According to Margo Oge, head of the Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Transportation & Air Quality, as quoted in the February 20, 2006, issue of Business Week:
“The U.S. could save up to 1.4 million barrels of oil per day – roughly the amount it imports from Saudi Arabia – if a third of U.S. vehicles ran on diesel.”
Although, Oge did not differentiate between petroleum based diesel and biodiesel, in this remark, current diesel engine technology “sees” biodiesel and petroleum based clean diesel as equivalent fuels. This means that a diesel engine performs the same on either kind of diesel – of course the strategic draw for biodiesel is that, like ethanol, it is renewable.
The contrast here is that a diesel engine literally sees dino and bio diesel as "the same," while a FFV engine sees dino and E85 as "not the same" -- the difference of course is that an FFV vehicle using E85 will only go about 2/3rds as far on a gallon of E85 as it will on "pure" dino-gas. The survey of drivers using BioWillie (not scientific) claims better milage on B20 than B0 and no loss of mpg even with pure B100. E85 can't do this.
A diesel fueled car compared to a virtually identical gasoline fueled car will:
o Achieve better acceleration o Retain identical top speed capabilities o Reduce greenhouse gas emissions o Achieve an MPG increase between 20 – 40% o Use a fuel that typically costs less than premium grade gasoline o Permit us "choice" and add "time" -- the choice to or not to use Middle Eastern and the time to work on effeciencies and alternatives.
And this has NOTHING to do with bio. We may, indeed, I think we should, develop bio-diesel which will only serve to increase the richness of the above benefits (richness in contrast to reach -- but reach, too, could be improved with both bio and dino diesel.)
I believe the point "diesel, is the best current solution and also one that would "get the attention" of the middle eastern countries when the US basically would be able to say, "no thanks, we don't need any more of your oil." was referring to bio-diesel like BioWillie. If I'm not mistaken, it can be produced cleanly and pollutes much less when burned. If we moved production capacity towards more bio-diesel, the subsequent drop in demand for conventional diesel would work to ease our dependency on petroleum.
As for diesel vehicles not being desired by Americans, I think that's based on the perceptions generated by the last time we tried to use diesel in passenger cars. Back then (late 70s, early 80s), the diesel vehicles offered (by American manufacturers) were converted gasoline engines that ran poorly and were unreliable. If a genuine effort were made to produce vehicles that ran cleanly, quietly, and most importantly, reliably, I think Americans would purchase them. Hybrids are successful because (so far) they work. It would be interesting to see a pollution comparison between a bio-diesel vehicle vs. a gasonline hybrid.
GMC was bragging about quiet diesel engines in their commercials fairly recently. Also, I don't see the huge clouds of black smoke from the newer diesel vehicles they produce. If that technology works as advertised, it could be successful. Unfortunately for GM, they can't afford to take a huge risk in developing a new diesel car and have it fail, especially if bio-diesel doesn't catch on.
My point is don't write off bio-diesel yet. If the market for it becomes proven, then all it would take would be a smartly produced vehicle to capitalize on it. If there were an affordable car that ran on bio-diesel today (and bio-diesel were widely available), I bet it would catch on quickly. Many Americans want clean and efficient vehicles and would feel good buying a clean, domestically produced fuel.
My final observation would be that while performance oriented drivers would likely resist diesel power, minivan, SUV, and mass-transit drivers could all be powered by bio-diesel with no "personality" conflict. Those drivers are already showing interest in hybrid technology which also takes away that "vroom" factor of conventional gasoline engines.
Already 30%+ of ALL cars sold are diesel. It didn't used to be that way, of course.
70% of what this website calls "LPS" cars sold in Europe are diesel.
Audi, alone, now is selling 50% of its total production of almost 900,000 cars as diesel.
The new diesel engine technology, BlueTec, when coupled with the diesel that will be pumped here -- everywhere -- by this time next year has been ONE of the main reasons the product has not been built and/or sold here by domestic and foreign companies.
It does, I grant, remain to be seen if it is even possible to get to 30% -- but as the song goes "Money Changes Everything."
With the "sudden" availability of clean diesel and incremental growth in bio-diesel, some pessimists are now thinking 20% diesel penetration in the near to mid term (less than 10 years, perhaps) is not unattainable.
If it were to get to 15% even, this would, again, buy us both choice and time.
We would get the attention of some exporters when the US would be in the position to say "we're cutting back, from buying from YOU, by 50%."
The lowering of demand, the shift in demand -- since there is currently no supply reason for the high prices -- could have the effect of lowering the price of a bbl.
Moreover, although a year in the making, the Today show, did, this morning claim that within 5 years we could be using our own oil from our own oil shale and that it would be perhaps at the equivalent cost in today's bucks of 40/bbl USD.
13 months in the making, the crack Today show reporters are right on top of this development!
Shell Oil must feel a little like saying "what took you guys so long?"
While I agree with almost your entire post, here is where I differ:
I believe the performance and Luxury Performance buyers will DRIVE the adoption -- to whatever degree -- of diesel.
Diesels are quicker and no less fast. They are more economical and more durable.
These kind of buyers are standing in line for a BMW 535 with a TDI engine, ditto Mercedes, Audi and so on.
These folks will buy, then the trickle down and out will happen.
Perhaps this is not the market, or not the time -- but at $80 a bbl and bio diesel getting lots of good press and Audi winning every race it enters both here and abroad with a diesel car -- there will be some early adopters, followed by at least an important minority.
Most pundits and experts are sanguine about a 15% diesel penetration, some go as high as 25%. Me, I'd be tickled with 10% for now!
Mark, Nice to see an intelligent disagreement without the typical "smugness" of this thread. Let me say I agree with you in your counterpoint...with one small exception, vehicle price.
I might fall into that crowd of wanting a slick new diesel hot rod but, like the majority of Americans, I can't come close to affording anything but an entry-level vehicle from those manufacturers. So, like my fellow Americans, I won't be in the market for a diesel powered performance-oriented vehicle until either American/Japanese/Korean producers make a more affordable version of the technology or the Europeans break from tradition and produce a more affordable, yet still large, model.
As for market penetration, I think the part that most don't get is that we don't have to make a 100% conversion to a new technology. Fading into new technology will offer the greatest flexibility and lowest cost and will have immediate effects on demand which is, currently, the largest factor affecting price.
Fading into new technology will offer the greatest flexibility and lowest cost
That is very true. The forced mandate of ethanol is the reason it has soared up to $5 per gallon. It is the major reason most of us are paying over $3 per gallon of gas. A slow market driven transition is the best way to implement diesel, ethanol, electric or hydrogen.
E85 gas guzzlers and an ethanol mandate are (1) a means of subdizing domestic manufacturers of fuel guzzling behemoths (2) neutralizing the guilt of owners of said vehicles for their fuel gluttony (3) rewarding corn states for voting for Bush (4) rewarding big agribusiness
I cannot speak about what Ford might be doing. And, let me be clear -- the word I want to emphasize in all of the following remarks is "might" -- as in could, maybe, possibly and perhaps probably. As far as I know there are very few "for sure's."
Ask Dr. Z, the new DC ad campaign does -- in ONE ad that I can think of -- speaks to the use of diesels to power CLEAN JEEPS. The Jeeps are, of course to make the point, covered in mud. Dr. Z quips, "these are the cleanest vehicles we've ever produced." Cut to the dirtiest mud covered Jeeps you've ever seen.
GM has announced (well, ok, "discussed") Quiet Diesels. Some Japanese (wouldn't it be nice if it Honda AND Toyota would start an ad campaign touting their plans for diesels?) have at least indicated that they will have diesels on the market soon, too.
Audi and Mercedes and VW have diesels in the wings and BMW has some of the best sports sedans PERIOD that are diesel motivated.
Who knows, though, perhaps diesel in the US will be like soccer (aka football) -- the world's most popular sport with some 5 billion fans and players the world over, but slow to gain traction in the US. Perhaps diesel will, once it has been re-introduced (maybe even introduced would be a better way to spin it), be seen as a viable alternative. Bosch seems to think a diesel hybrid makes more sense than gas hybrids.
The only folks who seem to have much use for E85 are our Congressional Representatives.
All the talk is good, some of the action is good -- and it at least appears we ARE poised for even more action.
But, Ford's assertion that they will have another 250,000 FFV's ready this next year -- ought to be met with a resounding "huh?" :confuse:
Of course, Bill Ford's spots tend to completely obfuscate the loss of 30% fuel economy that will be associated with E85 -- if you could find it and are willing to pay MORE per gallon for it than for E0 or E10.
The "folks" do think E85 may not stay above the price of gasoline much longer, but the economist folks seem to think E85 will seek a price that is reasonably close to dino-gas, which means, essentially, it will cost at least 25% more and go only 68% as far.
These automakers offer diesels elsewhere in their lineups. They don't offer them here because they believe (quite rightly) that we don't want them. If they thought that there was demand here, they would already be selling them.
And this certainly explains why VW can’t keep any TDI’s on the lot? VW diesels are sold almost as fast as they come from the factory. Somebody wants diesels.
I can only assume the following. The domestic auto makers don’t offer diesel passenger cars in the US because Ford and GM are looking for the cheap way out. With a few hundred dollars in parts on existing gas engines they meet all the CAFÉ requirements and reap the tax break. When the other auto makers bring diesels to the market, Ford and GM are going to find the hole they are in has become much deeper. Most people who do not favor diesels tend to forget or ignore the fact the US is in a transition period with the introduction of ULSD. With ULSD in place by the end of 2006 you will see an increased offering of diesels by most auto makers over the next two years.
Already 30%+ of ALL cars sold are diesel. It didn't used to be that way, of course.
I agree that the situation in Europe is different. (And FWIW, I believe that the figure is closer to 45%.)
But let's not forget that in most European countries, diesel enjoys a significant price advantage because the fuel tax is much lower.
Do you foresee a future when gas taxes in the US are increased to give diesel an obvious price benefit? As I've touched on previously, I certainly do not, the US government is loathe to use fuel taxes in order to deter consumption. Our policies are quite different from those of the Europeans.
Yes, and other people want two-seater fiberglass sport coupes, while others still want small convertibles. But that doesn't mean that they'll become one third of the US market.
Most people who do not favor diesels tend to forget or ignore the fact the US is in a transition period with the introduction of ULSD.
I haven't expressed an opinion about diesel, only about its viability as an alt fuel in the US market. And I don't see (a) why US consumers are going to shift their consumption habits or (b) how biodiesel production will ever comprise more than a tiny fraction of the total production of diesel fuel.
Again, plans without paths to adoption are not plans, but just pipedreams. If you want the 3% to reach 33% (or whatever figure it is), show me how it is going to get there.
"Do you foresee a future when gas taxes in the US are increased to give diesel an obvious price benefit? As I've touched on previously, I certainly do not, the US government is loathe to use fuel taxes in order to deter consumption."
Perhaps not; however they certainly DO like to use tax credits to promote one particular type of fuel over another. Perhaps a tax credit for diesel (and bio-diesel) suppliers?
Perhaps not; however they certainly DO like to use tax credits to promote one particular type of fuel over another. Perhaps a tax credit for diesel (and bio-diesel) suppliers?
I don't know whether there is motivation to do it specifically for diesel, but yes, I would agree that if there is going to be an incentive, it will likely be in the form of tax credits for suppliers and/or buyers. (There is already a credit for the latter.) That's how Uncle likes to do business.
"I don't know whether there is motivation to do it specifically for diesel...."
So where does the motivation come from (he asks naively ) to offer the tax credits for ethanol (where the industry essentially must build the infrastructure from scratch) vs. the motivation to support diesel (where the infrastructure is already in place)?
Again, plans without paths to adoption are not plans, but just pipedreams. If you want the 3% to reach 33% (or whatever figure it is), show me how it is going to get there.
The path is there, all we need is auto makers to offer the product (diesels) and the numbers will grow.
