling is that my posts would be ignored.

Or removed.

ruking1

Without fair and balance comparison my .02 cents is for removal!

larsb

To All:

Is it not an important and on-topic part of the discussion on whether diesels are a "dud" or not to discuss the environmental and human impact of the exhaust?

I mean, if a Jetta gets 48 MPG but spews known carcinogens, does that not make the car more of a "dud" than a comparable hybrid which spews far fewer carcinogens and less pollution overall?

ruking1

Those question has been answered many times. The answers just as many times have been ignored or denied.

Kirstie_H

We aren't taking any side apart from the one that makes this discussion welcoming to all members. What we ARE doing is preventing this discussion from deteriorating into an unwinnable war full of posts containing info that's been debated to death in the previous 4,000 posts.

There's a ton of info on the Internet, some of which is credible and some of which rival the works of Stephen King. I'm sure we can all pull out "evidence" that our position on diesel exhaust is absolutely correct and scientifically founded, but after awhile, that's not much fun to read apart from the 3-4 members who engage in that particular debate. "After awhile" has been reached.

Let's just try to tone down the attempts to prove that our position is The Correct One, and give others a chance to post interesting information on hybrids and diesels.

gagrice

does that not make the car more of a "dud" than a comparable hybrid which spews far fewer carcinogens and less pollution overall?

I think the thread is whether diesels OR hybrids are duds. It is not diesel vs hybrid as it is being made out to be. Diesel cars should not be held to a higher emissions standard than any other vehicle sold in America and specifically CA. Yet they are. You can buy hundreds of gas cars, SUVs and trucks in CA that are more polluting and dangerous to our health than the VW TDI diesel.

I did a count of the vehicles that are rated with a "ONE" or lower emissions rating by the EPA. I quit at 100 vehicles. These are all gas vehicles that are sold today in CA.

It includes the popular Toyota Corolla & Matrix in the list of "ONE" emissions ratings. Why is VW TDI being singled out here? VW has more PZEV models available than Toyota.

ruking1

Might be one reason why fair and balanced might be a better discussion model.

Yet we hear NO vilification toward those 100 or so gasser cars from the "gasser" advocate!!??

It also highlights how political the issue is in CA anyway.

gagrice

It is all politics, from the EPA, CARB, CAFE to the latest scam, Ethanol. Buzz words like pollution are used freely, to stir the masses into believing the latest rhetoric.

When they start dealing fairly I will quit trying to circumvent their ignorant policies.

winter2

I have a question? Since when is any emission from any car/truck, be it gasoline, CNG, diesel, E85 harmless?

Everything I have read points to all of them being bad, plain and simple. One is no worse than the other.

alp8

One is no worse than the other.

well, that's a bit of an exagerration, no?

roaddog2

While ultra-low emission diesels are attainable (lower personal health risk), that standard does not include carbon dioxide which has the most negative impact on the environment through climate change. My vote goes to Hybrids for urban transport. However, the reality is hybrid efficiencies do not translate to highway speeds as effectively.

Diesels get my vote for that.

gogogodzilla

Just wanted to reissue my old post #1872...

It's seems that my post has, ummm...., been proven correct.

Hybrid supporters have run the gamut of their arguments and gone through their second iteration of arguments and are at the 'diesel is polluting' stage.

Though, it only took roughly 2500 posts for the argument to get to that point. Any guess as to how long it'll take for the argument to be spun back around for a third time?

:shades:

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

Hybrid and diesel owners tend to rehash the same arguments.

Hybrid owners argument: diesel is stinky -> diesel is expensive -> diesel (by which they only mean Volkswagen) is unreliable -> diesel is polluting -> start over at diesel is stinky

As each argument gets refuted, hybrid owner's move to the next one. Then, once they reach the last point, they'll start over again.

Diesel owners argument: hybrids are much more expensive than similar standard models -> hybrids batteries will eventually die -> hybrid repairs are expensive -> hybrid gas mileage isn't all that good in comparision

To which the hybrid owners don't really refute any of this arguments, they tend to simply deflect to a perceived diesel fault. Which then gets rebutted.

PF_Flyer

Then let's stop rehashing

gagrice

All the posts I have read say the TCH is very quiet. Maybe this fellow is super sensitive to noise.

