Unless one is the oem or does custom building, etc. ..."using a turbo allows you to use a smaller engine to get the same power."... doesn't allow US to do anything. Indeed you seem to be making the point I have made a number of times, that is what oems such asd MB, VW have done and will continue to do, when it offers Jetta 1.8T 2.0, and 1.9 TDI models. The markets then of course can and do decide.
One interesting thing about the new ULSD is cetane additives might have become redundant. CA #2 diesel is supposed to be 50 or so. and I think VW calls for 49. Before of course cetane was less. Better or more lubricity agents have (supposed) to have been added to the USLD, so the good 2 fer additive such as Primrose 405/C might be moot. It is a cetane additive and lubricity product. I continue to use it as so called insurance after the fact but many to move the product. I haven't decided to use it after my current supply runs out. So far it has been seamless as to mpg. No addition or loss.
"...power consumes fuel, and turbos provide fuel economy benefits by allowing the use of smaller engines and using less horsepower overall. That is simply fact, and there is nothing to disagree with."
"Er, there's a link in the post! Go ahead and click on it, it won't bite."
The link you supplied has no reference to your claim which is why I asked if you had a source for your statement.
The first quote is self contradictory and includes a non sequiter.
"...using a turbo allows you to use a smaller engine to get the same power."
This was not under discussion or being questioned and was not the object of your post.
"turbo should create some fuel savings as compared to a larger engine with the same output, as the EPA will tell you."
Could you supply the EPA source you are referring to. Also, the claim is not supported in real world examples such as the one I provided comparing Volvo turbo to non turbo on the same engine where any increase in power was accompanied by a decrease in fuel economy.
"...racing, you won't get much if any fuel savings because boost is almost always on...."
The cars in question were also street driven where the effects on mileage were apparent and measured. The forced induction products being installed sometimes included a disclaimer that modifications would result in decreased fuel economy.
I'm going to get hair extensions, because I'm going to need to go on tour to support all of this head banging.
The link you supplied has no reference to your claim which is why I asked if you had a source for your statement.
The link that I provided in #494 is from FuelEconomy.gov, which is a website from the EPA. It says the following (you can read it above where I posted it previously, but I'll repeat it for your convenience):
Turbochargers and superchargers are fans that force compressed air into an engine’s cylinders. A turbocharger fan is powered by exhaust from the engine, while a supercharger fan is powered by the engine itself.
Both technologies allow more compressed air and fuel to be injected into the cylinders, generating extra power from each explosion. A turbocharged or supercharged engine produces more power than the same engine without the charging, allowing manufacturers to user smaller engines without sacrificing performance.
Potential Efficiency Improvement: 7.5%
Please feel free to read the link in #494. I copied the above verbatim from that source.
"...using a turbo allows you to use a smaller engine to get the same power."...This was not under discussion or being questioned and was not the object of your post.
I have made this point so many times now that I may as well just link to my prior posts! It has been one of my central points throughout this entire discussion.
The forced induction products being installed sometimes included a disclaimer that modifications would result in decreased fuel economy.
Yes, if you take a given powerplant and add a turbocharger to it, you should get more power and some reduction in fuel economy. But -- and please read this carefully -- if you use a turbocharged engine in place of a larger normally aspirated engine with equal output, the turbo motor should get better fuel economy than would the larger normally aspirated motor, because the smaller motor will be producing lower overall horsepower most of the time, which will result in higher fuel efficiency.
Come on, folks, this thing has been awfully redundant. Please go back and read the prior posts if don't follow this issue.
Well, you did do a fine job of avoiding the questions, not addressing your own contradictions, massaging non existent references, creating "facts" from thin air, addressing questions not raised, and pretending you have not danced yourself into an impossible corner of contradictons and non sequiters.
I will give you a B+ for avoidance, a C+ for blather, and a D- for Dancing. It is not clear from your posts if you really know anything about cars in the real world, so I will give you an Incomplete in Automotive.
I directly addressed your points. Aside from shaking my head out of bewilderment (not entirely a bad thing, I'll incorporate into my new metal band), the only possible alternative is to restate the obvious, which is getting to be old hat.