Wifes/family car is a 93 Ford Explorer with 190,000+ miles. The mechanic willing, it will last two more years until the kid is out of college and we can buy a new care. We intend that new car to be a diesel.
The path is there, all we need is auto makers to offer the product (diesels) and the numbers will grow.
If the path is there, why isn't anybody on it? If Honda, Toyota, etc. thought that diesel was a great differentiator for them, they would have offered it in the US long ago. At this stage, it's a niche product meant to serve a small segment, not a mainstream offering.
If available I would get a diesel for my next car. My understanding is that I am not the only one who wants one. Since some of the more mainstream cars (more affordable ones not the MB's and Audis of the world) are alleged to be bringing diesels to our shores we have a pretty good chance of getting many different types of cars as diesels.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
"If Honda, Toyota, etc. thought that diesel was a great differentiator for them, they would have offered it in the US long ago."
Perhaps because diesel and small displacement engines are a horrible match.
Honda/Toyota got their fuel economy by going the small displacement route. They get their power with higher rpm engines. This doesn't fly with diesel technology.
And to gain additional economy, they've gone the hybrid route. This explains (to me at least) why Toyota/Honda have historically not gone the diesel route.
If Honda, Toyota, etc. thought that diesel was a great differentiator for them, they would have offered it in the US long ago.
Toyota did offer diesel cars in the 1980s. During the last fuel crisis. Almost every automaker offered a diesel. Some good, some not so good, some horrible. When gas prices went down no one cared about fuel mileage. They went out and bought mega sized SUVs and mega sized homes. Now they have to pay the piper. I personally don't care if diesels reach 3% or 90%. I just want the option given every where else in the free world. If you think that we live in a free society, why the hassles getting a diesel car in CA? No hassle buying a behemoth diesel PU truck in CA. Dodge claims 80% of their HD PU trucks are sold as diesel. I would say that is more than a niche market. The new Jetta is 40% diesel. The new Jetta is up 25% over last year. Try getting a diesel Jetta off the lot. They sell as fast as the hybrids from Toyota.
why Toyota/Honda have historically not gone the diesel route.
Toyota and Honda both offer diesel cars in the EU. Honda did not penetrate the European market until they offered their new diesel engine. Toyota cannot give away their hybrids in Europe. Only ones being sold are to government agencies that have tax money to waste.
I have driven both the VW Passat gas and diesel. The diesel outperforms the gasser in the areas I was interested. Going up long grades and winding mountain roads the TDI will outperform most any gasser in that 2.0L size. And get much better mileage in the process. If all you are interested in is 0-60 the Mercedes e320 CDI is in the 6-7 second range. It outperforms its gas counterpart on all fronts. In fact if I buy a MB it will be a diesel. I would not even think of buying their gas guzzling engines.
"Toyota and Honda both offer diesel cars in the EU."
Probably because (and I'm guessing) of the differing tax rates applied to gasoline and diesel fuel in the EU affecting the public's demand for diesel. I'm not surprised hybirds have a tough go; diesel is cheaper than gasoline and the mileage between the two technologies is similar. And diesel offers good punch off the line (of course, the torque characteristics of a properly design hybrid can offer similar feel). I wonder how the EU would respond to diesel hybrids?
"If Honda, Toyota, etc. thought that diesel was a great differentiator for them, they would have offered it in the US long ago."
I almost hate to say this: "well. . .yes, no, but."
If, for the purposes of differentiation we can separate diesel into two categories, it will make what has happened and what MIGHT happen a little easier to digest.
Category one: Light diesel (think passenger cars)
Category two: Medium and Heavy diesel (think "everything else")
For the purposes of our discussion, let's limit ourselves to light diesel.
Broadly speaking, light diesel failed -- in the US -- for several reasons (generalizations to make the point):
1. GM created diesel engines in the late 70's and early 80's and put them in the Oldsmobile 98 and Cadillac and, as I recall, Buick 225's (if I am off with respect to the model names, etc, it is immaterial -- what IS material is that GM put diesel engines in "popular" American sedans, notably in the lux cars of the day from GM's perspective.)
These diesel engines were "crapola" (a technical term) for many reasons and often were recalled for "this that and the other" product related reasons.
These diesel engines were "not ready for prime time" and even if I were to recite chapter and verse the reasons and vet them fully and explain them to death, the spirit of what you might conclude would remain -- these diesel's were plainly "not ready for Mr and Ms John and Jane Q Public and all the Ships at Sea." Further information is easily Googled and, to repeat simply would put an end to the why question that may be here, today, on this matter.
These diesels -- were you to find a perfect one -- in the land yachts they were often placed into, were "not bad." Upon starting, they were a little noisy, the exhaust had a hint of soot in it (but not black belching 'moke, by any means) and inside the cars there was little in the way of evidence you were driving a compression engine.
The Olds 98, my boss had, was fully loaded with all lux goodies and due to the extra torque of the diesel, seemed imperceptibly different in terms of "starting from a full stop." On the highway, you'd never know anything at all except you could drive and drive and drive between fill ups, compared to the anti-pollution device laden gasoline V8's of the day.
The experience, however, overall, was largely unsatisfying for many reasons -- some of them we all can recite:
Noise Smell Performance Degree of difficulty in find a filling station Reliability Could be hard starting in the winter
N.B. - at the same time, VW brought a Jetta to the US also with a diesel. It was underpowered (but that is not because it was a diesel, by any stretch) but otherwise it ran like a champ and got huge MPG's especially on the open highways. We clocked nearly 50MPG with 4 of us and our ski equipment in the car on a trip from Cincinnati to Boyne Highland (at the top of the LP of Michigan.)
One by one the General realized its hastily brought to market diesels (that had been gasoline engines a couple of years earlier) were just not viable.
2. We were living in a dream world of sub $1.00 (way below) per gallon gasoline. Gas wars, even during some of the 70's would find two stations selling gasoline for a number beginning with a "2" -- as in 20 cents to 29 cents per gallon. Although such gas wars were temporary and an endangered species throughout the 70's and 80's and as shortages (real shortages not non-supply constrained shortages, i.e.) caused prices to increase we even flirted from time to time with gasoline prices that, based on the inflation adjusted criteria, were higher than some of our 2006 prices (but requiring the impact of inflation these almost 30 years have dealt us.)
3. Diesel was dirty -- and even though Mercedes did have some decent diesel cars, the ones we often saw were sluggish and did seem to produce more than their fair share of soot.
4. Diesel was used in "the big rigs" -- not something most of us relate to as a mode of transportation.
The US for some situation appropriate reasons "didn't need, didn't want and didn't embrace 'light diesel' cars."
The late 70's did see Audi of America bring a high performance turbo diesel to our shores -- the Audi 5000S TDI. It actually was, from an engine and engineering standpoint, everything positive that the GM engines and engineering were not.
The perfect storm of events prevented diesel from taking off here, even as ever higher (relative to ours) gas prices in Europe were actually encouraging the adoption of diesel (I submit the circumstances "then" for the Europeans are very similar to the ones we American are entering into "now.")
European emission standards soon were mandated and this required ever cleaner diesel fuel. At a point in time -- look it up, if you care when this point came about -- the diesel engines produced for the home market were no longer able to successfully and cleanly use American Diesel. And, the requirements for several years, "over there," continued to become ever more difficult to even approach here with our dirty diesel.
No US government mandate to require clean diesel was helping the US consumer make the decade+ long transition to diesel. What few diesels were there were niche players (and mostly from VW and Mercedes.)
"We don't need no stinkin' diesel," was probably a quote, although made up, that did represent the US Market's response to diesel.
Meanwhile on the other side of the Atlantic, several engineers were on a constanst diesel improvement kick.
Better -- mileage, power, reliability, performance, durability AND lower pollution, noise and smell. Until the mileage advantage, smell, power, performance, price, etc, etc, etc, carried NO negatives.
Then the EU decided to go nuts and make the requirements for diesel emissions lower still. Then the EU (notably German) manufacturers became very interested in "really really really high performance" luxury car placement of diesel powerplants.
The EU again responded with ever higher standards for emissions -- and, in response, Audi/VW, BMW and Mercedes responded with more efficient, cleaner and powerful diesel cars.
The ability to put the best of the best diesel engines in the US was, at that time, literally zero, zilch, zip and nadda. The diesel was on track to be 2 out of every three luxury car buyer's choice and 1 out of all car buyer's chose diesel for all the reasons we could not use them here:
1. Lower TCO 2. Lower emissions
and the big one
3. Higher fun and performance factors.
Our government, somehow, got "wind of this" (sarcasm.) In a Homer Simpson moment, no doubt.
The mandate for clean diesel so stipulates that by 2007 we will have clean diesel (and, to repeat this has nothing to do with the grass roots (no pun intended) movement to introduce BioDiesel to America -- even in very small quantities.) Several states with onerous (and rightly so) pollution standards were thought to be the death knell for the reintroduction of real cars powered by diesel in the US.
Along comes BluTech diesel engine technology (also, please look it up for further detailed info) -- that can be used in all 50 states.
Then comes the announcements from several Car Mfgrs that they will be bringing diesel cars to the US and even GM says, "Quiet Diesel" quietly, for the moment, is "in the pipeline."
Diesel cars can or will:
N.B. "Performance Comparable" means "acceleration and top speed competitive" (in other words we are not going to attract a person who expects 0 - 60 in sub 8 seconds from a gasoline engine car with a 10+ second diesel engine equipped model at the same price point.)
o Cost at MSRP about the same or a little more or a little less for "comparable" (performance comparable that is) gasoline version.
o MPG about 20 - 40% more for diesel (for a performance comparable gasoline version)
o use fuel that costs "in the same range" as conventional Regular, Mid-grade or Premium based on market conditions (diesel and regular are the same price in Cincinnati this month, e.g.)
o have maintenance requirements/intervals that are either the same as gasoline engine versions or better
o can use, without mileage penalties, renewable fuel (bio diesel in ratios of from 20 - 100% non dino)
o have similar or better driving characteristics (most diesel versions of gasoline sedans, for instance, accelerate more quickly and are quieter than their gasoline counterparts.)
Toyota, Audi, VW, and on and on and on have been not only unmotivated but almost quite literally "unable" to bring modern clean diesel cars to the US.
Now, things are different -- stay tuned for another 12 - 24 months, and you will see what you will see.
Let's hope it is as the pundits predict -- the beginning of a diesel renaissance in the US. :shades:
P.S. diesel and/or bio-diesel can deliver, TODAY, everthing that E85 might deliver, maybe, someday, far into the future.
In the context of "alternative [to dino gasoline] fuels," diesel seems overqualified to immediately accomplish many (probably most) of the stated E85 goals (excluding giving a Blue Bird to ADM, of course.) And, since biodiesel and ethanol actually can be seen to be kissin' cousins (twice removed on your mother's side), sorta -- it bears noting that the following article could foretell of greater diesel auto demand than even the most optimistic AFF (alternative fuel folks) might predict.
Immediately? Yes, for if the cars were available in 2006, or 2007 almost all of us would be able to find diesel fuel fairly conveniently (minutes from where ever we were at that moment.) Here in Ohio if we were able to increase our E85 stations 10 fold, there would be but 90 stations in the whole state.
Even our quick stop milk, bread, beer and lottery ticket mom and pop (non company owned) stations all have at least ONE diesel spigot. Most stations have three (out of twelve) diesel nozzles even in sub ubran Cincinnati.
The Business Review (Albany)
Updated: 8:00 p.m. ET July 16, 2006
"Martin Nemer Volkswagen gets calls daily about new diesel-powered Beetles, Jettas and Golfs the dealership is not allowed to sell to New York residents.
The restriction, put in place by the state to control exhaust emissions, costs the company plenty of business, said Justin Fuld, Martin Nemer's finance director.
