The 1.9L TDI is a poor engine for comparison purposes. VW has a 2.0L TDI sold in Europe that puts down around 170hp in certain configurations and still gets most of the fuel efficiency.
It has been posted before, but UK motoring shows are now running segments where same model diesels are outpeforming "hot hatch" (Vauxhall Astra VXR) trim cars on the track. And Audi is winning races with their diesel race car.
The point I was making was that the comparisons that should be made need to be made between cars with similar accelerative characteristics (and similar top speed capabilities, although most are limited to 130MPH.)
Moreover, the price points need to be very close to make the comparison valid.
Here is the reason I believe these to be true:
Many folks will look at a car and have certain "performance" expectations. It is unlikely that someone who wants the "urge" (measured in the US at least by 0 - 60MPH time) to be less than 8.0 seconds will accept as a competing model a vehicle that has an urge over 10 seconds.
Furthermore, the lower the 0 - 60MPH time in seconds, the less tolerance the customer will have for additional time to speed.
In other words, a person who will accept 0-60MPH in 10 seconds will probably be OK with 0-60MPH in 11 seconds.
However, someone who demands sub 6 second times will probably be less likely to accept a full 1 second loss of accelerative capability.
If, for the sake of arguement, we look at the leaders in Diesel cars, we will probably look at German cars first and perhaps other Euro brands second and so on.
If the price point in dollars, for the sake of example, is $50,000 -- it is possible to find a gasoline engined vehicle and a diesel engined vehicle that are virtually identical:
1. Similar 0-60MPH performance 2. Similar content (identical in fact) 3. Similar MSRP (within a point or a point+)
It makes no difference to the consumer if one is turbo and one is normally aspirated -- what matters is the acquisition cost and the relative performance and content for the money.
I contend given such a choice, that of the following two vehicles (assuming the transition to clean diesel is completed on schedule here in the US), the choice for most people would be pretty easy:
A mid-size four door sedan with every possible do-dad and gizmo known to German engineers.
Version "D" is diesel (and can use either dino diesel or bio diesel or bio/dino blend diesel)
Version "G" is gasoline (and can use anything up to E10)
Version D accelerates to 60 in 6.9 seconds Version G accelerates to 60 in 7.0 seconds
Version D gets 36MPG on fuel that costs $2.99/gallon Version G gets 30MPG on fuel that costs $3.19/gallon
The msrp of D is $50,000 The msrp of G is $50,900
The fuel for G is universally available The fuel for D is 97.5% universally available
The insurance costs are the same The maintenance requirements are the same The warranty is the same
If 30% of your fellow citizens purchased the same kind of car (not the same brand) we would eliminate our need for Saudi oil and we would lower our greenhouse emissions by up to 60%.
Perhaps the 1.9TDI IS a poor engine for comparison purposes. I just chose the Jetta because it's the first thing I thought of to compare a TDI to a base line gas engine to a turbo gas engine in otherwise very similar vehicles at very similar prices.
And in this case, the TDI does get much better mileage.....but worse performance. Just trying to counter the implied assertion that diesels by their nature outperform gas engines.
Regarding the diesels outperforming the Vauxhall Astra VXR: I think the best way to compare a diesel vs. a gasser is in otherwise VERY similar cars (preferably, the same model) so that the ONLY thing being compared are the engines. How does the highest performing Astra diesel compared to the Astra VXR? And what hot hatch was outperforming the Astra VXR?
And Audi is winning races with their diesel race car."
Yep. And MB won Indy a few years back with a pushrod motor. Maybe the two can get together and build a world-beater pushrod diesel engine.
"The point I was making was that the comparisons that should be made need to be made between cars with similar accelerative characteristics...."
And you were doing a fine job of that....right up to the point where you implied that diesels (by their nature) outperform their gas powered counterparts.
Just nitpicking on my part; the rest of your analysis seems pretty spot on (although I'm not too sure how much fuel economy analysis someone spending $50k on a sedan is likely to do....)
It was Astra vs Astra. I don't know the details of the diesel model, though.
Honestly, I am not really that concerned about the "which is better" sort of argument -- diesels and gas engines are different enough anyway. It just seems fascinating that the performance gap seems to be closing rapidly without losing all of the fuel economy benefit.
I used a real example -- there are other examples that I have not as fully vetted that drop the price point to a number beginning with a 3.
As more vehicles trickle in, the price points will drop and there will be similar apples to apples comparisons, even if they are from different manufacturers.
Folks will compare within price points and performance points or some combination of the two.
And, although my car's MSRP was $50K, I am keenly aware of the price of fuel.
I agree with Mark. Fuel economy, for ME, is not just an economics issue. In fact, the economics of it are irrelevant, to me.
If Lexus would make a 35 mpg, $40,000 vehicle, I'd be on it, even though there's no way I would RECOUP the dollars that I'd save if I just bought a Corolla.
The Camry is too pedestrian for me, and the GS450H is just too dang 'spensive. I'm pining for an IS350H.
"Fuel economy, for ME, is not just an economics issue. In fact, the economics of it are irrelevant, to me."
I think I understand what you're saying (people spending $40-$50k or more on a vehicle aren't WORRIED about the price of fuel; they want to save fuel on principal). I just have a hard time identifying with that mindset.
Probably because the amount of energy and resources consumed to BUILD that $40-$50k sedan is so much more than what gets consumed building a $20-25k sedan that the idea of saving energy through good fuel economy becomes laughable.
I just have a hard time identifying with that mindset.
It is a big percentage of the people in CA for sure. My neighbor bought a LX470 Lexus. She felt vulnerable in her "Little" Mercedes E350. I asked about the gas and she said it uses more. It is all a write-off you know. All the people on this forum that lease cars do it for the write-off I would assume. Same goes for gas, be it $3 or $10 per gallon. Every one has a business so fancy vehicles and gas are just an expense that has to be paid. Like the cell phone they have glued to their ear.