Gosh, you couldn't bring yourself to compare different sized gas and diesel engines and now you want to compare different sized turbo and non turbo engines? Pullease!!
I've addressed all of these points, and repeatedly. I'm afraid that I could repeat them over another 100 posts, and you'd still claim that I haven't addressed them. The whole denial/ Egypt thing comes to mind about now...
Ouch. I indicated from the very beginning that diesel gets better fuel economy. I've acknowledged this at very points throughout the thread, several times.
However, I have pointed out that:
-The diesel advantage is not as great as some of you claim when you compare turbocharged motors of equal output to each other. In other words, some of you need to stop exaggerating and isolate the diesel component from the other aspects at work here.
-Some of you are attributing benefits to diesel that are actually attributable to forced induction and lower power. Give credit where it is due, instead of giving 100% of it to the diesel, and recognize that the fuel savings would be less if you compared comparable cars.
That's it, all very simple stuff that, never in my life would I have imagined could have possibly been regarded as being even remotely controversial. This is just basic fact that I figured would be covered within a few posts without any drama.
Yet this seems to have spiraled downward into some quasi-religious discussion that pits a Diesel god against a Gas god in a contest for heaven or hell, when they are simply two different fuel choices that each have their advantages and disadvantages.
Edit: This supports my doubts that diesel will ever be a viable player in the US market, unless fuel prices go through the roof and/or if fuel taxes are changed to give the advantage to diesel as is the case in Europe. (And the latter will never happen here.) If diesel can't be discussed dispassionately, instead of being typecast as a non-mainstream product that can't be assessed or criticized on its merits, then it will never be viewed as being much more than a "cult" product that appeals only to a few diehards. Honestly, folks, this should't be that big of a deal.
... In other words, some of you need to stop exaggerating and isolate the diesel component from the other aspects at work here. "....
31 epa - 49 epa does not = 18 /49 which does NOT = .3673469 % percent.
I think you have only you to thank for your credibility.
But I agree with you,
..."That's it, all very simple stuff that, never in my life would I have imagined could have possibly been regarded as being even remotely controversial. This is just basic fact that I figured would be covered within a few posts without any drama."...
However the drama was all yours.
..."Edit: This supports my doubts that diesel will ever be a viable player in the US market, unless fuel prices go through the roof and/or if fuel taxes are changed to give the advantage to diesel as is the case in Europe. (And the latter will never happen here.) If diesel can't be discussed dispassionately, instead of being typecast as a non-mainstream product that can't be assessed or criticized on its merits, then it will never be viewed as being much more than a "cult" product that appeals only to a few diehards. Honestly, folks, this should't be that big of a deal. "...
Actually the best would be to NOT buy any diesel products. Even with this emphasis, the passenger vehicle fleet is a tad less than 3%. Now a lot of oems are planning to bring diesel products to the USA market. I would be against BANNING diesel products and indeed, it would be next to impossible to do so. However the benefits of diesels have caught on. So even if it doesnt so call catch on, I will run the diesel I have even at todays price inequities, at between 26-35% cheaper per mile. With growth, the price of #2 diesel should approach par with unleaded regular. It is already PAR with unleaded premium and the unleaded premium gasser population is bigger than diesels'. My take it would be slow growth like in SUV's which is 12% of the passenger vehicle fleet.
So once again, you're back to comparing your 90hp car with a 0-60 time of 14 seconds with a car with double the power and a 0-60 time of about 8 seconds. (300 posts on this topic hasn't done much good, apparently...)
Tell me, how do you believe those two with such differing performance characteristics make for a fair comparison? Is the fact that they both have four tires make them similar enough in your book?
By the way, you're going to get to sit front-row center, with VIP tickets to the mosh pit. I have you to thank for my new role in the metal world -- rock on!
..."It is already PAR with unleaded premium and the unleaded premium gasser population is bigger than diesels'."...
So if it is already 26-35% cheaper than unleaded regular it will be even better than that given the unleaded premium population and the real reason why they use unleaded premium.