"If we could sell diesels, our new car business would be three times what it is right now. Every day, probably, we get phone calls, and we have people coming in looking for diesels and it is relentless," Fuld said. "It would be name your price, too. In the states that can sell them, like Florida, if you go ask for a diesel, they do not discount them. That is the price."
Hopefully, the situation will begin to change next year, said Robert Vancavage, president of the New York State Automobile Dealers Association. Changes in diesel-fuel formulation and new engine technology should put new diesel cars back in the New York marketplace.
Although diesel cars get better mileage than gas-powered vehicles--typically 30 percent to 40 percent more, according to the Diesel Technology Forum--and the state advocates the sale of biodiesel fuel, New York will not register a diesel car with fewer than 7,500 miles on it.
Although Keeler Motor Car Co.'s Mercedes-Benz division can't sell new diesel cars, it does a good business in used diesels, said Maria Dunning, the division's general manager.
"There is a long heritage of people that only want to drive a diesel Mercedes-Benz," Dunning said. "A significant percent of our pre-owned car sales in the E class are diesel."
An owner of a diesel vehicle can bring the car in from out of state and register it.
"There is a huge market," Vancavage said. "We have the issue all the time with New York residents going across the [state] border and buying them."
The reason for the ban: In 1992, New York made its vehicle emissions regulations conform to California's.
Cars can be sold in New York only if the manufacturer certifies that they meet California standards. Diesel car makers, for many reasons, have not been certifying their cars for several years, said Deborah Dorman, president of the Albany-based Eastern New York Coalition of Automotive Retailers Inc.
The high sulfur content of the fuel makes it tough to market a diesel that meets the standards, said Allen Schaeffer, executive director of the Diesel Technology Forum.
But, beginning Oct. 15, at least 80 percent of the diesel fuel sold in the United States must have a sulfur content of 15 parts per million, as opposed to the current 500 parts.
The new fuel started flowing from refineries June 1, Schaeffer said. While the main target of the change is the trucking industry, passenger cars will benefit too, he said.
The combination of cleaner fuel and new technologies that allow the particulate matter in diesel exhaust to be removed, means diesel cars that offer higher mileage and higher performance should be coming on the market in 2007 or 2008, Schaeffer said.
Honda, DaimlerChrysler, Mercedes-Benz (a DaimlerChrysler company), and Volkswagen are gearing up to offer new diesel cars on the U.S. market. Jeep also offers a diesel version of its Liberty SUV. BMW, Ford and GM also are considering diesel cars, he said.
DaimlerChrysler and Mercedes-Benz will offer the BlueTec Sedan, which uses a particulate filter and a catalytic converter to meet California standards by 2008, while getting 35 miles to the gallon. Keeler Mercedes already has received inquiries about the car, said John Haertel, a Keeler sales consultant.
J.D. Power Automotive Forecasting predicts that the U.S. market share of diesel cars and trucks will go from 3.2 percent in 2005 to 10 percent by 2015.
Scott Newell, the service manager at Langan Chrysler Jeep, agrees with Martin Nemer's Fuld that there will be customers for diesel cars once the vehicles meet the California/New York emission standards.
"We used to sell the Volkswagen turbo diesel cars and they sold great. They were phenomenal," Newell said.
The question, though, is whether people will spend more for a diesel car to get better gas mileage, said Randy Raymond, general manager at Action Chevrolet in Troy.
"People are not going to be willing to pay an extra $3,000 to $4,000 for a diesel," he said.
The demand for diesel cars will depend on whether there is a return in fuel savings, said Greg Goldstein, executive vice president of Goldstein Enterprises Inc."
The total cost of ownership of diesels is higher than gasoline cars despite diesels getting higher mpg because of the initial higher cost and much higher maintenance and repair costs of a diesel over the life of the vehicle. Much of the enthusiasm for diesels is an uncritical determination to reduce fuel bills.
A sizeable fraction of the mpg advantage of the diesel is due simply to the higher mass density of diesel fuel--a gallon of diesel fuel weighs more than a gallon of gasoline becuase the hydrocarbon molecules of diesel fuel are larger and heavier than those of gasoline. To a first approximation a given amount of crude oil (weight or volume) can be refined into the same weights of diesel and gasoline which means that this yields a smaller volume of diesel fuel than gasoline. What we want is to reduce our national purchases of crude oil. Diesel engines do not do this to the extent that the mpg advantage indicates. In fact, some analyses purport to show that refining crude into gasoline is more efficient overall than refining into diesel fuel when all the environmental effects are taken into account.
The increasing enthusiasm for fuel economy is spurring the engine manufacturers into increasing the efficiency of gasoline engines, so that in addition to hybrid gas electric powerplants, there are new designs for powerful gasoline engines with ultra-high fuel efficiency obtained from reducing engine displacement with turbocharging, supercharging or both on the same engine, and using "direct injection" like diesels, i.e. gasoline injected into the cylinders instead of into the airstream going into the cylinders. Direct injection allows more precise metering of fuel.
Well, it sounds like we've got it all figured out. What is taking Congress so long?
I had fallen out of liking with ethanol when I saw the first report about how much energy is burned to produce it. That's what opened my eyes but I don't think America in general is aware of that fact. They simply assume, as I did, that ethanol must make sense or it wouldn't get off the ground. What they don't know or take into account is that government subsidies (their money) is the only thing that makes it even remotely profitable for the manufacturers. We'll all just have to work on educating our fellow "man".
I really appreciate all the information shared today. I learned a lot (regarding diesel fuel standards and diesel engine technology). I'm still not sure about the progress of bio-diesel. I was of the understanding (from watching a Willie Nelson interview) that the only thing missing in that equation was production capacity. Does anyone have any specifics along the line of production cost, emissions, anticipated capacity and ramp up? I'll do my own research as well but I like getting other peoples' perspectives.
What we want is to reduce our national purchases of crude oil.
Diesel has the advantage of being available from many sources that gasoline does not have. Here is one possible solution:
Some remote natural gas can now be economically converted through a GTL process into an ultra-clean fuel for diesel engines. At times this fuel can be economically blended with conventional petroleum diesel fuels to: extend California's diesel fuel supplies, and improve refinery capacity of cleaner diesel fuels.
Discussions are underway to develop a GTL production facility in Alaska to produce 40,000 barrels per day (23% of our current demand) with a goal to produce 300,000 bbl/d. However, with existing technology, oil pipeline capacity and North Slope gas reserves over 1,000,000 bbl/d could be produced.
Building such a facility would extend the Trans Alaska Pipeline's economic life, which provides 50 percent of California's oil supply.
Notice, No loss of mileage that is suffered with ethanol.
Converting natural gas to a liquid through a Fischer-Tropsch technology provides an opportunity to expand the use of the natural gas and lower the transportation cost from remote sources of low-cost gas.
Fischer-Tropsch is a gas-to-liquid (GTL) process that can produce a high-quality diesel fuel from natural gas, coal and biomass resources. Shell refers to the GTL process as a middle distillate synthesis (MDS). In all cases the middle distillate produced from this process can be blended with today's diesel fuel.
GTL diesel has extremely low (0-5-ppm) sulfur, aromatics, and toxics. GTL fuel can be blended with non-complying CARB diesel fuel to make a cleaner diesel fuel complying with stringent diesel fuel standards.
California's current nearest GTL supplier is the Shell-Malaysia, Bintulu MSD plant. The plant, which began, operation in 1993, and was shutdown between December 25, 1997, and restarted on May 20, 2000, can produce up to 2400 barrels/day which is 1.5% of California's diesel demand.
From November 1993-December 1997 Shell's MSD plant sold over 1 million gallons of middle distillate to four California refiners, which was blended into roughly 4 million gallons of diesel fuel and sold to on-highway fuel consumers.
Synthetic diesel fuel offers a new opportunity to use alternative fuels in diesel engines without compromising fuel-efficiency, increasing capital outlay, and impacting infrastructure or refueling cost.
Further commercialization of this fuel improves the prospects of new engines meeting proposed national 2007 heavy-duty diesel engine emission standards. In the near-term, this fuel can play a role reducing existing diesel vehicles exhaust and toxic emissions.
Since the late-1990s nearly every major oil company including: ARCO, Chevron, Conoco, Exxon, Phillips, Mobile, Statoil, and Texaco announced plans to build pilot plants or commercial plants to produce synthetically derived diesel fuel through the improved GTL process.
Stringent diesel exhaust emission standards and fuel specifications are compelling the petroleum industry to revisit the new, improved GTL process to competitively produce aromatic and sulfur complying diesel fuel.
Key to the commercial success of the GTL process lies in increased reactor capacity proven in the mid-1990s. This new process uses a slurry-bed reactor that has 100 times the capacity per reactor over some 1990 reactors and offers lowers cost.
Synthetic diesel fuel appears to be the most economical fuel product from the GTL process, compared to producing gasoline. Preliminary testing of an unmodified diesel engine, fueled with neat synthetic diesel fuel, shows the following emission reductions compared to typical California diesel
if true, those are all excellent points (I'm not doubting or refuting them)
it's very interesting that the diesel advocates, wildly critical of the cost of hybrid batteries, have failed to point out the increased cost to maintain a diesel (versus a gasser). I guess I should not expect a person to present both sides of an issue. Everyone wants to be an ADVOCATE; no one wants to take the trouble to objectively analyze an issue. :-(
It's noteworthy that your points were greeted with derision, but maybe they'll get a better reception with time
I am language constrained -- I only speak English -- but I went to the European (German car) web sites and found that the MSRP of "comparable" turbo diesels and gasoline powered versions were either very close (minimal differences) or that diesel versions were as much as 900 Euros LESS.
Diesel versions need not cost substantially more and may cost slightly less, i.e.
Further, Congress, in its ultimate wisdom has deemed the diesel powered cars worthy of tax CREDITS which, based on European websites would more than offset the price differences when the diesel is a few hundred Euros more.
I have no clue if XXX of America will market the diesel SUX6000 i.e, will it cost more, less or the same as the gasoline version? Will, by the same token, the FFV's continue to be priced without a premium now that Congress has, from a certain perspective, mandated the FFV vehicle.
From a cost standpoint, there are no hugely compelling reasons that the diesel SUX6000 needs to be priced significantly higher than the SUX6000 gas version.
The TCO for diesel, with its higher durability, lower fuel costs and no increase in maintenance coupled with the tax credit, will cost less for 75,000 miles. Theoretically, too the resale value of the diesel version will hold at a higher % of MSRP especially if fuel prices continue to rise in the wake of political/terror (not supply) issues.
We have evidence, that is, that the diesel cars will cost no more to acquire, offer a tax incentive (even if I don't like it, I will take it) and have a lower cost to fuel by at least 20%.
We do those who will not or cannot investigate, investigate, investigate, a disservice by claiming "diesel is too expensive."
There is little evidence YET to support the new diesel autos soon to come to our market will be significantly more costly to buy. The on going fuel cost issues, however, provide strong evidence that they will be significantly less expensive to keep full of fuel. :surprise:
On the issue of reducing our dependence on foreign oil, I again quote the EPA who claimed as recently as Feb 2006, that were 30% of our vehicles diesels, we would eliminate our need for 1.4mm bbl of oil per day -- the amount we import from Saudi Arabia. Diesel, according to this source, will reduce our need for imported oil.
It COULD do this immediately. The fact that it probably will not achieve this level of the market for years, notwithstanding, it is possible for this outcome. E85 cannot even HOPE to do this in any comparable time frame.
Finally, one of the hallmarks of the current diesel powerplants on the market, is durability/reliability. Moreover, the era of lengthy maintenance intervals includes the diesel models.
I don't know what extra cost or reliability issues plague the diesel engines that will, hopefully soon, grace our shores.
What and how much (generally) are the increased maintenance costs for the diesel vs a gasser?
What and how long are the expectations for engine longentivity in the gasoline and the diesel engines today?