Probably because the amount of energy and resources consumed to BUILD that $40-$50k sedan is so much more than what gets consumed building a $20-25k sedan that the idea of saving energy through good fuel economy becomes laughable.
you can't be serious
you think it costs more to build a 7 series BMW than a 3 series?
yes, slightly bigger engine, slightly more metal, slightly more padding in the seat
I'm not saying there isn't value add in the $50k vehicle, but most of that value add is in technology and styling, and not attained via energy consumption
This is correct. The weight of the steel or aluminum in the 7 series vs the 3 series and the amount of pressure to bend the metal are far closer than the ultimate asking price might suggest.
The price in energy and resources is relatively a small portion of the cost and ultimately the MSRP.
Style, design, content and engineering are probably the lion's share of the price difference, that is.
A while back I mentioned that some cars just don't have the "vroom". I don't think that was interpreted the way I intended. My thought was that performance wasn't NECESSARILY everything for someone who purchases a performance vehicle. That vroom I was talking about was the sweet song of a gasoline V-8 engine. While I know many love I-4s and other configurations, how important is the sound and feel of the mechanics to all you readers?
Ever since V-8s started being replaced by I-4 turbos and V-6s, I've been waiting for the V-8 to return, even if it came as a smaller displacement/lower power version. The sound and smoothness is something that I never forgot about. The Lincoln LS and Thunderbird had the small V-8 but the overall package didn't suit me. All the other V-8s out there were beyond my price range. Is the V-8 preferred by most or is power/smoothness alone what gets your attention? Also, for all the diesel proponents, have you had experience with the newer diesels, specifically smoothness and sound. For me, if engineers can't get rid of the "glack, glack, glack" at idle I don't know if I'd ever really prefer a diesel.
I got my first (and only) Audi A8 -- a 1997 -- and was immediately seduced by the V8 sound at full-cry as you are. Two more V8's (a 2000 and a 2001) later, I thought I would cry when it came time to purchase again and I decided I HAD to have a manual transmission and I decided I just couldn't spend almost 5K more for a sound I was rarely ever able to induce here in the ever clogged (traffic) Big Town of Cincinnapolis.
Age and money got to me (too much of one and too little of the other) and when it came time for the next car, my final choices were an Infiniti M35X and an Audi A6 3.2 (both V6's).
Due to circumstances and what I think was "marketing," I made a deposit on the Infiniti and began the backwards running 120 day clock. Meanwhile, Audi made me an offer I couldn't refuse and I ended up with yet another Audi (#28) -- with neither a stick shift nor a V8.
Close, but NOT the same, the full cry sound of the Audi's V6 is to the V8. Close enough that I almost can forget.
Although it may seem odd, my favorite car of all time was a 1995 5 cylinder turbo Audi S6. After having had several Audi 4 and 5 cylinder cars previously, I was instantly impressed with the sound some engineer had managed to squeeze out of a 20 valve turbo 2.2 L I5 powerplant.
One of my friends had a car from a company called Oldsmobile -- it had an I4, it was in a Cutlass sized car and until he popped the hood one day, I would never have guessed it was a 4 -- neither sound nor performance gave it away.
In one of the four driving schools I attended in Seefeld, Austria over the past 9 years, Audi supplied all the drivers with 2.5L TDI's. For 1 second, very first start up in the cold (sub freezing) temps there was the tell-tale diesel sound -- literally 1 second.
Inside, in second gear at pedal to the metal the sound belied its origins (from a compression engine) -- it sounded perfectly fine and had just that hint of meanness that is the requirement (no wimpy sounds, please.)
Point is, there is no reason, apparently that FFV's, regular normally aspirated or forced induction OR compression ignition engines need to "give away" that they are something less than a V8 with a non silenced air cleaner.
Somehow, somewhere, there are engineers who can make a diesel sound like nuts and bolts rattling around in a coffee can or with just the right amount of growl.
Ditto I4's, V6's, I6's and even I5's etc.
With a bunch of FFV and gasoline only and diesel vehicles on the horizon, I am confident the sound some of us lust for can be adequately provided.
Of course, this does not apply to purely electric cars, but then there is another attraction to a powerful silent car or one that has that electric turbine whine that climbs out of the silence as one is propelled faster and faster with only the whine breaking the hush.
Be of good cheer -- "marketing" (and engineering) can allay your V8 sound needs -- hopefully the accountants won't kill the notion. :shades:
"I am willing to pay more to get better mpg and better emissions, because I would like to do what I can re air pollution and energy independence."
Hey, good news!
You can actually pay substantially LESS and get MUCH better mpg and better emissions!
Of course, you might have to stoop to a more 'pedestrian' automobile. So what it sounds like (to me) is that you would just really really really LIKE to save more fuel and emissions, but gosh darn it, how can you do that and still show that you achieved a certain 'status' in your life?
FWIW, I talked to Audi USA yesterday, asking about a TDi engine in an A4, as they have in Europe. She told me it has been the topic of heavy discussion lately, and to watch their web site between now and the end of the year. They currently make the A4 with 2.0, 2.7, and 3.0 TDi in Europe. She also said they are discussing an ED program. Both would be great. :P
The most impressive A4 I have ever driven for any distance and time is what is called an S4 (I have not driven the RS4) -- the almost as impressive car that ranks second was an A4 2.5TDI with a 6speed manual, sport package, AWD and all the toys available.
This defines "alternative" fuel car -- or at least it would were it offered here (in today's 3.0TDI form.)
E85 will not be able to convince many folks of its sporting intentions.
Good points and I would agree that other configurations can sound nice. I will probably always prefer a V-8 while still appreciating other "songs". I just wanted to get a feel for the amount of influence it has. By the lack of interest (other than you) on this tangent, I'm guessing it isn't much of a priority. I currently drive an '06 Chevy Impala SS and was sold (sad to admit) when I first started it up. The rest of the car is good and I know it's not in the same class as many of the vehicles discussed in the last several pages of this thread. But, it may be the last affordabe gasoline V-8 I'll ever get the chance to drive. Someday, sooner rather than later, I'll probably move upscale (provided the career plans pan out). Having this car gives me just enough "old-tech" to satisfy those leftover yearnings from my childhood.