Again if you do the math which you either can't or won't, it is easy to see that even diesel cars in Europe per mile driven equal some of our gassers per mile driven in the USA. Indeed one of my prior posts does a per mile driven in UK and USA. So in terms of cost per mile driven "Europe" so to speak is ALREADY upon us!!! You might not see this, for math is SEEMINGLY a barrier to you.
I'm not sure how some of you believe that diesel and unleaded prices are on par. According to the DOE, the price of a gallon of diesel is $0.255 higher than is a gallon of unleaded. The difference in the Rocky Mountain region is $0.464 per gallon.
While the fuel costs might be lower overall on a per mile basis, the per gallon costs are higher. Of course, if you want to argue with the Department of Energy about that, go right ahead!
..."I'm not sure how some of you believe that diesel and unleaded prices are on par."...
That is because that was NOT said. Your quote indicates that is what YOU said, but that would be WRONG, and a GROSS DISTORTION of what I said and wrong again. So if truly your quote is what you are saying I would agree with you that you would be WRONG!! IS it?
So for example: local unleaded regular is 2.49. Diesel is 2.79. Unleaded PREMIUM is 2.79. Which two are at par? Which is cheaper? Which two are more expensive. Which one is cheaper?
101.... The UK Honda Accord does 0-62 in 9.4 it's 2.2 liters. The uk Accord gasser is 7.9. The UK Diesel civic is 0-62 in 8.4 the civic gasser is 8.6. Diesels are now quick enough for most of us.
I agree with you that the performance gap is closing with some of these cars (although Americans these days still want 0-60 times below 10 seconds.)
Please note -- I have not been critical of the technology, just the exaggerations being made about the technology. I think that they have their place, but that place probably won't be a large one in the US market.
pch101 is still trying to convince people who know better that going by "peak horsepower" which an engine can potentially develop will magically cut the diesel advantage in fuel economy for comparable diesel and gas engines. He keeps distorting what the turbos are being used on both types of engines. He believes a Gas engine is dominate due to it having a greater Peak Hp then a diesel engine of the same displacement. He keeps avoiding why diesel engines get better FE then gassers. They develop more useable horsepower due to their higher torque at the lower rpm range then a gas engine of the same displacement. No one drives their vehicles at peak horsepower all the time. Maybe once in a blue moon. Most people operate their vehicles below 50% of the horsepower a gas engine can develop. Drive by your tach next time and see what range you drive. Then get the torque and Horsepower curves for your engine. You really might learn something. But as shown by your posts you just want to argue.
pch101 is still trying to convince people who know better that going by "peak horsepower" which an engine can potentially develop will magically cut the diesel advantage in fuel economy for comparable diesel and gas engines
If you're trying to claim that a slower car is a better car because it gets better fuel economy, then I'd say -- compare the car to a car with similar performance!
Comparing 90hp cars to 180 hp cars is just not honest. (I suppose that I could use harsher words to describe such extreme comparisons, but I'll keep those to myself.)
He keeps avoiding why diesel engines get better FE then gassers.
I did? I figured that referencing the lower rev range and higher compression accomplished that. Perhaps I didn't do it with enough emotional conviction to please you!
He believes a Gas engine is dominate due to it having a greater Peak Hp then a diesel engine of the same displacement.
It does help it to go faster. Horsepower is good if you want to go quickly, as any racer should know. Even a diesel race car has to develop horsepower to be competitive...and it needs a bigger engine to do it.
"Comparing 90hp cars to 180 hp cars is just not honest."
That is your opinion, but over all it is mal adaptive.
90/155 vs 180/173 is exactly that. Too bad for you you find it hard to deal with. But is 90 mph in a a 90 hp car faster or slower (or the same) in a 180 hp car? I already know that the 90 hp car gets 48 mpg. The 180 hp car will be bragging to get 31 mpg. But as you have already said 49-31 is not = to 18 / 49 is not equalled to 37%. So for example if you use that to justify NOT getting a diesel, that is fine. A few of us have already told you a diesel will probably not be something you'd be happy with.