It seems that the economics and even most of the politics are supportive of diesel and biodiesel -- performance and mileage also are supportive of diesel as an alternative fuel if some of the goals include the reduction of need for imported oil, the reduction of pollution and the ability to renew the "resource" without mileage penalties (e.g., E85.)
The economics do not support E85 -- at least not yet and no clear path to an economic advantage is out there. Mileage is not improved and performance may be improved with E85, however. Yet the need to devote over 70% of our total farm land to the growing of corn for Ethanol, seems to me to be at least unlikely to happen if not impossible from a practical standpoint.
Some may greet points with derision -- but from reading these posts, the majority of derisive points appear to me to emanate more often from the pro E85 crowd rather than the other way around.
But, as usual, I could be wrong. Just not uncertain. :shades:
Attempting to find maintenance requirements that will apply to the new diesels when they are here and are fueled with the clean diesel (or biodiesel or GTL diesel, etc.) isn't straightforward.
Here, in the US, it would appear that diesel versions of popular Mercedes vehicles USED to require oil changes every 5,000 miles when the gas versions were extended to 7,500.
It would appear that the latest and greatest gas AND diesel versions will require maintenance intervals of about 13,000 miles -- and I can only assume this is due to the clean diesel.
I have visted sites in the US and overseas and used Google and ASK.com to attempt to find costs that would skyrocket diesel's cost to such an extent that the TCO would tip the balance against diesel (post October 2006, to be clear.)
My search has not revealed any significant requirements for maintenance that differentiate gas vs diesel.
I have also made the assumption that the cost of using E85 vs gasoline does little to change the operating costs of an FFV beyond the obvious loss of MPG's.
failed to point out the increased cost to maintain a diesel (versus a gasser).
What do you base that assumption on? My VW Passat TDI was 5k, 5k, then every 10k on oil changes. I only did the first one and it cost $50 at the VW dealer. That was using the special VW TDI synthetic oil.
My Mercedes Sprinter diesel is supposed to have the first oil and filter change at 10k miles. I doubt I will keep it that long. Someone came to test drive it today. After the first oil change it is recommended every 20k miles unless you are really stressing the engine. It has a computer that tells you when to change the oil based on use.
I think the oil change on the Prius is every 3k miles. I know one person claimed $83 at Toyota for an oil change.
The base cost of the lowest trim level V70 with 170 hp 5-cyl petrol engine is 20 257 GBP. The cost of the same trim level with the 163 hp 5-cyl diesel is 21 014 GBP which is about 1400 USD more. The cost with the "D5" diesel of 185 hp is 22 785 GBP or about 4550 USD more. However, I think the D5 comes with an advanced 6-spd manual transmission
They do offer the V70 with turbocharged petrol engines and with the 2.5T the base price is 22 129 GBP or only 1200USD less than the D5.
I base the claim of higher maintenance costs of a TDI on the special oil and fuel filter requirements, but mainly on the cost of glowplugs, injectors and fuel pump when these things are out of warranty. Also an engine rebuild is more expensive in a diesel than a petrol engine.
Highly general, strongly-worded claims like this should probably be supported by something substantial if you don't want to get flamed for it...
For the 2006 MY, the difference in MSRP between a base US Jetta TDI and the equivalent spec Jetta 2.5 model is about $1300 (22,235 vs 20,920). These come with fairly identical equipment levels. Via whatcar.com, the UK prices for Jetta SE models are £15,272 for the 1.9 TDI, £15,614 for the 2.0 FSI and £16,428 for the 2.0 TDI.
None of the more-expensive-maintenance arguments make any sense to me at all. I can't post links to other forums, but the tdiclub gang has rebutted this pretty thoroughly.
IMO, the biggest issue for US diesel penetration has to do with the nature and the cost of the required emissions equipment. Early assessments have put the price around $800, but we obviously need to wait and see...
On the Edmund's True Cost to Own they have the Jetta TDI at $.54 per mile, the Civic hybrid at $.53 per mile and the Toyota Prius at $.56 per mile. I think the higher cost of oil is offset by longer time between oil changes with the diesels. You could be right on the out of warranty repairs. The only car I have had any out of warranty repairs on recently is my wife's LS400.
Not sure how we got this far off of ethanol. Hopefully it will just go away and not raise the price of gas any higher.
The topic does include a broader subject of alternatives to gasoline, even though the majority of the discussion pertains to one specific alternative -- "E."
The comparisons between diesel vs gasoline powered cars needs to be based on levels of equipment, model, approximate engine size and performance.
It is not a valid comparison, for instance to pick a more modestly powered version and compare it with the next more powerful diesel.
The Jettas, noted above, seem to actually be less in diesel trim than their gasoline counterparts.
Audi offers a 3.2 direct injection gasoline powered normally aspirated engine in its middle sized car. Likewise they offer a 3.0 TDI (diesel powered and turbocharged engine in the same car.)
I found the manufacturer's published PERFORMANCE claims and the 3.2 gasoline version sprints from 0-62 mph in 7.1 seconds; the 3.0 diesel version makes the same run in 7.0 seconds. Both have the same top speed.
When equipped with the same options and packages, the diesel version in USD would come to about $1000 less than the gas version.
Other similar configurations yield similar results (and I would say almost immaterial differences -- but often favoring the diesel.)
Service requirements seem to be virtually if not literally identical at something between 10,000 and 15,000 miles between required maint.
Discussion forums and other sources that can be considered secondary resources seem to support the notion that diesel engines generally are more durable than gasoline engines.
I have no clue if this means that the gasoline engine if maintained properly will require a major overhaul at 150,000 miles and the diesel will not require such an overhaul until 250,000 miles. But that would appear to be the spirit of what is said about diesels vs gas engined cars.
The electronics, brakes, tires, A/C and accessories would, I can assume, be just as likely to need replacement at X miles or interval on either version, too.
The point I was suggesting earlier was to contemplate for about 5 minutes the repair and maintenance requirements of two FFV's or one FFV and one non-FFV (otherwise identical cars) -- and run one totally on E85 and one on dino-gas. I assume there would be no costs attributed to fuel differences that could be identified in this comparison any more than there would be between a gasoline version vs a diesel version.
E85 and Clean diesel (and perhaps bio-diesel) are vying to be alternative to dino-gas [liquid] fuels. The goals stated by our government, which may or may not track with reality, seem to be satisfied sooner and at a lower cost by diesel, not by FFV/E85 -- hence my point (quoted from my PhD in Chemistry friend's remarks) that diesel gives us immediately the benefits we claim we value. The same cannot be said of E85 -- unless perhaps you are ADM.
Oil dropped $3/bbl in the last 24 hours if anyone cares. :surprise:
At what point does the lower cost of fuel offset the $1,400 difference?
What value, if any, should we place on the contribution such a vehicle would make to allowing us to literally say to Saudi Arabia, "no thanks, we don't need your 1.4mm bbl of oil today?"
What is the distance one can go on a gallon of gasoline vs a gallon of diesel in the Volvo comparison noted?
What, if the durability claims are true, is the probability of an engine overhaul in 6 years or 120,000 miles -- and what would be the cost? Same question for year 7, 8, and 9?
BTW, I do not know the answers so this is not a baited question. For all I know, the cost out of warranty for the two cars may favor the gas version. The diesel forums seem to belie this, FWIW.
And, what is the difference in greenhouse pollution between the two -- according to the diesel technology forum, the clean diesel burning vehicle produces less pollution. But they may be lying (or spinning) -- and I have no way to know.
according to the diesel technology forum, the clean diesel burning vehicle produces less pollution.
Emissions are made up of many components. The tests were designed around the emissions that a gasoline car emits. The manufacturers addressed those areas thought to be important. Diesel has always been a small percentage and was not even looked at or addressed 25 years ago. The main cause of concern in the 1960s-1970s was lead in gas and cancer causing smog. When comparing diesel to gas without any smog control gas is still far worse than the worst diesel engine. It has gotten its bad reputation because of the black soot and sulfur smell. I am not saying this should not be removed. I am just putting it into perspective. With a modern diesel such as the current VW TDI burning ULSD the emissions overall will be less than most new gas cars on the road. The only area of contention at this point is the NoX caused by high compression burning of diesel.
What the advocates of E85 have not wanted played up is NoX increases when burning E85 vs unleaded regular. I don't know the comparative emissions between E85 and ULSD. I would think that neither one is bad enough to ban diesel cars as they have been in CA.
For comparison: the 2006 Jetta diesel burning dirty diesel (500 PPM sulfur), is cleaner than the 2006 Toyota Corolla sports model using Premium gas.
I see the CAFÉ rules have worked well. :surprise: Will E85 help? Most likely not. From Automotive News
WASHINGTON -- New vehicles in the United States are the fastest and heaviest in three decades, with the fleet's fuel efficiency no better than the figure for 1994 -- about 21 miles per gallon, the government said on Monday, July 17.
The mileage estimate for 2006 passenger vehicles continues a recent trend even though gasoline prices have risen steadily and now average $3 per gallon, the Environmental Protection Agency said in an annual efficiency report.
Gains from gas-electric hybrid engines and other fuel saving technologies -- mainly seen in compacts, sedans and other cars -- were noted. But these technologies represent a fraction of what is available in showrooms and bigger models continue to blunt efficiency.
We pay taxes based on gallons we burn. One of the reasons why we don't have diesels
I have often thought that was a back room reason for banning diesel cars in CA. We have had cleaner diesel than the rest of the country for two years now. No move to allow diesel cars to be sold new. I think they know they have a problem with hybrids costing them gas tax revenue, and don't want to add less fuel to the fire. Cutting back on fuel usage is a loser for the state revenue office. It is a balancing act between the greens and the greenbacks.
You know CA is not going to cut taxes on E85 as some states have done. I am surprised they buckled under to the ethanol mandate without much of a fight. More back room dealings I'm sure.
I think Jim's statement is false - when he said that TCO for diesels is more than equivalent gassers. Edmunds' TCO data shows the savings with diesels. Also I think maybe it is based on older fuel prices $2/gallon instead of $3 or $3.50 - the savings with diesels is increasing more as fuel prices increase. Also many of us drive our TDIs 40k miles per year or more - again the savings with diesel increases with more miles.
If the costs for the fuels were identical and the assumption of performance (acceleration and top speed) was that there is no discernable difference in the performance (and that would be mandatory or the comparisons are invalid):
Now, today's truth: many of the cars we most lust after cannot use $3.00 gas, the gas will cost $3.20; E85, too, costs more -- in many places -- than regular, but for purposes of this post, let's assume E85 costs the same as regular (and that this includes the $.51 per gallon subsidy).
At 30,000 miles the cost for fuel would be:
Gas - $1,000 E85 - $1,429 Diesel- $ 833
The diesel auto will, however, perform slightly better (in acceleration.) The differences are real and I think are not unfairly represented "in spirit" at least (of course some will argue that the true cost for E85 is not reflected and the disparity would be even greater.)
And, if the diesel vehicle were $1,000 more expensive at MSRP, it would clearly take a long time -- in miles -- to make up for that difference.
However, the diesel fuel will cost much less than the E85, and a diesel car is currently coming with a tax incentive (a credit) -- as are FFV's -- and if widely adopted would allow us to reduce or elimnate our need for Saudi oil and clean diesel or even dirty diesel will pollute less.
"I call that a bargain, the best I ever had" -- The Who.
E85 in an FFV, however, seems ill suited to offer these benefits -- and besides it costs more.
Isn't there some way to get the efficiency of E85 a whole bunch higher (and a little bit cheaper?)
My statement may be false or at least highly questionable.
I personally am attracted to diesels and four or so years was comparing a Jetta TDI wagon to a Jetta wagon with the base naturally aspirated 115 hp gasoline engine. I don't drive many miles so I concluded that for me the TCO was lower for the petrol engine version. I knew people who owned Mercedes and Toyota diesels and the cost of repairs was very high. Also I was concerned about the higher NOx and even more about the higher PM (particulate matter) emissions of the diesel.