On second thought, I'm about due for my mid-life crisis so maybe a V-8 Vette is in my future...NOT!!!
Thanks for your perspective, Mark. As for your frustration with not being able to wind a car out these days, I feel your pain. The roads are clogged and sadly for me, whenever I try to find a secluded area to have some fun, Johnny Law seems to know where I'll be. I've traveled through OH a few times (20 yrs ago) and y'all's (traffic)law enforcement is relentless.
You can actually pay substantially LESS and get MUCH better mpg and better emissions!
Of course, you might have to stoop to a more 'pedestrian' automobile. So what it sounds like (to me) is that you would just really really really LIKE to save more fuel and emissions, but gosh darn it, how can you do that and still show that you achieved a certain 'status' in your life?
Dude, that sounds like a post I would make!!
:-)
I am not a status seeker. I drive a freakin Sebring Convertible. Can you say "rental car?" I knew you could.
Why is it a crime to want to drive a nice car? It's MY money, last time I checked. I am not taking food out of YOUR kid's mouth if I spend MY money, am I?
I already said I can't imagine spending what people spend on a car like the Lexus GS450H. I'd prefer to spend far less than that, but I don't want to drive a Corolla. That is somehow a crime? And I'm not going to spend my money just to get 10 more mpg, when my current car is running just fine. I DO want better mpg, but killing a perfectly good car just to save a few bucks isn't worth it to me. Now, if I could get a good ride AND 40 mpg, then I might consider spending 30K right now. Maybe. But I'd rather wait a year or so and see what is out there, then.
PS None of my friends have said anything about my car, except one who made fun of me and called it "pretty." (it's red)
and the teenagers (who I mentioned, above) who thought it was "cool"
If you want to doubt my enviro bona fides, then come on over and check out my solar panels, the level of insulation in my walls, new windows, reclaimed decking, etc. etc. Criticizing someone without knowing them is just lame. Believe me, I do it all the time. And it is lame.
Best post I've seen in here for quite a while. Thanks for not drop-kicking me TOO hard
"Criticizing someone without knowing them is just lame. Believe me, I do it all the time. And it is lame."
LOL! I'm glad somebody finally had the huevos to admit to something like that. Some of us occasionally jump to the wrong conclusions about another poster.
"Washington, DC – New data from the polling firm Public Opinion Strategies (www.pos.org/latestnumbers/nationals.cfm) shows that 78 percent of Americans support increasing the use of ethanol and two-thirds of Americans support the increased use of biofuels in general."
If you live in MN where they do not tax E85 or a few isolated places in the Midwest, those figures may work. Check out the price in Maryland. E85 $0.1635 per mile unleaded $0.1329 per mile. For each 1000 miles it cost $30 more to use ethanol.
From: Jeannette E85 Price: 3.27 Station Name: Mont. Co Fleet Management Station City: Rockville, Md Unleaded Price: 3.19 Date: Thursday, July 20, 2006
From: Linda E85 Price: 2.59 Station Name: Cenex Station City: Redwood Falls, MN Unleaded Price: 2.99 Date: Wednesday, July 19, 2006
Its apparent that corn ethanol has little chance of becoming more than a bit player in the auto fuel matrix: corn is inefficient as a feedstock for several reasons; it depletes the soil (why crop rotation is practiced by farmers); it produces about 2 gal of ethanol per bushel so we would have to increase farmland under cultivation exponentially to grow enough to make a dent in the fuel supply. Ethanol is expensive to transport, contains approx 30% less energy than gas and for these reasons it will be more expensive than gasoline unless and until oil really takes off. IMHO its gonna be diesel.
Some of the talk about Federal and State government not wanting diesels and or high mileage cars because of potential lost revenue made me wonder just how much they might loose, so I did some math. Math is not my strong suite, so if anyone sees anything wrong with this feel free to point it out. I got the national average of $0.459 of every gallon of gas goes to local, state and federal taxes from http://taxfoundation.org/news/show/1054.html For the sake of this example we must assume diesel and E85 are taxed the same as gas.
Take 500,000 cars each driving 12,000 miles per year.
E85 12,000miles divided by 15mpg = 800 gals of fuel times $0.459 = $367.2 times 500,000 cars $183,600,000
Regular Gas 12,000miles divided by 20mpg = 600 gals of fuel times $0.459 = $275.4 times 500,000 cars $137,700,000
Diesel/Hybrids 12,000miles divided by 44mpg = 272 gals of fuel times $0.459 = $125.18 times 500,000 cars = $62,590,000
E85 = $183,600,000 in annual taxes. Not a viable revenue source, but we can see why government is pushing it.
Regular Gas = $137,700,000
Diesel/Hybrids = $62,590,000
An annual loss of $75,110,000 tax dollars for every 500,000 diesel/hybrid cars that replace gassers.
If there is no conspiracy to keep diesels and hybrids out, this is sure a good argument for one. With our governments increasingly shady reputation and this kind of revenue at stake I doubt that they will welcome diesels and hybrids with open arms. Clean air, pollution and oil independence will always take a back seat to tax revenue.
The effect will become even worse if for example people (like me) trade in their gas guzzler (14.4mpg EXPO) for a Hybrid (Camry, 38.6mpg) and drive 30,000 miles per year instead of 12,000. I believe most people interested in diesels and hybrids drive more miles than the average driver.
If there is no conspiracy to keep diesels and hybrids out, this is sure a good argument for one. I don't believe in conspiracy theory, simply because I believe that our elected and appointed officials are not capable of creating it. But government is very effective of one thing - do nothing, ignore a problem or ignore a solution.
Increasing amount of diesel engines not only reduce tax revenue, but eventually would create wide biodiesel demand. We do not have any BIG biodiesel industry and no big lobby in contrast with Big Oil and now ethanol (agricultural). Biodiesel could be a solution especially biodiesel from algae - algae farms, but it would require tens of $ billions investment and lots of government work (new lows, EPA standards, tax policies, etc., ). With no active lobby it is not going to happen...