You're right. Whether it takes 10 seconds or 10 minutes to get to highway speed, what does that matter?
Particularly for people who enjoy driving, acceleration makes no difference at all. We may as well start comparing Chevy Aveos to Maserati Quattroportes side by side, being that they both have tires and CD players, and can both get to 80 mph.
Scroll, ignore, whatever you want to call it - personally-directed posts just can't keep up with my lightning-fast reflexes. Writing them is a just a waste of time as they will be removed.
MODERATOR /ADMINISTRATOR Find me at kirstie_h@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name. 2015 Kia Soul, 2021 Subaru Forester (kirstie_h), 2024 GMC Sierra 1500 (mr. kirstie_h) Review your vehicle
I second that motion. If you can't restrain yourself from making personal attacks and limit yourself to a discussion of related issues, please save yourself and others valuable time by simply scrolling on by and focusing your attentions elsewhere. Otherwise all such posts will be removed without notice.
"Particularly for people who enjoy driving, acceleration makes no difference at all. We may as well start comparing Chevy Aveos to Maserati Quattroportes side by side, being that they both have tires and CD players, and can both get to 80 mph. "
Those examples do not have diesel models, so they are totally irrelevant to the diesel thread.
A few of us have already told you a diesel will probably not be something you'd be happy with. You are wasting time on a diesel thread.
Given there are many oems and many modesl (over 540 at last indications), indeed there are very few diesel models. Some that come to mind are the VW TDI across the Jetta, New Beetle, Golf and the Passat, MB E320 series, Jeep Liberty and the bigggie three offerings of trucks Ford 250, GM 2500, Dodge RAM 2500. Older MB diesels are on the road.
The majority of Maserati vs Chevy Aveo "TYPE" postings are almost ALL totally irrelevant (gassers with no diesel models). So anti diesel posts are a thinly disguised vilification of diesel and those that are thinking of them. Those that have them are usually happy with them and the concept.
Of course it is apples to apples to compare Jetta against Golf against New Beetle etc.
Actually, I'd like a twin turbo diesel Corvette 6 speed road car. This probably won't be happening for at least 5 years. Most Corvette purists would freak in the mean time of course.
"The majority of Maserati vs Chevy Aveo "TYPE" postings are almost ALL totally irrelevant (gassers with no diesel models). "
Indeed even the one who draws this bogus analogy/comparison thinks so. The take is to blamed it on imaginary straw persons.
But even at that, it is instructive, as attitudes like that actually are held at the market and regulatory levels, to name a few. But as posted before, it is IMPOSSIBLE to ban diesel. That is the real secret that is increasing becoming apparent. So it is interesting to study that skitzoid opinion. The core issues are there is WAY too much to lose at a MYRIAD of levels to change, even to a minority position of 12 % of the passenger vehicle fleet population being diesel, i.e. similar to the population size of SUV's. Diesel model SUV's would indeed offer multi solutions. That is the so called "problem/s", but I see it as a multiple myriad of opportunities.
The upshot: the greater the railing or vilification, the greater the growth.
It is also obvious the European oems just have to get their already made diesel models to comply with US standards which as they have demonstrated on the gasser side to be just the course of doing business in the USA. The Japanese and US oems might have a way TOUGHER row to hoe, as they do not produce anywhere near the % of diesel models as in demonstrated in Europeans passenger fleet being 50% DIESEL and GROWING. So logistically it is NOT geared to produce diesels in any numbers or %'s. The reality is it is geared to produce close to 98-99.9 % GASSER.
Since we haven't revised our Membership Agreement for 2007, personally-directed comments still don't fly. HOT TIP: Ignore posts or members you don't care for. Your posts will stay up longer, and as a side benefit, your fingers will appreciate the break.