I know that due to higher efficiency diesels produce lower CO2 emissions per mile. But I just decided to keep my old car (a 91 Dodge Spirit 2.5L 5-spd (only 100 hp same as a Jetta TDI)with good a/c but no cruise control, bummer, then with about 90 kmi and now with about 115,000 mi, odometer ist kaput) and over the 4 year period after bailing out on buying a Jetta wagon my Spirit cost me very little in repairs. It gets about 34 mpg on the highway at 70 mph with a/c on, but of course it can't compare to a Jetta TDI wagon in capability and safety. When really clean diesels come to the US I will look again at Jetta wagons and Volvo wagons, or maybe a diesel minivan.
"...was that there is no discernable difference in the performance (and that would be mandatory or the comparisons are invalid)..."
Except that, in the real world, there IS a discernable difference in performance.
Take, for example the VW Jetta (currently available with a 1.9l turbodiesel, a 2.5l NA I5, and a 2.0l turbo gas motor).
The TDI version has 100hp and 177 ftlbs of torque and was tested at 10.3 to 60mph.
The baseline stripper 'value-edition' Jetta (with the 2.5l 5-cylinder) developes 150hp and 170 ftlbs (normally aspirated) and does the same 0-60 in 9.1 secs.
To compare turbo diesel to turbo gas is absolutely laughable. Very similarly sized powerplants (a 1.9 TDI vs. a 2.0T) yet the turbo gas motor has TWICE the hp and 207 ftlbs and nearly the same rpm point as the TDI. And does 0-60 in 7.1 (vs. 10.3).
Does the TDI have a nice healthy torque kick? Sure, I suppose; the problem is it runs out of breath in a hurry (hence the low hp rating despite the healthy torque number). IMO, that is a HUGE discernable difference.
"The diesel auto will, however, perform slightly better (in acceleration.)"
Only when comparing turbocharged diesels to NON-turbocharged gas engines. I can't think of a SINGLE instance in which a NA diesel outperforms a NA gas, or a pressurized diesel outperforms a pressurized gas.
Comments
According to Margo Oge, head of the Environmental Protection
Agency's Office of Transportation & Air Quality, as quoted in the February 20, 2006, issue of Business Week:
“The U.S. could save up to 1.4 million barrels of oil per day – roughly the amount it imports from Saudi Arabia – if a third of U.S. vehicles ran on diesel.”
Although, Oge did not differentiate between petroleum based diesel and biodiesel, in this remark, current diesel engine technology “sees” biodiesel and petroleum based clean diesel as equivalent fuels. This means that a diesel engine performs the same on either kind of diesel – of course the strategic draw for biodiesel is that,
like ethanol, it is renewable.
The contrast here is that a diesel engine literally sees dino and bio diesel as "the same," while a FFV engine sees dino and E85 as "not the same" -- the difference of course is that an FFV vehicle using E85 will only go about 2/3rds as far on a gallon of E85 as it will on "pure" dino-gas. The survey of drivers using BioWillie (not scientific) claims better milage on B20 than B0 and no loss of mpg even with pure B100. E85 can't do this.
A diesel fueled car compared to a virtually identical gasoline fueled car will:
o Achieve better acceleration
o Retain identical top speed capabilities
o Reduce greenhouse gas emissions
o Achieve an MPG increase between 20 – 40%
o Use a fuel that typically costs less than premium grade gasoline
o Permit us "choice" and add "time" -- the choice to or not to use Middle Eastern and the time to work on effeciencies and alternatives.
And this has NOTHING to do with bio. We may, indeed, I think we should, develop bio-diesel which will only serve to increase the richness of the above benefits (richness in contrast to reach -- but reach, too, could be improved with both bio and dino diesel.)
:surprise:
As for diesel vehicles not being desired by Americans, I think that's based on the perceptions generated by the last time we tried to use diesel in passenger cars. Back then (late 70s, early 80s), the diesel vehicles offered (by American manufacturers) were converted gasoline engines that ran poorly and were unreliable. If a genuine effort were made to produce vehicles that ran cleanly, quietly, and most importantly, reliably, I think Americans would purchase them. Hybrids are successful because (so far) they work. It would be interesting to see a pollution comparison between a bio-diesel vehicle vs. a gasonline hybrid.
GMC was bragging about quiet diesel engines in their commercials fairly recently. Also, I don't see the huge clouds of black smoke from the newer diesel vehicles they produce. If that technology works as advertised, it could be successful. Unfortunately for GM, they can't afford to take a huge risk in developing a new diesel car and have it fail, especially if bio-diesel doesn't catch on.
My point is don't write off bio-diesel yet. If the market for it becomes proven, then all it would take would be a smartly produced vehicle to capitalize on it. If there were an affordable car that ran on bio-diesel today (and bio-diesel were widely available), I bet it would catch on quickly. Many Americans want clean and efficient vehicles and would feel good buying a clean, domestically produced fuel.
My final observation would be that while performance oriented drivers would likely resist diesel power, minivan, SUV, and mass-transit drivers could all be powered by bio-diesel with no "personality" conflict. Those drivers are already showing interest in hybrid technology which also takes away that "vroom" factor of conventional gasoline engines.
Already 30%+ of ALL cars sold are diesel. It didn't used to be that way, of course.
70% of what this website calls "LPS" cars sold in Europe are diesel.
Audi, alone, now is selling 50% of its total production of almost 900,000 cars as diesel.
The new diesel engine technology, BlueTec, when coupled with the diesel that will be pumped here -- everywhere -- by this time next year has been ONE of the main reasons the product has not been built and/or sold here by domestic and foreign companies.
It does, I grant, remain to be seen if it is even possible to get to 30% -- but as the song goes "Money Changes Everything."
With the "sudden" availability of clean diesel and incremental growth in bio-diesel, some pessimists are now thinking 20% diesel penetration in the near to mid term (less than 10 years, perhaps) is not unattainable.
If it were to get to 15% even, this would, again, buy us both choice and time.
We would get the attention of some exporters when the US would be in the position to say "we're cutting back, from buying from YOU, by 50%."
The lowering of demand, the shift in demand -- since there is currently no supply reason for the high prices -- could have the effect of lowering the price of a bbl.
Moreover, although a year in the making, the Today show, did, this morning claim that within 5 years we could be using our own oil from our own oil shale and that it would be perhaps at the equivalent cost in today's bucks of 40/bbl USD.
13 months in the making, the crack Today show reporters are right on top of this development!
Shell Oil must feel a little like saying "what took you guys so long?"
I believe the performance and Luxury Performance buyers will DRIVE the adoption -- to whatever degree -- of diesel.
Diesels are quicker and no less fast. They are more economical and more durable.
These kind of buyers are standing in line for a BMW 535 with a TDI engine, ditto Mercedes, Audi and so on.
These folks will buy, then the trickle down and out will happen.
Perhaps this is not the market, or not the time -- but at $80 a bbl and bio diesel getting lots of good press and Audi winning every race it enters both here and abroad with a diesel car -- there will be some early adopters, followed by at least an important minority.
Most pundits and experts are sanguine about a 15% diesel penetration, some go as high as 25%. Me, I'd be tickled with 10% for now!
Nice to see an intelligent disagreement without the typical "smugness" of this thread.
I might fall into that crowd of wanting a slick new diesel hot rod but, like the majority of Americans, I can't come close to affording anything but an entry-level vehicle from those manufacturers. So, like my fellow Americans, I won't be in the market for a diesel powered performance-oriented vehicle until either American/Japanese/Korean producers make a more affordable version of the technology or the Europeans break from tradition and produce a more affordable, yet still large, model.
As for market penetration, I think the part that most don't get is that we don't have to make a 100% conversion to a new technology. Fading into new technology will offer the greatest flexibility and lowest cost and will have immediate effects on demand which is, currently, the largest factor affecting price.
I'd be tickled with a 1/2 ton PU truck with a 3.0L diesel engine. I could double my current 15 MPG in my hybrid PU truck.
That is very true. The forced mandate of ethanol is the reason it has soared up to $5 per gallon. It is the major reason most of us are paying over $3 per gallon of gas. A slow market driven transition is the best way to implement diesel, ethanol, electric or hydrogen.
Ask Dr. Z, the new DC ad campaign does -- in ONE ad that I can think of -- speaks to the use of diesels to power CLEAN JEEPS. The Jeeps are, of course to make the point, covered in mud. Dr. Z quips, "these are the cleanest vehicles we've ever produced." Cut to the dirtiest mud covered Jeeps you've ever seen.
GM has announced (well, ok, "discussed") Quiet Diesels. Some Japanese (wouldn't it be nice if it Honda AND Toyota would start an ad campaign touting their plans for diesels?) have at least indicated that they will have diesels on the market soon, too.
Audi and Mercedes and VW have diesels in the wings and BMW has some of the best sports sedans PERIOD that are diesel motivated.
Who knows, though, perhaps diesel in the US will be like soccer (aka football) -- the world's most popular sport with some 5 billion fans and players the world over, but slow to gain traction in the US. Perhaps diesel will, once it has been re-introduced (maybe even introduced would be a better way to spin it), be seen as a viable alternative. Bosch seems to think a diesel hybrid makes more sense than gas hybrids.
The only folks who seem to have much use for E85 are our Congressional Representatives.
All the talk is good, some of the action is good -- and it at least appears we ARE poised for even more action.
But, Ford's assertion that they will have another 250,000 FFV's ready this next year -- ought to be met with a resounding "huh?" :confuse:
Of course, Bill Ford's spots tend to completely obfuscate the loss of 30% fuel economy that will be associated with E85 -- if you could find it and are willing to pay MORE per gallon for it than for E0 or E10.
The "folks" do think E85 may not stay above the price of gasoline much longer, but the economist folks seem to think E85 will seek a price that is reasonably close to dino-gas, which means, essentially, it will cost at least 25% more and go only 68% as far.
Is this anyway to run a railroad? :confuse:
It is if you're running Amtrak......
And this certainly explains why VW can’t keep any TDI’s on the lot? VW diesels are sold almost as fast as they come from the factory. Somebody wants diesels.
I can only assume the following.
The domestic auto makers don’t offer diesel passenger cars in the US because Ford and GM are looking for the cheap way out. With a few hundred dollars in parts on existing gas engines they meet all the CAFÉ requirements and reap the tax break. When the other auto makers bring diesels to the market, Ford and GM are going to find the hole they are in has become much deeper.
Most people who do not favor diesels tend to forget or ignore the fact the US is in a transition period with the introduction of ULSD. With ULSD in place by the end of 2006 you will see an increased offering of diesels by most auto makers over the next two years.
Already 30%+ of ALL cars sold are diesel. It didn't used to be that way, of course.
I agree that the situation in Europe is different. (And FWIW, I believe that the figure is closer to 45%.)
But let's not forget that in most European countries, diesel enjoys a significant price advantage because the fuel tax is much lower.
Do you foresee a future when gas taxes in the US are increased to give diesel an obvious price benefit? As I've touched on previously, I certainly do not, the US government is loathe to use fuel taxes in order to deter consumption. Our policies are quite different from those of the Europeans.
Yes, and other people want two-seater fiberglass sport coupes, while others still want small convertibles. But that doesn't mean that they'll become one third of the US market.
Most people who do not favor diesels tend to forget or ignore the fact the US is in a transition period with the introduction of ULSD.
I haven't expressed an opinion about diesel, only about its viability as an alt fuel in the US market. And I don't see (a) why US consumers are going to shift their consumption habits or (b) how biodiesel production will ever comprise more than a tiny fraction of the total production of diesel fuel.
Again, plans without paths to adoption are not plans, but just pipedreams. If you want the 3% to reach 33% (or whatever figure it is), show me how it is going to get there.