Down here in Texas - a 'small' state with perhaps 10% of the entire US population, one place where GM's FFV gas hog SUVs amd trucks continue to sell - E85 not even available although most major brands are now selling E10 at 3 bucks or so. But, GM continues to push E85 locally, anyway - very amusing. It is hard to believe that the consumer is that dumb! Very unlikely that the oil industry down here would ever 'allow' the subsidies necessary to get the price down here anywhere near it would have to be to be viable!
the subsidies necessary to get the price down here anywhere near it would have to be to be viable!
It would be kind of shooting yourselves in the foot. You increase the demand for corn ethanol and it increases the pollution in the Gulf of Mexico. I do understand the dealers selling them. For each FFV GM or Ford sells they save money on CAFE violations. Getting to sell a fullsized PU with a 33 MPG gimme is a good reason to push them whereever you find buyers. I would imagine there is no difference in MPG when you use regular unleaded. So it is kind of a win win. You get to look green and so does GM. With a very small investment.
Any comments on the writeup in the latest C&D concerning the new BMW 330d?
I, for one, will now have to officially reconsider my perception of the performance vs. mileage aspects of diesels.....
While it appears as though from a PURE performance standpoint (instrumented 0-60 and 1/4 mile times) the 330d is a tick behind the 330i, the difference in fuel consumption was astounding. And from the driver's seat, the perception was that the 330d was just as quick, if not quicker, than the 330i.
WIllie Nelson's wife has run her Jetta on B100 used fryer oil for several years in Hawaii. Now Willie has his Mercedes E320 CDI that is using B100 over there. Most of the Hollywood crowd that live in the Willie Nelson compound on Maui use only Biodiesel. Woody Harrelson has his whole family there. They also produce all their electric from solar and use catchment water. It can be done if you are committed to saving energy and weaning yourself off of fossil fuel.
The article I refer to comes with a twist -- the car is NOT running on B100 -- in fact it is running on cooking oil.
The article suggests you can go to Costco and buy cooking oil in bulk (at a price slightly lower than diesel), use french fry oil "donated" by the fast food restaurant du jour and with a conversion kit run your Jetta (in this case) on a mixture (but not literally mixed) of diesel and Mazola Corn Oil.
Here is an example -- a 170 mile trip: 160 miles on corn oil and 10 miles on diesel fuel. Renewable and ostensibly pollution free, vegetable oil cranks the MPG's to 600 for the trip (counting, of course, the impact ONLY of the diesel -- much the same way the E85 technicality raises MPG's while simultaneously dropping the real MPG by about 30%.)
The cooking oil, however, seems to have the power and mileage of dino-diesel.
Apparently, there is even a filter (that you must change) that almost sounds like you can dump the french fry oil right into the cooking oil fuel tank (the thing has a diesel tank and a cooking oil tank, separate.)
Here's the twist -- it works, it seems to work well -- and it is technically illegal to use cooking oil TODAY.
I had a flat tire yesterday and I was talking with the salesrep at my Audi dealer while my tire was being plugged, he told me he had customers who were forever asking about diesel.
He said, "in ten years of being in the car business, I've never had anyone ask about the mileage of an Audi A8 -- until recently."
He concluded that he believes sales will rise (and his income likewise) once diesel cars are offered. He says that the folks who buy Premium cars seem to be very much aware that diesels are the new high performance cars and that he thinks that will trickle downstream.
I didn't put him up to that either. :shades: :surprise:
The two tank system seems like a big hassle to me. You can do a process in your garage to convert cooking oil to biodiesel. That also seems like a messy proposition. I would be happy to use biodiesel if it gets to a station near me. It is now available in B20 form at the same RTC station in San Diego that sells E85. They are the only alternative fuel place within a reasonable distance. Both biodiesel and E85 are more costly than the fuel they are replacing. All the stations close to me are selling ULSD now.
Your experience with the Audi dealer is the same as mine with the VW dealer. They told me a day does not go by that someone wants to know why they do not have any VW TDI vehicles for sale. That is what I base my thinking on how well diesel cars will sell. Biodiesel is better known in CA than E85. The Bay area is a hot bed of biodiesel environmental enthusiasts. I do not know of a legitimate environmental group that supports corn ethanol.
I remember you posting that. I am on track to buy the first diesel mid-full size SUV that hits our shores. The GL320 CDI would be my first choice. The Touareg with a V6 diesel would be possible. I don't think I need the V10 TDI. A Honda Pilot would get my attention if Honda puts their diesel engine into it. I think I have my MB Cruiser sold so that will leave me without a diesel rig. I still remember the gas shortages and long lines. It is good to have a backup vehicle and diesel was in good supply back then. Worse comes to worse you hang out behind McDonalds. I don't think they will be tossing any ethanol out the back door.
I think that using food to fuel our vehicles will soon be viewed more from an ethical perspective than whether or not it is cost effective. I read somewhere that the amount of corn required to fill an SUV with ethanol would feed a person for a year. If gas prices continue to climb it will become more profitable for farmers to allocate a greater percentage of their crops for ethanol production. When our perceived need to drive starts taking priority over others' need to eat it will become a sensitive issue and just another reason we shouldn't be taking this ethanol path.
The amount of corn that has gone towards ethanol production has tripled in the last 5 years, from 18 million tons to 55 million. This pace of growth is not slowing down. At some point it has to impact food prices. High gas prices make it less affordable to drive. I have no problem with the fact that the more affluent will be able to outbid the less affluent for a gallon of gas. But at the point we start outbidding people for their dinner in order to satisfy our insatiable desire to burn fuel, IMO, that is not quite as morally acceptable. At the very least our government needs to eliminate the 51 cent subsidy on ethanol production.
. . .I do not think we will all run out and have a device put onto our diesel Jetta's, E Class Mercs, etc and start pouring Mazola into the tank.