Here's where the Camry hybrid disappointed.

Noises. The center console creaked on the Japan-made test car. The electric motor's inherent whine seemed unusually loud, especially under braking when the motor turns into a generator and recharges the battery pack. Toyota says such whines are just part of a hybrid's nature and probably bother auto writers much more than normal people.

Vibration. The four-cylinder gasoline engine shudders when it's automatically started and begins taking over from the electric motor as the driver demands more power. On the test car, the shake seemed more pronounced than you get starting the engine in a conventional gasoline car.

Overall: A little too much noise and vibration, but very nice generally

TCH review

houdini1

I consider myself of at least average intelligence and it is very easy to spot those who have a monetary interest of some sort in their side of this debate. This is especially clear of those folks who are against diesel. They simply ignore any and all evidence. This is the same tactic that the oil industry has used for the last 40 years because there is less profit in diesel. They have the politicians in their pockets.

Here is a prediction for you. If we ever do get good, clean diesels, the price of diesel will be somewhere near $4.00 a gallon.

winter2

Here is a prediction for you. If we ever do get good, clean diesels, the price of diesel will be somewhere near $4.00 a gallon.

And when this event does occur, what will a gallon of gasoline cost?

Diesels are relatively clean to begin with. If diesels were so dirty, why are EPA rules just starting to impact on them now? The problem with diesels is the fuel and the lack of education about the new crop of diesels.

ruking1

Structually #2 diesel fuel IS (has been and will continue to be) cheaper thoroughout the WHOLE logistics supply chain than... unleaded regular.

While I realize a prediction is just that: from SWAG to a SOTP, the structural thing to emphasize is the price difference between the so called "light sweet crude" which is the raw material of choice to refine unleaded regular (among a myraid of other petro products) vs or to an up to 30-40% CHEAPER "other than" barrel of oil. Light sweet crude is at premium for a number of reasons, but for example is MUCH less available than the other than (light sweet crude) products.

To make up for this difference, it has been priced higher (through out the whole distribution chain). Governments have normally % wise taxed it higher. With more mainstream use and emphasis on the alternative fuel aspects, hopefully this will bring down prices both % and dollar wise. It would be way cool to see the logistics advantage of diesel fuel reflect the 30-40% cheaper raw materials price.

houdini1

Certainly I agree with you that diesel SHOULD be cheaper than regular gasoline. However, and this may be a shock to you, I just don't always think the oil companies shoot straight with us consumers.

Right now in my area (Kansas City) diesel is higher priced than PREMIUM UNLEADED. Premium is around 3.09 and diesel is around 3.15. Regular is about 2.89. Certainly this makes no sense other than the oil companies can price their product as they please.

Yes, as more and more people opt for diesel you can bet the price will go up. The oil companies have people on their payrolls whose only job is to come up with excuses as to why they have to raise prices.

ruking1

I am not sure given my post, how you would conclude it would be a "shock to" me, the oil companies "don't always think the oil companies shoot straight with us consumers".

Perversely and conversely, THEY (The WHOLE logistical supply chain) ARE shooting straight with us??!! : Foreign governments, Hollywood, Environmentalists, oil companies, car oem's and governments, world wide and USA:local, county, state, FED, (yada yada,) HAVE been VERY straight forward with us. They all have conspired (not in a criminal or pejorative sense) and been very vocal in advocating HIGHER fuel prices!! So in the context of the PRICES of unleaded gasoline in the USA is there any one who doubts their success and or ability !!??? The real problem now is who to afix blame for these herculean efforts!!?? Once they achieve the goal of higher fuel prices, they want to lower demand, and jack the prices up even higher.

Behind close doors they will do Elvis impersonations and say thank you, thank you very much, but hey its $8. per per gal gas or BUST !!!

This is simple to see given say Germ and UK examples: price of fuel, 7/8 US dollars per gal vs say an Iranian/Sauidi Arabian pump price of less than .75 cents. When a relative was in Venezuela , unleaded regular was .29 cents RETAIL app a year ago!! As a comparison #2 diesel was 2.55 in the LA area ( New Orleans, LA area in August 2005 pre Katrina) One observation, the players REALLY want to be able to blame someone else.