Perhaps not; however they certainly DO like to use tax credits to promote one particular type of fuel over another. Perhaps a tax credit for diesel (and bio-diesel) suppliers?
I don't know whether there is motivation to do it specifically for diesel, but yes, I would agree that if there is going to be an incentive, it will likely be in the form of tax credits for suppliers and/or buyers. (There is already a credit for the latter.) That's how Uncle likes to do business.
So where does the motivation come from (he asks naively
The path is there, all we need is auto makers to offer the product (diesels) and the numbers will grow.
Wifes/family car is a 93 Ford Explorer with 190,000+ miles. The mechanic willing, it will last two more years until the kid is out of college and we can buy a new care. We intend that new car to be a diesel.
If the path is there, why isn't anybody on it? If Honda, Toyota, etc. thought that diesel was a great differentiator for them, they would have offered it in the US long ago. At this stage, it's a niche product meant to serve a small segment, not a mainstream offering.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Perhaps because diesel and small displacement engines are a horrible match.
Honda/Toyota got their fuel economy by going the small displacement route. They get their power with higher rpm engines. This doesn't fly with diesel technology.
And to gain additional economy, they've gone the hybrid route. This explains (to me at least) why Toyota/Honda have historically not gone the diesel route.
Toyota did offer diesel cars in the 1980s. During the last fuel crisis. Almost every automaker offered a diesel. Some good, some not so good, some horrible. When gas prices went down no one cared about fuel mileage. They went out and bought mega sized SUVs and mega sized homes. Now they have to pay the piper. I personally don't care if diesels reach 3% or 90%. I just want the option given every where else in the free world. If you think that we live in a free society, why the hassles getting a diesel car in CA? No hassle buying a behemoth diesel PU truck in CA. Dodge claims 80% of their HD PU trucks are sold as diesel. I would say that is more than a niche market. The new Jetta is 40% diesel. The new Jetta is up 25% over last year. Try getting a diesel Jetta off the lot. They sell as fast as the hybrids from Toyota.
Toyota and Honda both offer diesel cars in the EU. Honda did not penetrate the European market until they offered their new diesel engine. Toyota cannot give away their hybrids in Europe. Only ones being sold are to government agencies that have tax money to waste.
I have driven both the VW Passat gas and diesel. The diesel outperforms the gasser in the areas I was interested. Going up long grades and winding mountain roads the TDI will outperform most any gasser in that 2.0L size. And get much better mileage in the process. If all you are interested in is 0-60 the Mercedes e320 CDI is in the 6-7 second range. It outperforms its gas counterpart on all fronts. In fact if I buy a MB it will be a diesel. I would not even think of buying their gas guzzling engines.
Probably because (and I'm guessing) of the differing tax rates applied to gasoline and diesel fuel in the EU affecting the public's demand for diesel. I'm not surprised hybirds have a tough go; diesel is cheaper than gasoline and the mileage between the two technologies is similar. And diesel offers good punch off the line (of course, the torque characteristics of a properly design hybrid can offer similar feel). I wonder how the EU would respond to diesel hybrids?
I almost hate to say this: "well. . .yes, no, but."
If, for the purposes of differentiation we can separate diesel into two categories, it will make what has happened and what MIGHT happen a little easier to digest.
Category one: Light diesel (think passenger cars)
Category two: Medium and Heavy diesel (think "everything else")
For the purposes of our discussion, let's limit ourselves to light diesel.
Broadly speaking, light diesel failed -- in the US -- for several reasons (generalizations to make the point):
1. GM created diesel engines in the late 70's and early 80's and put them in the Oldsmobile 98 and Cadillac and, as I recall, Buick 225's (if I am off with respect to the model names, etc, it is immaterial -- what IS material is that GM put diesel engines in "popular" American sedans, notably in the lux cars of the day from GM's perspective.)
These diesel engines were "crapola" (a technical term) for many reasons and often were recalled for "this that and the other" product related reasons.
These diesel engines were "not ready for prime time" and even if I were to recite chapter and verse the reasons and vet them fully and explain them to death, the spirit of what you might conclude would remain -- these diesel's were plainly "not ready for Mr and Ms John and Jane Q Public and all the Ships at Sea." Further information is easily Googled and, to repeat simply would put an end to the why question that may be here, today, on this matter.
These diesels -- were you to find a perfect one -- in the land yachts they were often placed into, were "not bad." Upon starting, they were a little noisy, the exhaust had a hint of soot in it (but not black belching 'moke, by any means) and inside the cars there was little in the way of evidence you were driving a compression engine.
The Olds 98, my boss had, was fully loaded with all lux goodies and due to the extra torque of the diesel, seemed imperceptibly different in terms of "starting from a full stop." On the highway, you'd never know anything at all except you could drive and drive and drive between fill ups, compared to the anti-pollution device laden gasoline V8's of the day.
The experience, however, overall, was largely unsatisfying for many reasons -- some of them we all can recite:
Noise
Smell
Performance
Degree of difficulty in find a filling station
Reliability
Could be hard starting in the winter
N.B. - at the same time, VW brought a Jetta to the US also with a diesel. It was underpowered (but that is not because it was a diesel, by any stretch) but otherwise it ran like a champ and got huge MPG's especially on the open highways. We clocked nearly 50MPG with 4 of us and our ski equipment in the car on a trip from Cincinnati to Boyne Highland (at the top of the LP of Michigan.)
One by one the General realized its hastily brought to market diesels (that had been gasoline engines a couple of years earlier) were just not viable.
2. We were living in a dream world of sub $1.00 (way below) per gallon gasoline. Gas wars, even during some of the 70's would find two stations selling gasoline for a number beginning with a "2" -- as in 20 cents to 29 cents per gallon. Although such gas wars were temporary and an endangered species throughout the 70's and 80's and as shortages (real shortages not non-supply constrained shortages, i.e.) caused prices to increase we even flirted from time to time with gasoline prices that, based on the inflation adjusted criteria, were higher than some of our 2006 prices (but requiring the impact of inflation these almost 30 years have dealt us.)
3. Diesel was dirty -- and even though Mercedes did have some decent diesel cars, the ones we often saw were sluggish and did seem to produce more than their fair share of soot.
4. Diesel was used in "the big rigs" -- not something most of us relate to as a mode of transportation.
The US for some situation appropriate reasons "didn't need, didn't want and didn't embrace 'light diesel' cars."
The late 70's did see Audi of America bring a high performance turbo diesel to our shores -- the Audi 5000S TDI. It actually was, from an engine and engineering standpoint, everything positive that the GM engines and engineering were not.
The perfect storm of events prevented diesel from taking off here, even as ever higher (relative to ours) gas prices in Europe were actually encouraging the adoption of diesel (I submit the circumstances "then" for the Europeans are very similar to the ones we American are entering into "now.")
European emission standards soon were mandated and this required ever cleaner diesel fuel. At a point in time -- look it up, if you care when this point came about -- the diesel engines produced for the home market were no longer able to successfully and cleanly use American Diesel. And, the requirements for several years, "over there," continued to become ever more difficult to even approach here with our dirty diesel.
No US government mandate to require clean diesel was helping the US consumer make the decade+ long transition to diesel. What few diesels were there were niche players (and mostly from VW and Mercedes.)
"We don't need no stinkin' diesel," was probably a quote, although made up, that did represent the US Market's response to diesel.
We thought diesel engines remained:
Noisy
Stinky
Underpowered
Unreliable &
Undesirable.
Meanwhile on the other side of the Atlantic, several engineers were on a constanst diesel improvement kick.
Better -- mileage, power, reliability, performance, durability AND lower pollution, noise and smell. Until the mileage advantage, smell, power, performance, price, etc, etc, etc, carried NO negatives.
Then the EU decided to go nuts and make the requirements for diesel emissions lower still. Then the EU (notably German) manufacturers became very interested in "really really really high performance" luxury car placement of diesel powerplants.
The EU again responded with ever higher standards for emissions -- and, in response, Audi/VW, BMW and Mercedes responded with more efficient, cleaner and powerful diesel cars.
The ability to put the best of the best diesel engines in the US was, at that time, literally zero, zilch, zip and nadda. The diesel was on track to be 2 out of every three luxury car buyer's choice and 1 out of all car buyer's chose diesel for all the reasons we could not use them here:
1. Lower TCO
2. Lower emissions
and the big one
3. Higher fun and performance factors.
Our government, somehow, got "wind of this" (sarcasm.) In a Homer Simpson moment, no doubt.
*** Next Post ***
Along comes BluTech diesel engine technology (also, please look it up for further detailed info) -- that can be used in all 50 states.
Then comes the announcements from several Car Mfgrs that they will be bringing diesel cars to the US and even GM says, "Quiet Diesel" quietly, for the moment, is "in the pipeline."
Diesel cars can or will:
N.B. "Performance Comparable" means "acceleration and top speed competitive" (in other words we are not going to attract a person who expects 0 - 60 in sub 8 seconds from a gasoline engine car with a 10+ second diesel engine equipped model at the same price point.)
o Cost at MSRP about the same or a little more or a little less for "comparable" (performance comparable that is) gasoline version.
o MPG about 20 - 40% more for diesel (for a performance comparable gasoline version)
o use fuel that costs "in the same range" as conventional Regular, Mid-grade or Premium based on market conditions (diesel and regular are the same price in Cincinnati this month, e.g.)
o have maintenance requirements/intervals that are either the same as gasoline engine versions or better
o can use, without mileage penalties, renewable fuel (bio diesel in ratios of from 20 - 100% non dino)
o have similar or better driving characteristics (most diesel versions of gasoline sedans, for instance, accelerate more quickly and are quieter than their gasoline counterparts.)
Toyota, Audi, VW, and on and on and on have been not only unmotivated but almost quite literally "unable" to bring modern clean diesel cars to the US.
Now, things are different -- stay tuned for another 12 - 24 months, and you will see what you will see.
Let's hope it is as the pundits predict -- the beginning of a diesel renaissance in the US. :shades:
P.S. diesel and/or bio-diesel can deliver, TODAY, everthing that E85 might deliver, maybe, someday, far into the future.
But I doubt E85 will do it.
That's my story, and I'm stickin' to it. :P
Immediately? Yes, for if the cars were available in 2006, or 2007 almost all of us would be able to find diesel fuel fairly conveniently (minutes from where ever we were at that moment.) Here in Ohio if we were able to increase our E85 stations 10 fold, there would be but 90 stations in the whole state.
Even our quick stop milk, bread, beer and lottery ticket mom and pop (non company owned) stations all have at least ONE diesel spigot. Most stations have three (out of twelve) diesel nozzles even in sub ubran Cincinnati.
The Business Review (Albany)
Updated: 8:00 p.m. ET July 16, 2006
"Martin Nemer Volkswagen gets calls daily about new diesel-powered Beetles, Jettas and Golfs the dealership is not allowed to sell to New York residents.
The restriction, put in place by the state to control exhaust emissions, costs the company plenty of business, said Justin Fuld, Martin Nemer's finance director.
"If we could sell diesels, our new car business would be three times what it is right now. Every day, probably, we get phone calls, and we have people coming in looking for diesels and it is relentless," Fuld said. "It would be name your price, too. In the states that can sell them, like Florida, if you go ask for a diesel, they do not discount them. That is the price."
Hopefully, the situation will begin to change next year, said Robert Vancavage, president of the New York State Automobile Dealers Association. Changes in diesel-fuel formulation and new engine technology should put new diesel cars back in the New York marketplace.
Although diesel cars get better mileage than gas-powered vehicles--typically 30 percent to 40 percent more, according to the Diesel Technology Forum--and the state advocates the sale of biodiesel fuel, New York will not register a diesel car with fewer than 7,500 miles on it.