It is remarkable though that it can be done: 170 miles on 2 cupfuls of diesel and less than three gallons of vegetable oil in a VW Jetta (which one must presume had power steering, brakes, windows, air conditioning and at least an OK sound system and supportive bucket seat.)
The modification to allow the use of oil is not a factory option -- some engineer and mechanic made it work.
The mileage exceeds 50MPG on the oil alone.
The power and pollution are the same and less respectively.
No refinery had to be built -- General Foods or General Mills or Kraft or someone, though, had to crank out 3 gallons of corn oil that will never be used to toast and french fry.
Or, Burger Chef and Jeff have to have had enough excess oil in the fryer waste oil container to create a 3 gallon surplus after the 'tater bits were strained outta it.
The point is not to literally suggest we start glug glug glugging corn oil into our spare fuel tanks. Rather it is to remark on the amazing AND current "low-tech" technology that will permit little if any side effects from the driver's point of view (or his/her wallet's either.)
We keep attempting to come up with these fancy schmancy ways to propel our cars down the highway -- and the best we could come up with is E85?
Odd and unlikely as it may seem, it almost makes MORE sense to imagine using Wesson Oil -- used and new Wesson Oil -- than any attempt to mix gasoline and ethanol ever could.
We have some guy, I'll wager, who put some plumbing on his nearly dead VW diesel and somehow the damn contraption worked and he is now offering conversion kits and, son of a gun, THEY WORK!
We have so many ways to "stretch" our dino fuel and I concede ethanol may well prove to be one of them -- just not ahead of diesel, bio-diesel, blended diesel or Crisco!
Please, remember that Crisco no longer contains any animal fat -- but of course, it makes me wonder if bacon grease or lard would work in the Jetta (Sunday Jul 23rd NYT article on driving a car 170 miles on cooking oil.)
The author claims he got 100 free gallons of used oil -- hmmm at 50+ MPG's this means he went 5,000 miles without buying the bulk of his fuel. A couple of cups of diesel for every hundred or two seems like a helluva way to stretch those dino dollars. :surprise:
They also produce all their electric from solar and use catchment water. It can be done if you are committed to saving energy and weaning yourself off of fossil fuel.
It also helps to be rich enough to live in a rain forest on a tropical island. For some reason it just doesn't seem right to think of Willie in a Mercedes.
No problem, some other folks felt the same way and built him a vehicle that suits him perfect.
I can't believe there is a blog on this issue. Anyway, nice Willys
I remember a while back one of the major automotive mags fitted a diesel into a 1/2 ton Chevy. It was an incredibly hot ride with great FE. It's a shame we can't get something like that since it seems everybody just has to have at least 1 truck in their garage.
Comments
It has been posted before, but UK motoring shows are now running segments where same model diesels are outpeforming "hot hatch" (Vauxhall Astra VXR) trim cars on the track. And Audi is winning races with their diesel race car.
Moreover, the price points need to be very close to make the comparison valid.
Here is the reason I believe these to be true:
Many folks will look at a car and have certain "performance" expectations. It is unlikely that someone who wants the "urge" (measured in the US at least by 0 - 60MPH time) to be less than 8.0 seconds will accept as a competing model a vehicle that has an urge over 10 seconds.
Furthermore, the lower the 0 - 60MPH time in seconds, the less tolerance the customer will have for additional time to speed.
In other words, a person who will accept 0-60MPH in 10 seconds will probably be OK with 0-60MPH in 11 seconds.
However, someone who demands sub 6 second times will probably be less likely to accept a full 1 second loss of accelerative capability.
If, for the sake of arguement, we look at the leaders in Diesel cars, we will probably look at German cars first and perhaps other Euro brands second and so on.
If the price point in dollars, for the sake of example, is $50,000 -- it is possible to find a gasoline engined vehicle and a diesel engined vehicle that are virtually identical:
1. Similar 0-60MPH performance
2. Similar content (identical in fact)
3. Similar MSRP (within a point or a point+)
It makes no difference to the consumer if one is turbo and one is normally aspirated -- what matters is the acquisition cost and the relative performance and content for the money.
I contend given such a choice, that of the following two vehicles (assuming the transition to clean diesel is completed on schedule here in the US), the choice for most people would be pretty easy:
A mid-size four door sedan with every possible do-dad and gizmo known to German engineers.
Version "D" is diesel (and can use either dino diesel or bio diesel or bio/dino blend diesel)
Version "G" is gasoline (and can use anything up to E10)
Version D accelerates to 60 in 6.9 seconds
Version G accelerates to 60 in 7.0 seconds
Version D gets 36MPG on fuel that costs $2.99/gallon
Version G gets 30MPG on fuel that costs $3.19/gallon
The msrp of D is $50,000
The msrp of G is $50,900
The fuel for G is universally available
The fuel for D is 97.5% universally available
The insurance costs are the same
The maintenance requirements are the same
The warranty is the same
If 30% of your fellow citizens purchased the same kind of car (not the same brand) we would eliminate our need for Saudi oil and we would lower our greenhouse emissions by up to 60%.
Hmmmmm :confuse:
Which one would you buy?
:surprise:
And in this case, the TDI does get much better mileage.....but worse performance. Just trying to counter the implied assertion that diesels by their nature outperform gas engines.
Regarding the diesels outperforming the Vauxhall Astra VXR: I think the best way to compare a diesel vs. a gasser is in otherwise VERY similar cars (preferably, the same model) so that the ONLY thing being compared are the engines. How does the highest performing Astra diesel compared to the Astra VXR? And what hot hatch was outperforming the Astra VXR?
And Audi is winning races with their diesel race car."
Yep. And MB won Indy a few years back with a pushrod motor. Maybe the two can get together and build a world-beater pushrod diesel engine.
And you were doing a fine job of that....right up to the point where you implied that diesels (by their nature) outperform their gas powered counterparts.
Just nitpicking on my part; the rest of your analysis seems pretty spot on (although I'm not too sure how much fuel economy analysis someone spending $50k on a sedan is likely to do....)