So if your theory is correct, then I as a diesel user should go over/stay with to the "dark side" and recommend hybrid use (gasser), even as I remain a #2 diesel user.

houdini1

No, stick with diesel. We can only hope that a sense of shame will overcome the oil barons and the price of diesel will drop to around $2.00 a gallon. Even if it does go to $4.00, gas will be there too.

ruking1

At this stage in my life, I am really at cross purposes. So for example one of my "dream machines is a BMW 5 series diesel with manual transmission.

If one really implements "purposeful" products, it is very easy to buy more vehicles than one really wants or needs. If one gets a "jack of all trades", it almost goes without saying it is most likely the MASTER/MISTRESS of NONE. So I would SWAG folks chose the balance that is most suitable applicable to them. One thing is sure, I found it hard to ignore the up to 37% advantage of diesel. The real problem is of course the lack of product choice.

jkinzel

Some of the talk about Federal and State government not wanting diesels and or high mileage cars because of potential lost revenue made me wonder just how much they might loose, so I did some math.
Math is not my strong suite, so if anyone sees anything wrong with this feel free to point it out.
I got the national average of $0.459 of every gallon of gas goes to local, state and federal taxes from http://taxfoundation.org/news/show/1054.html
For the sake of this example we must assume diesel and E85 are taxed the same as gas.

Take 500,000 cars each driving 12,000 miles per year.

E85 12,000miles divided by 15mpg = 800 gals of fuel times $0.459 = $367.2 times 500,000 cars $183,600,000

Regular Gas 12,000miles divided by 20mpg = 600 gals of fuel times $0.459 = $275.4 times 500,000 cars $137,700,000

Diesel/Hybrids 12,000miles divided by 44mpg = 272 gals of fuel times $0.459 = $125.18 times 500,000 cars = $62,590,000

E85 = $183,600,000 in annual taxes. Not viable revenue source, but we can see why government is pushing it.

Regular Gas = $137,700,000

Diesel/Hybrids = $62,590,000

An annual loss of $75,110,000 tax dollars for every 500,000 diesel/hybrid cars that replace gassers.

If there is no conspiracy to keep diesels and hybrids out, this is sure a good argument for one. With our governments increasingly shady reputation and this kind of revenue at stake I doubt that they will welcome diesels and hybrids with open arms. Clean air, pollution and oil independence will always take a back seat to tax revenue.

wvgasguy

Here's where the Camry hybrid disappointed.

Noises. The center console creaked on the Japan-made test car. One poster has had this noise fixed and it appears a clip was not properly positioned during assembly.

The electric motor's inherent whine seemed unusually loud, especially under braking when the motor turns into a generator and recharges the battery pack. Toyota says such whines are just part of a hybrid's nature and probably bother auto writers much more than normal people. I have 7400+ miles on my TCH and have not really found the whine to be annoying. I can't really say that I've heard this whine when braking on the highway, I have heard it in my driveway. I guess if this was a diesel I probably couldn't hear anything (except the diesel???)

Vibration. The four-cylinder gasoline engine shudders when it's automatically started and begins taking over from the electric motor as the driver demands more power. On the test car, the shake seemed more pronounced than you get starting the engine in a conventional gasoline car. It has been discussed in the TCH threads and yes there is a vibration, it seems more like a sensation, and it only happens at start and only for a fraction of a second.
All in all, if a person can put up with the smell of fueling a diesel, dirty hands and the noise, then the quietness and percieved whines from a hybrid should not bother them much. I consider the choice between the two options (diesel / hybrid) more of a choice of what's available and I didn't want a VW product.

If this is the worst I'll expect from hybrid ownership then getting 38.6 mpg should keep me satisfied for a long time.

gagrice

It did not sound like he could find much to complain about. If I was finding fault with the Camry Hybrid it would be the trunk size and the looks. I think that Toyota copied the new Mercedes CLS look. I don't like the look. For those of us with a tall torso it is hard to see out of the low profile cars. I don't like to duck down to see a stop light.

You and several others gave up some fairly quiet vehicles to buy the TCH. I would think you should know as well as a writer trying to find something to write about.