Although Keeler Motor Car Co.'s Mercedes-Benz division can't sell new diesel cars, it does a good business in used diesels, said Maria Dunning, the division's general manager.
"There is a long heritage of people that only want to drive a diesel Mercedes-Benz," Dunning said. "A significant percent of our pre-owned car sales in the E class are diesel."
An owner of a diesel vehicle can bring the car in from out of state and register it.
"There is a huge market," Vancavage said. "We have the issue all the time with New York residents going across the [state] border and buying them."
The reason for the ban: In 1992, New York made its vehicle emissions regulations conform to California's.
Cars can be sold in New York only if the manufacturer certifies that they meet California standards. Diesel car makers, for many reasons, have not been certifying their cars for several years, said Deborah Dorman, president of the Albany-based Eastern New York Coalition of Automotive Retailers Inc.
The high sulfur content of the fuel makes it tough to market a diesel that meets the standards, said Allen Schaeffer, executive director of the Diesel Technology Forum.
But, beginning Oct. 15, at least 80 percent of the diesel fuel sold in the United States must have a sulfur content of 15 parts per million, as opposed to the current 500 parts.
The new fuel started flowing from refineries June 1, Schaeffer said. While the main target of the change is the trucking industry, passenger cars will benefit too, he said.
The combination of cleaner fuel and new technologies that allow the particulate matter in diesel exhaust to be removed, means diesel cars that offer higher mileage and higher performance should be coming on the market in 2007 or 2008, Schaeffer said.
Honda, DaimlerChrysler, Mercedes-Benz (a DaimlerChrysler company), and Volkswagen are gearing up to offer new diesel cars on the U.S. market. Jeep also offers a diesel version of its Liberty SUV. BMW, Ford and GM also are considering diesel cars, he said.
DaimlerChrysler and Mercedes-Benz will offer the BlueTec Sedan, which uses a particulate filter and a catalytic converter to meet California standards by 2008, while getting 35 miles to the gallon. Keeler Mercedes already has received inquiries about the car, said John Haertel, a Keeler sales consultant.
J.D. Power Automotive Forecasting predicts that the U.S. market share of diesel cars and trucks will go from 3.2 percent in 2005 to 10 percent by 2015.
Scott Newell, the service manager at Langan Chrysler Jeep, agrees with Martin Nemer's Fuld that there will be customers for diesel cars once the vehicles meet the California/New York emission standards.
"We used to sell the Volkswagen turbo diesel cars and they sold great. They were phenomenal," Newell said.
The question, though, is whether people will spend more for a diesel car to get better gas mileage, said Randy Raymond, general manager at Action Chevrolet in Troy.
"People are not going to be willing to pay an extra $3,000 to $4,000 for a diesel," he said.
The demand for diesel cars will depend on whether there is a return in fuel savings, said Greg Goldstein, executive vice president of Goldstein Enterprises Inc."
© 2006 The Business Review (Albany)
A sizeable fraction of the mpg advantage of the diesel is due simply to the higher mass density of diesel fuel--a gallon of diesel fuel weighs more than a gallon of gasoline becuase the hydrocarbon molecules of diesel fuel are larger and heavier than those of gasoline. To a first approximation a given amount of crude oil (weight or volume) can be refined into the same weights of diesel and gasoline which means that this yields a smaller volume of diesel fuel than gasoline. What we want is to reduce our national purchases of crude oil. Diesel engines do not do this to the extent that the mpg advantage indicates. In fact, some analyses purport to show that refining crude into gasoline is more efficient overall than refining into diesel fuel when all the environmental effects are taken into account.
The increasing enthusiasm for fuel economy is spurring the engine manufacturers into increasing the efficiency of gasoline engines, so that in addition to hybrid gas electric powerplants, there are new designs for powerful gasoline engines with ultra-high fuel efficiency obtained from reducing engine displacement with turbocharging, supercharging or both on the same engine, and using "direct injection" like diesels, i.e. gasoline injected into the cylinders instead of into the airstream going into the cylinders. Direct injection allows more precise metering of fuel.
I had fallen out of liking with ethanol when I saw the first report about how much energy is burned to produce it. That's what opened my eyes but I don't think America in general is aware of that fact. They simply assume, as I did, that ethanol must make sense or it wouldn't get off the ground. What they don't know or take into account is that government subsidies (their money) is the only thing that makes it even remotely profitable for the manufacturers. We'll all just have to work on educating our fellow "man".
I really appreciate all the information shared today. I learned a lot (regarding diesel fuel standards and diesel engine technology). I'm still not sure about the progress of bio-diesel. I was of the understanding (from watching a Willie Nelson interview) that the only thing missing in that equation was production capacity. Does anyone have any specifics along the line of production cost, emissions, anticipated capacity and ramp up? I'll do my own research as well but I like getting other peoples' perspectives.
Thanks to all...
Diesel has the advantage of being available from many sources that gasoline does not have. Here is one possible solution:
Some remote natural gas can now be economically converted through a GTL process into an ultra-clean fuel for diesel engines. At times this fuel can be economically blended with conventional petroleum diesel fuels to: extend California's diesel fuel supplies, and improve refinery capacity of cleaner diesel fuels.
Discussions are underway to develop a GTL production facility in Alaska to produce 40,000 barrels per day (23% of our current demand) with a goal to produce 300,000 bbl/d. However, with existing technology, oil pipeline capacity and North Slope gas reserves over 1,000,000 bbl/d could be produced.
Building such a facility would extend the Trans Alaska Pipeline's economic life, which provides 50 percent of California's oil supply.
http://www.energy.ca.gov/afvs/synthetic_diesel.html
Converting natural gas to a liquid through a Fischer-Tropsch technology provides an opportunity to expand the use of the natural gas and lower the transportation cost from remote sources of low-cost gas.
Fischer-Tropsch is a gas-to-liquid (GTL) process that can produce a high-quality diesel fuel from natural gas, coal and biomass resources. Shell refers to the GTL process as a middle distillate synthesis (MDS). In all cases the middle distillate produced from this process can be blended with today's diesel fuel.
GTL diesel has extremely low (0-5-ppm) sulfur, aromatics, and toxics. GTL fuel can be blended with non-complying CARB diesel fuel to make a cleaner diesel fuel complying with stringent diesel fuel standards.
California's current nearest GTL supplier is the Shell-Malaysia, Bintulu MSD plant. The plant, which began, operation in 1993, and was shutdown between December 25, 1997, and restarted on May 20, 2000, can produce up to 2400 barrels/day which is 1.5% of California's diesel demand.
From November 1993-December 1997 Shell's MSD plant sold over 1 million gallons of middle distillate to four California refiners, which was blended into roughly 4 million gallons of diesel fuel and sold to on-highway fuel consumers.
Synthetic diesel fuel offers a new opportunity to use alternative fuels in diesel engines without compromising fuel-efficiency, increasing capital outlay, and impacting infrastructure or refueling cost.
Further commercialization of this fuel improves the prospects of new engines meeting proposed national 2007 heavy-duty diesel engine emission standards. In the near-term, this fuel can play a role reducing existing diesel vehicles exhaust and toxic emissions.
Since the late-1990s nearly every major oil company including: ARCO, Chevron, Conoco, Exxon, Phillips, Mobile, Statoil, and Texaco announced plans to build pilot plants or commercial plants to produce synthetically derived diesel fuel through the improved GTL process.
Stringent diesel exhaust emission standards and fuel specifications are compelling the petroleum industry to revisit the new, improved GTL process to competitively produce aromatic and sulfur complying diesel fuel.
Key to the commercial success of the GTL process lies in increased reactor capacity proven in the mid-1990s. This new process uses a slurry-bed reactor that has 100 times the capacity per reactor over some 1990 reactors and offers lowers cost.
Synthetic diesel fuel appears to be the most economical fuel product from the GTL process, compared to producing gasoline. Preliminary testing of an unmodified diesel engine, fueled with neat synthetic diesel fuel, shows the following emission reductions compared to typical California diesel
it's very interesting that the diesel advocates, wildly critical of the cost of hybrid batteries, have failed to point out the increased cost to maintain a diesel (versus a gasser). I guess I should not expect a person to present both sides of an issue. Everyone wants to be an ADVOCATE; no one wants to take the trouble to objectively analyze an issue. :-(
It's noteworthy that your points were greeted with derision, but maybe they'll get a better reception with time
Diesel versions need not cost substantially more and may cost slightly less, i.e.
Further, Congress, in its ultimate wisdom has deemed the diesel powered cars worthy of tax CREDITS which, based on European websites would more than offset the price differences when the diesel is a few hundred Euros more.
I have no clue if XXX of America will market the diesel SUX6000 i.e, will it cost more, less or the same as the gasoline version? Will, by the same token, the FFV's continue to be priced without a premium now that Congress has, from a certain perspective, mandated the FFV vehicle.
From a cost standpoint, there are no hugely compelling reasons that the diesel SUX6000 needs to be priced significantly higher than the SUX6000 gas version.
The TCO for diesel, with its higher durability, lower fuel costs and no increase in maintenance coupled with the tax credit, will cost less for 75,000 miles. Theoretically, too the resale value of the diesel version will hold at a higher % of MSRP especially if fuel prices continue to rise in the wake of political/terror (not supply) issues.
We have evidence, that is, that the diesel cars will cost no more to acquire, offer a tax incentive (even if I don't like it, I will take it) and have a lower cost to fuel by at least 20%.
We do those who will not or cannot investigate, investigate, investigate, a disservice by claiming "diesel is too expensive."
There is little evidence YET to support the new diesel autos soon to come to our market will be significantly more costly to buy. The on going fuel cost issues, however, provide strong evidence that they will be significantly less expensive to keep full of fuel. :surprise:
On the issue of reducing our dependence on foreign oil, I again quote the EPA who claimed as recently as Feb 2006, that were 30% of our vehicles diesels, we would eliminate our need for 1.4mm bbl of oil per day -- the amount we import from Saudi Arabia. Diesel, according to this source, will reduce our need for imported oil.
It COULD do this immediately. The fact that it probably will not achieve this level of the market for years, notwithstanding, it is possible for this outcome. E85 cannot even HOPE to do this in any comparable time frame.
Finally, one of the hallmarks of the current diesel powerplants on the market, is durability/reliability. Moreover, the era of lengthy maintenance intervals includes the diesel models.
I don't know what extra cost or reliability issues plague the diesel engines that will, hopefully soon, grace our shores.
Please elaborate, if you will be so generous.
What and how long are the expectations for engine longentivity in the gasoline and the diesel engines today?
It seems that the economics and even most of the politics are supportive of diesel and biodiesel -- performance and mileage also are supportive of diesel as an alternative fuel if some of the goals include the reduction of need for imported oil, the reduction of pollution and the ability to renew the "resource" without mileage penalties (e.g., E85.)
The economics do not support E85 -- at least not yet and no clear path to an economic advantage is out there. Mileage is not improved and performance may be improved with E85, however. Yet the need to devote over 70% of our total farm land to the growing of corn for Ethanol, seems to me to be at least unlikely to happen if not impossible from a practical standpoint.
Some may greet points with derision -- but from reading these posts, the majority of derisive points appear to me to emanate more often from the pro E85 crowd rather than the other way around.
But, as usual, I could be wrong. Just not uncertain. :shades:
Here, in the US, it would appear that diesel versions of popular Mercedes vehicles USED to require oil changes every 5,000 miles when the gas versions were extended to 7,500.
It would appear that the latest and greatest gas AND diesel versions will require maintenance intervals of about 13,000 miles -- and I can only assume this is due to the clean diesel.
I have visted sites in the US and overseas and used Google and ASK.com to attempt to find costs that would skyrocket diesel's cost to such an extent that the TCO would tip the balance against diesel (post October 2006, to be clear.)
My search has not revealed any significant requirements for maintenance that differentiate gas vs diesel.