Honestly, I am not really that concerned about the "which is better" sort of argument -- diesels and gas engines are different enough anyway. It just seems fascinating that the performance gap seems to be closing rapidly without losing all of the fuel economy benefit.
As more vehicles trickle in, the price points will drop and there will be similar apples to apples comparisons, even if they are from different manufacturers.
Folks will compare within price points and performance points or some combination of the two.
And, although my car's MSRP was $50K, I am keenly aware of the price of fuel.
If Lexus would make a 35 mpg, $40,000 vehicle, I'd be on it, even though there's no way I would RECOUP the dollars that I'd save if I just bought a Corolla.
The Camry is too pedestrian for me, and the GS450H is just too dang 'spensive. I'm pining for an IS350H.
I think I understand what you're saying (people spending $40-$50k or more on a vehicle aren't WORRIED about the price of fuel; they want to save fuel on principal). I just have a hard time identifying with that mindset.
Probably because the amount of energy and resources consumed to BUILD that $40-$50k sedan is so much more than what gets consumed building a $20-25k sedan that the idea of saving energy through good fuel economy becomes laughable.
It is a big percentage of the people in CA for sure. My neighbor bought a LX470 Lexus. She felt vulnerable in her "Little" Mercedes E350. I asked about the gas and she said it uses more. It is all a write-off you know. All the people on this forum that lease cars do it for the write-off I would assume. Same goes for gas, be it $3 or $10 per gallon. Every one has a business so fancy vehicles and gas are just an expense that has to be paid. Like the cell phone they have glued to their ear.
you can't be serious
you think it costs more to build a 7 series BMW than a 3 series?
yes, slightly bigger engine, slightly more metal, slightly more padding in the seat
I'm not saying there isn't value add in the $50k vehicle, but most of that value add is in technology and styling, and not attained via energy consumption
The price in energy and resources is relatively a small portion of the cost and ultimately the MSRP.
Style, design, content and engineering are probably the lion's share of the price difference, that is.
every penny comes out of my pocket
I am willing to pay more to get better mpg and better emissions, because I would like to do what I can re air pollution and energy independence.
of course, if I REALLY cared I would stop eating meat
Get a Prius or TCH and you got it.
Ever since V-8s started being replaced by I-4 turbos and V-6s, I've been waiting for the V-8 to return, even if it came as a smaller displacement/lower power version. The sound and smoothness is something that I never forgot about. The Lincoln LS and Thunderbird had the small V-8 but the overall package didn't suit me. All the other V-8s out there were beyond my price range. Is the V-8 preferred by most or is power/smoothness alone what gets your attention? Also, for all the diesel proponents, have you had experience with the newer diesels, specifically smoothness and sound. For me, if engineers can't get rid of the "glack, glack, glack" at idle I don't know if I'd ever really prefer a diesel.
Age and money got to me (too much of one and too little of the other) and when it came time for the next car, my final choices were an Infiniti M35X and an Audi A6 3.2 (both V6's).
Due to circumstances and what I think was "marketing," I made a deposit on the Infiniti and began the backwards running 120 day clock. Meanwhile, Audi made me an offer I couldn't refuse and I ended up with yet another Audi (#28) -- with neither a stick shift nor a V8.
Close, but NOT the same, the full cry sound of the Audi's V6 is to the V8. Close enough that I almost can forget.
Although it may seem odd, my favorite car of all time was a 1995 5 cylinder turbo Audi S6. After having had several Audi 4 and 5 cylinder cars previously, I was instantly impressed with the sound some engineer had managed to squeeze out of a 20 valve turbo 2.2 L I5 powerplant.
One of my friends had a car from a company called Oldsmobile -- it had an I4, it was in a Cutlass sized car and until he popped the hood one day, I would never have guessed it was a 4 -- neither sound nor performance gave it away.
In one of the four driving schools I attended in Seefeld, Austria over the past 9 years, Audi supplied all the drivers with 2.5L TDI's. For 1 second, very first start up in the cold (sub freezing) temps there was the tell-tale diesel sound -- literally 1 second.
Inside, in second gear at pedal to the metal the sound belied its origins (from a compression engine) -- it sounded perfectly fine and had just that hint of meanness that is the requirement (no wimpy sounds, please.)
Point is, there is no reason, apparently that FFV's, regular normally aspirated or forced induction OR compression ignition engines need to "give away" that they are something less than a V8 with a non silenced air cleaner.
Somehow, somewhere, there are engineers who can make a diesel sound like nuts and bolts rattling around in a coffee can or with just the right amount of growl.
Ditto I4's, V6's, I6's and even I5's etc.
With a bunch of FFV and gasoline only and diesel vehicles on the horizon, I am confident the sound some of us lust for can be adequately provided.
Of course, this does not apply to purely electric cars, but then there is another attraction to a powerful silent car or one that has that electric turbine whine that climbs out of the silence as one is propelled faster and faster with only the whine breaking the hush.
Be of good cheer -- "marketing" (and engineering) can allay your V8 sound needs -- hopefully the accountants won't kill the notion. :shades:
Hey, good news!
You can actually pay substantially LESS and get MUCH better mpg and better emissions!
Of course, you might have to stoop to a more 'pedestrian' automobile. So what it sounds like (to me) is that you would just really really really LIKE to save more fuel and emissions, but gosh darn it, how can you do that and still show that you achieved a certain 'status' in your life?
If your friends are impressed by the car you drive then your friends are snobs.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Both would be great. :P
This defines "alternative" fuel car -- or at least it would were it offered here (in today's 3.0TDI form.)
E85 will not be able to convince many folks of its sporting intentions.
On second thought, I'm about due for my mid-life crisis so maybe a V-8 Vette is in my future...NOT!!!
Thanks for your perspective, Mark. As for your frustration with not being able to wind a car out these days, I feel your pain. The roads are clogged and sadly for me, whenever I try to find a secluded area to have some fun, Johnny Law seems to know where I'll be. I've traveled through OH a few times (20 yrs ago) and y'all's (traffic)law enforcement is relentless.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Of course, you might have to stoop to a more 'pedestrian' automobile. So what it sounds like (to me) is that you would just really really really LIKE to save more fuel and emissions, but gosh darn it, how can you do that and still show that you achieved a certain 'status' in your life?
Dude, that sounds like a post I would make!!
:-)
I am not a status seeker. I drive a freakin Sebring Convertible. Can you say "rental car?" I knew you could.
Why is it a crime to want to drive a nice car? It's MY money, last time I checked. I am not taking food out of YOUR kid's mouth if I spend MY money, am I?
I already said I can't imagine spending what people spend on a car like the Lexus GS450H. I'd prefer to spend far less than that, but I don't want to drive a Corolla. That is somehow a crime? And I'm not going to spend my money just to get 10 more mpg, when my current car is running just fine. I DO want better mpg, but killing a perfectly good car just to save a few bucks isn't worth it to me. Now, if I could get a good ride AND 40 mpg, then I might consider spending 30K right now. Maybe. But I'd rather wait a year or so and see what is out there, then.
PS None of my friends have said anything about my car, except one who made fun of me and called it "pretty." (it's red)
and the teenagers (who I mentioned, above) who thought it was "cool"
If you want to doubt my enviro bona fides, then come on over and check out my solar panels, the level of insulation in my walls, new windows, reclaimed decking, etc. etc. Criticizing someone without knowing them is just lame. Believe me, I do it all the time. And it is lame.
Best post I've seen in here for quite a while. Thanks for not drop-kicking me TOO hard
"Criticizing someone without knowing them is just lame. Believe me, I do it all the time. And it is lame."
LOL! I'm glad somebody finally had the huevos to admit to something like that. Some of us occasionally jump to the wrong conclusions about another poster.
Me? I prefer to dive in head first...... :sick:
I am
He is
She is
They are
The Party is
The government is
The fill-in-the-blank is
:surprise: "Often wrong, but never uncertain." :surprise:
sometimes I pretend I am an adult
;-)
A co-worker said he was using E85 because in his tests, E85 was cheaper per mile.
Price MPG Cost per mile
2.39 20 0.1195 E85
2.99 24 0.1246 Regular
"Washington, DC – New data from the polling firm Public Opinion Strategies (www.pos.org/latestnumbers/nationals.cfm) shows that 78 percent of Americans support increasing the use of ethanol and two-thirds of Americans support the increased use of biofuels in general."
http://www.ethanolrfa.org/media/press/rfa/2006/view.php?id=721
I bet less than 20%.
From: Jeannette
E85 Price: 3.27
Station Name: Mont. Co Fleet Management
Station City: Rockville, Md
Unleaded Price: 3.19
Date: Thursday, July 20, 2006
From: Linda
E85 Price: 2.59
Station Name: Cenex
Station City: Redwood Falls, MN
Unleaded Price: 2.99
Date: Wednesday, July 19, 2006
more than a bit player in the auto fuel matrix:
corn is inefficient as a feedstock for several reasons; it depletes the soil (why crop rotation is practiced by farmers); it produces about 2 gal of ethanol per bushel so we would have to increase farmland under cultivation exponentially to grow enough to make a dent in the fuel supply. Ethanol is expensive to transport, contains approx 30% less energy than gas and for these reasons it will be more expensive than gasoline unless and until oil really takes off. IMHO its gonna be diesel.
Math is not my strong suite, so if anyone sees anything wrong with this feel free to point it out.
I got the national average of $0.459 of every gallon of gas goes to local, state and federal taxes from http://taxfoundation.org/news/show/1054.html
For the sake of this example we must assume diesel and E85 are taxed the same as gas.
Take 500,000 cars each driving 12,000 miles per year.
E85 12,000miles divided by 15mpg = 800 gals of fuel times $0.459 = $367.2 times 500,000 cars $183,600,000
Regular Gas 12,000miles divided by 20mpg = 600 gals of fuel times $0.459 = $275.4 times 500,000 cars $137,700,000
Diesel/Hybrids 12,000miles divided by 44mpg = 272 gals of fuel times $0.459 = $125.18 times 500,000 cars = $62,590,000
E85 = $183,600,000 in annual taxes. Not a viable revenue source, but we can see why government is pushing it.
Regular Gas = $137,700,000
Diesel/Hybrids = $62,590,000
An annual loss of $75,110,000 tax dollars for every 500,000 diesel/hybrid cars that replace gassers.
If there is no conspiracy to keep diesels and hybrids out, this is sure a good argument for one. With our governments increasingly shady reputation and this kind of revenue at stake I doubt that they will welcome diesels and hybrids with open arms. Clean air, pollution and oil independence will always take a back seat to tax revenue.
I don't believe in conspiracy theory, simply because I believe that our elected and appointed officials are not capable of creating it. But government is very effective of one thing - do nothing, ignore a problem or ignore a solution.
Increasing amount of diesel engines not only reduce tax revenue, but eventually would create wide biodiesel demand.
We do not have any BIG biodiesel industry and no big lobby in contrast with Big Oil and now ethanol (agricultural).
Biodiesel could be a solution especially biodiesel from algae - algae farms, but it would require tens of $ billions investment and lots of government work (new lows, EPA standards, tax policies, etc., ). With no active lobby it is not going to happen...
It would be kind of shooting yourselves in the foot. You increase the demand for corn ethanol and it increases the pollution in the Gulf of Mexico. I do understand the dealers selling them. For each FFV GM or Ford sells they save money on CAFE violations. Getting to sell a fullsized PU with a 33 MPG gimme is a good reason to push them whereever you find buyers. I would imagine there is no difference in MPG when you use regular unleaded. So it is kind of a win win. You get to look green and so does GM. With a very small investment.
I, for one, will now have to officially reconsider my perception of the performance vs. mileage aspects of diesels.....
While it appears as though from a PURE performance standpoint (instrumented 0-60 and 1/4 mile times) the 330d is a tick behind the 330i, the difference in fuel consumption was astounding. And from the driver's seat, the perception was that the 330d was just as quick, if not quicker, than the 330i.