I have also made the assumption that the cost of using E85 vs gasoline does little to change the operating costs of an FFV beyond the obvious loss of MPG's.
Information is, as always, a good thing.
What do you base that assumption on? My VW Passat TDI was 5k, 5k, then every 10k on oil changes. I only did the first one and it cost $50 at the VW dealer. That was using the special VW TDI synthetic oil.
My Mercedes Sprinter diesel is supposed to have the first oil and filter change at 10k miles. I doubt I will keep it that long. Someone came to test drive it today. After the first oil change it is recommended every 20k miles unless you are really stressing the engine. It has a computer that tells you when to change the oil based on use.
I think the oil change on the Prius is every 3k miles. I know one person claimed $83 at Toyota for an oil change.
The base cost of the lowest trim level V70 with 170 hp 5-cyl petrol engine is 20 257 GBP. The cost of the same trim level with the 163 hp 5-cyl diesel is 21 014 GBP which is about 1400 USD more. The cost with the "D5" diesel of 185 hp is 22 785 GBP or about 4550 USD more. However, I think the D5 comes with an advanced 6-spd manual transmission
They do offer the V70 with turbocharged petrol engines and with the 2.5T the base price is 22 129 GBP or only 1200USD less than the D5.
I base the claim of higher maintenance costs of a TDI on the special oil and fuel filter requirements, but mainly on the cost of glowplugs, injectors and fuel pump when these things are out of warranty. Also an engine rebuild is more expensive in a diesel than a petrol engine.
For the 2006 MY, the difference in MSRP between a base US Jetta TDI and the equivalent spec Jetta 2.5 model is about $1300 (22,235 vs 20,920). These come with fairly identical equipment levels. Via whatcar.com, the UK prices for Jetta SE models are £15,272 for the 1.9 TDI, £15,614 for the 2.0 FSI and £16,428 for the 2.0 TDI.
None of the more-expensive-maintenance arguments make any sense to me at all. I can't post links to other forums, but the tdiclub gang has rebutted this pretty thoroughly.
IMO, the biggest issue for US diesel penetration has to do with the nature and the cost of the required emissions equipment. Early assessments have put the price around $800, but we obviously need to wait and see...
Not sure how we got this far off of ethanol. Hopefully it will just go away and not raise the price of gas any higher.
The comparisons between diesel vs gasoline powered cars needs to be based on levels of equipment, model, approximate engine size and performance.
It is not a valid comparison, for instance to pick a more modestly powered version and compare it with the next more powerful diesel.
The Jettas, noted above, seem to actually be less in diesel trim than their gasoline counterparts.
Audi offers a 3.2 direct injection gasoline powered normally aspirated engine in its middle sized car. Likewise they offer a 3.0 TDI (diesel powered and turbocharged engine in the same car.)
I found the manufacturer's published PERFORMANCE claims and the 3.2 gasoline version sprints from 0-62 mph in 7.1 seconds; the 3.0 diesel version makes the same run in 7.0 seconds. Both have the same top speed.
When equipped with the same options and packages, the diesel version in USD would come to about $1000 less than the gas version.
Other similar configurations yield similar results (and I would say almost immaterial differences -- but often favoring the diesel.)
Service requirements seem to be virtually if not literally identical at something between 10,000 and 15,000 miles between required maint.
Discussion forums and other sources that can be considered secondary resources seem to support the notion that diesel engines generally are more durable than gasoline engines.
I have no clue if this means that the gasoline engine if maintained properly will require a major overhaul at 150,000 miles and the diesel will not require such an overhaul until 250,000 miles. But that would appear to be the spirit of what is said about diesels vs gas engined cars.
The electronics, brakes, tires, A/C and accessories would, I can assume, be just as likely to need replacement at X miles or interval on either version, too.
The point I was suggesting earlier was to contemplate for about 5 minutes the repair and maintenance requirements of two FFV's or one FFV and one non-FFV (otherwise identical cars) -- and run one totally on E85 and one on dino-gas. I assume there would be no costs attributed to fuel differences that could be identified in this comparison any more than there would be between a gasoline version vs a diesel version.
E85 and Clean diesel (and perhaps bio-diesel) are vying to be alternative to dino-gas [liquid] fuels. The goals stated by our government, which may or may not track with reality, seem to be satisfied sooner and at a lower cost by diesel, not by FFV/E85 -- hence my point (quoted from my PhD in Chemistry friend's remarks) that diesel gives us immediately the benefits we claim we value. The same cannot be said of E85 -- unless perhaps you are ADM.
Oil dropped $3/bbl in the last 24 hours if anyone cares. :surprise:
What value, if any, should we place on the contribution such a vehicle would make to allowing us to literally say to Saudi Arabia, "no thanks, we don't need your 1.4mm bbl of oil today?"
What is the distance one can go on a gallon of gasoline vs a gallon of diesel in the Volvo comparison noted?
What, if the durability claims are true, is the probability of an engine overhaul in 6 years or 120,000 miles -- and what would be the cost? Same question for year 7, 8, and 9?
BTW, I do not know the answers so this is not a baited question. For all I know, the cost out of warranty for the two cars may favor the gas version. The diesel forums seem to belie this, FWIW.
And, what is the difference in greenhouse pollution between the two -- according to the diesel technology forum, the clean diesel burning vehicle produces less pollution. But they may be lying (or spinning) -- and I have no way to know.
Emissions are made up of many components. The tests were designed around the emissions that a gasoline car emits. The manufacturers addressed those areas thought to be important. Diesel has always been a small percentage and was not even looked at or addressed 25 years ago. The main cause of concern in the 1960s-1970s was lead in gas and cancer causing smog. When comparing diesel to gas without any smog control gas is still far worse than the worst diesel engine. It has gotten its bad reputation because of the black soot and sulfur smell. I am not saying this should not be removed. I am just putting it into perspective. With a modern diesel such as the current VW TDI burning ULSD the emissions overall will be less than most new gas cars on the road. The only area of contention at this point is the NoX caused by high compression burning of diesel.
What the advocates of E85 have not wanted played up is NoX increases when burning E85 vs unleaded regular. I don't know the comparative emissions between E85 and ULSD. I would think that neither one is bad enough to ban diesel cars as they have been in CA.
For comparison: the 2006 Jetta diesel burning dirty diesel (500 PPM sulfur), is cleaner than the 2006 Toyota Corolla sports model using Premium gas.
Taken from the green list.
http://www.epa.gov/emissweb/smcar-06.htm
Will E85 help? Most likely not.
From Automotive News
WASHINGTON -- New vehicles in the United States are the fastest and heaviest in three decades, with the fleet's fuel efficiency no better than the figure for 1994 -- about 21 miles per gallon, the government said on Monday, July 17.
The mileage estimate for 2006 passenger vehicles continues a recent trend even though gasoline prices have risen steadily and now average $3 per gallon, the Environmental Protection Agency said in an annual efficiency report.
Gains from gas-electric hybrid engines and other fuel saving technologies -- mainly seen in compacts, sedans and other cars -- were noted. But these technologies represent a fraction of what is available in showrooms and bigger models continue to blunt efficiency.
http://www.autonews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060718/REUTERS/60718007/111- 1
On an energy/mpg basis 10% ethanol fuel should be priced at about 97% the cost of unleaded gas. Today's price is about 103% that of unleaded.
Based on energy/mpg E85 should cost about 74% of the unleaded price. Today it is at around 85% the price of unleaded.
Neither one makes any financial sense for consumers.
It does for the government.
We pay taxes based on gallons we burn.
One of the reasons why we don't have diesels...
One of the reasons why we don't have diesels
I have often thought that was a back room reason for banning diesel cars in CA. We have had cleaner diesel than the rest of the country for two years now. No move to allow diesel cars to be sold new. I think they know they have a problem with hybrids costing them gas tax revenue, and don't want to add less fuel to the fire. Cutting back on fuel usage is a loser for the state revenue office. It is a balancing act between the greens and the greenbacks.
You know CA is not going to cut taxes on E85 as some states have done. I am surprised they buckled under to the ethanol mandate without much of a fight. More back room dealings I'm sure.
Gas $3.00 MPG 30
E85 $3.00 MPG 21
Diesel $3.00 MPG 36
Now, today's truth: many of the cars we most lust after cannot use $3.00 gas, the gas will cost $3.20; E85, too, costs more -- in many places -- than regular, but for purposes of this post, let's assume E85 costs the same as regular (and that this includes the $.51 per gallon subsidy).
At 30,000 miles the cost for fuel would be:
Gas - $1,000
E85 - $1,429
Diesel- $ 833
The diesel auto will, however, perform slightly better (in acceleration.) The differences are real and I think are not unfairly represented "in spirit" at least (of course some will argue that the true cost for E85 is not reflected and the disparity would be even greater.)
And, if the diesel vehicle were $1,000 more expensive at MSRP, it would clearly take a long time -- in miles -- to make up for that difference.
However, the diesel fuel will cost much less than the E85, and a diesel car is currently coming with a tax incentive (a credit) -- as are FFV's -- and if widely adopted would allow us to reduce or elimnate our need for Saudi oil and clean diesel or even dirty diesel will pollute less.
"I call that a bargain, the best I ever had" -- The Who.
E85 in an FFV, however, seems ill suited to offer these benefits -- and besides it costs more.
Isn't there some way to get the efficiency of E85 a whole bunch higher (and a little bit cheaper?)
I personally am attracted to diesels and four or so years was comparing a Jetta TDI wagon to a Jetta wagon with the base naturally aspirated 115 hp gasoline engine. I don't drive many miles so I concluded that for me the TCO was lower for the petrol engine version. I knew people who owned Mercedes and Toyota diesels and the cost of repairs was very high. Also I was concerned about the higher NOx and even more about the higher PM (particulate matter) emissions of the diesel.
I know that due to higher efficiency diesels produce lower CO2 emissions per mile. But I just decided to keep my old car (a 91 Dodge Spirit 2.5L 5-spd (only 100 hp same as a Jetta TDI)with good a/c but no cruise control, bummer, then with about 90 kmi and now with about 115,000 mi, odometer ist kaput) and over the 4 year period after bailing out on buying a Jetta wagon my Spirit cost me very little in repairs. It gets about 34 mpg on the highway at 70 mph with a/c on, but of course it can't compare to a Jetta TDI wagon in capability and safety. When really clean diesels come to the US I will look again at Jetta wagons and Volvo wagons, or maybe a diesel minivan.
Except that, in the real world, there IS a discernable difference in performance.
Take, for example the VW Jetta (currently available with a 1.9l turbodiesel, a 2.5l NA I5, and a 2.0l turbo gas motor).
The TDI version has 100hp and 177 ftlbs of torque and was tested at 10.3 to 60mph.
The baseline stripper 'value-edition' Jetta (with the 2.5l 5-cylinder) developes 150hp and 170 ftlbs (normally aspirated) and does the same 0-60 in 9.1 secs.
To compare turbo diesel to turbo gas is absolutely laughable. Very similarly sized powerplants (a 1.9 TDI vs. a 2.0T) yet the turbo gas motor has TWICE the hp and 207 ftlbs and nearly the same rpm point as the TDI. And does 0-60 in 7.1 (vs. 10.3).
Does the TDI have a nice healthy torque kick? Sure, I suppose; the problem is it runs out of breath in a hurry (hence the low hp rating despite the healthy torque number). IMO, that is a HUGE discernable difference.
"The diesel auto will, however, perform slightly better (in acceleration.)"
Only when comparing turbocharged diesels to NON-turbocharged gas engines. I can't think of a SINGLE instance in which a NA diesel outperforms a NA gas, or a pressurized diesel outperforms a pressurized gas.
Reg unleaded (30 mpg in an FFV car) costs $3.00/gallon.
E85 gas (22 mpg in an FFV car) should cost $2.22/gallon.
Dieses (36 mpg in diesel car) should cost $3.60/gallon.