Gasoline 40.00%
Diesel 38.00%
Biodiesel 6.00%
E10 6.00%
E85 5.00%
Methanol 1.00%
Hydrogen 1.00%
Propane 1.00%
Natural gas 1.00%
Electricity 1.00%
Buffalo chips 0.0001%
Vegetable oil 0.0001%
Moonshine 0.00001%
Nitro-methane 0.00001%
Dead cats 0.0000001%
Inventor Fuels Car With Dead Cats
http://www.wusatv.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=42960
("...only 20 cats are needed for a full tank.")
Sounds like they may have took that from the Weekly World News.
found something
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9339530
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
The article suggests you can go to Costco and buy cooking oil in bulk (at a price slightly lower than diesel), use french fry oil "donated" by the fast food restaurant du jour and with a conversion kit run your Jetta (in this case) on a mixture (but not literally mixed) of diesel and Mazola Corn Oil.
Here is an example -- a 170 mile trip: 160 miles on corn oil and 10 miles on diesel fuel. Renewable and ostensibly pollution free, vegetable oil cranks the MPG's to 600 for the trip (counting, of course, the impact ONLY of the diesel -- much the same way the E85 technicality raises MPG's while simultaneously dropping the real MPG by about 30%.)
The cooking oil, however, seems to have the power and mileage of dino-diesel.
Apparently, there is even a filter (that you must change) that almost sounds like you can dump the french fry oil right into the cooking oil fuel tank (the thing has a diesel tank and a cooking oil tank, separate.)
Here's the twist -- it works, it seems to work well -- and it is technically illegal to use cooking oil TODAY.
I had a flat tire yesterday and I was talking with the salesrep at my Audi dealer while my tire was being plugged, he told me he had customers who were forever asking about diesel.
He said, "in ten years of being in the car business, I've never had anyone ask about the mileage of an Audi A8 -- until recently."
He concluded that he believes sales will rise (and his income likewise) once diesel cars are offered. He says that the folks who buy Premium cars seem to be very much aware that diesels are the new high performance cars and that he thinks that will trickle downstream.
I didn't put him up to that either. :shades: :surprise:
How is it technically illegal to do that?
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Your experience with the Audi dealer is the same as mine with the VW dealer. They told me a day does not go by that someone wants to know why they do not have any VW TDI vehicles for sale. That is what I base my thinking on how well diesel cars will sell. Biodiesel is better known in CA than E85. The Bay area is a hot bed of biodiesel environmental enthusiasts. I do not know of a legitimate environmental group that supports corn ethanol.
Reg unleaded $2.99
10% ethanol $2.97 ($3.07 on an energy basis)
E85 $2.39 ($3.19 on an energy basis)
Ethanol based fuel (though more expensive) is closer in value to regular unleaded than it has been for some time.
The media is reporting lately that ethanol producers are cutting prices to get back in the game.
The amount of corn that has gone towards ethanol production has tripled in the last 5 years, from 18 million tons to 55 million. This pace of growth is not slowing down. At some point it has to impact food prices. High gas prices make it less affordable to drive. I have no problem with the fact that the more affluent will be able to outbid the less affluent for a gallon of gas. But at the point we start outbidding people for their dinner in order to satisfy our insatiable desire to burn fuel, IMO, that is not quite as morally acceptable. At the very least our government needs to eliminate the 51 cent subsidy on ethanol production.
It is remarkable though that it can be done: 170 miles on 2 cupfuls of diesel and less than three gallons of vegetable oil in a VW Jetta (which one must presume had power steering, brakes, windows, air conditioning and at least an OK sound system and supportive bucket seat.)
The modification to allow the use of oil is not a factory option -- some engineer and mechanic made it work.
The mileage exceeds 50MPG on the oil alone.
The power and pollution are the same and less respectively.
No refinery had to be built -- General Foods or General Mills or Kraft or someone, though, had to crank out 3 gallons of corn oil that will never be used to toast and french fry.
Or, Burger Chef and Jeff have to have had enough excess oil in the fryer waste oil container to create a 3 gallon surplus after the 'tater bits were strained outta it.
The point is not to literally suggest we start glug glug glugging corn oil into our spare fuel tanks. Rather it is to remark on the amazing AND current "low-tech" technology that will permit little if any side effects from the driver's point of view (or his/her wallet's either.)
We keep attempting to come up with these fancy schmancy ways to propel our cars down the highway -- and the best we could come up with is E85?
Odd and unlikely as it may seem, it almost makes MORE sense to imagine using Wesson Oil -- used and new Wesson Oil -- than any attempt to mix gasoline and ethanol ever could.
We have some guy, I'll wager, who put some plumbing on his nearly dead VW diesel and somehow the damn contraption worked and he is now offering conversion kits and, son of a gun, THEY WORK!
We have so many ways to "stretch" our dino fuel and I concede ethanol may well prove to be one of them -- just not ahead of diesel, bio-diesel, blended diesel or Crisco!
Please, remember that Crisco no longer contains any animal fat -- but of course, it makes me wonder if bacon grease or lard would work in the Jetta (Sunday Jul 23rd NYT article on driving a car 170 miles on cooking oil.)
The author claims he got 100 free gallons of used oil -- hmmm at 50+ MPG's this means he went 5,000 miles without buying the bulk of his fuel. A couple of cups of diesel for every hundred or two seems like a helluva way to stretch those dino dollars. :surprise:
It also helps to be rich enough to live in a rain forest on a tropical island. For some reason it just doesn't seem right to think of Willie in a Mercedes.
No problem, some other folks felt the same way and built him a vehicle that suits him perfect. I want to order one if they get them in production.
Willie's Willys
I can't believe there is a blog on this issue. Anyway, nice Willys
I remember a while back one of the major automotive mags fitted a diesel into a 1/2 ton Chevy. It was an incredibly hot ride with great FE. It's a shame we can't get something like that since it seems everybody just has to have at least 1 truck in their garage.