MODERATOR /ADMINISTRATOR Find me at kirstie_h@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name. 2015 Kia Soul, 2021 Subaru Forester (kirstie_h), 2024 GMC Sierra 1500 (mr. kirstie_h) Review your vehicle
My personal preference would be an Aston Martin DB9 - with a twin-turbo diesel. Perhaps take the one from the Jaguar XJ : 2.7 Ltr, twin-turbo, 204bhp, 321 lbft. And I'm sure those figures can be increased without any demerit in life expectancy etc. (same performance as its 3.0 Ltr V6 gasser sibling but with 30%+ better economy and both running 6-spd auto's). Both Aston and Jag are Ford companies so who knows ? Same thoughts re the Aston purists; but they'd get over it just like they did when the company became a Ford unit and the world was supposed to end. Where do I sign ?
How about diesel in NASCAR ? Just a thought.
I think this thread has been excellent and you can now proclaim that "Yes, this is the day of the diesel - almost".
Actually thinking about it, there is a greater likelihood of something like a Aston Martin DB9 going diesel (big D) earlier than something like a Corvette. Using the BMW 3 series D as an example, this would be a killer application here in the USA. Effortless cruises at 40 mpg, with 15.9 gal on board @ 80 mph for 600 plus miles. WOW!!
A sound bite able reason? NATURALLY, since diesel IS 50% and growing in Europe. The DB9 to me is truly a beautiful car. Some call it a modern work of art. (Won't know for 30-50 years to see if folks wont pay millions then)
Having had my TDI chipped which required the removal of the ECU and removal of chip and replacement chip installed, I have to say that relying on Wikkipedia will not provide accurate information regarding diesel vehicles. At least not in the case of chipping. And my MkIV TDI was not built in the 90's.
"Wikipedia" online reference is no substitute for years of experience and knowledge and has provided less than complete info. on the subject of chipping of recent diesel cars sold in the US. Majority of diesel cars sold in the last 6 years were VW TDI's and the chip tuning process involved an actual chip and soldier. The ECU had to be removed from the vehicle. Upsolute and Wett for example.
Torque, Torque, Torque, Torque. The joy of diesel.
quote pch101(Banging head into wall...)
It is commonly called "chipping", even though the new cars don't require a chip swap, just as we often call all tissue "Kleenex" even though it isn't all a Kleenex brand product. Perhaps Wikipedia will help you to learn about this:
Chip tuning refers to changing or modifying an EPROM chip in a car's or other vehicle's electronic control unit (ECU) to achieve better performance, whether it be more power, cleaner emissions, better fuel economy, or better appearance.
This was done with early engine computers in the 1980s and 1990s. Today, the term chip tuning can be misleading, as people will often use it to describe ECU tuning that does not involve swapping the chip. Modern ECUs can be tuned by simply updating their software through a standard interface, such as OBDII. This procedure is commonly referred to as engine or ECU tuning. ECUs are a relatively recent addition to the automobile, having first appeared in the late 1970s.
..."It is also obvious the European oems just have to get their already made diesel models to comply with US standards which as they have demonstrated on the gasser side to be just the course of doing business in the USA. The Japanese and US oems might have a way TOUGHER row to hoe, as they do not produce anywhere near the % of diesel models as in demonstrated in Europeans passenger fleet being 50% DIESEL and GROWING. So logistically it is NOT geared to produce diesels in any numbers or %'s. The reality is it is geared to produce close to 98-99.9 % GASSER."...
Biggie three case/s in point. 25-35 mpg turbo diesel engine products for GM Tahoe, FORD Explorer/Expedition/Navigator, DCB products. This would literally revolutionalize this segment. And with ZERO additional mpg legislation. But wrongly/correctly the SUV has become the poster child for vilification.
thanks for the good wishes, ruking. the trip was safe for me, but less so for the 5 drivers i had to call 911 for after they spun out on I95 during heavy rains, from maryland all the way to CT... btw, the mpg dropped substantially with AC running in the humid/warm southern states - to about 40 mpg! ew! as for the benz E320 and just 22% better mpg - i used to own a gasser E320 and it maxxed at 22 mpg. it was a 4matic though, and was the least reliable car i have ever owned. the features and ride quality were top notch though. i'll probably buy another benz some day, but will only consider diesels. folks, thanks for reminding me of the DASHER DIESEL automatic a friend had back in the 80s. WOW was that thing a slug, but the soot-clouds it could put onto tailgators were stupendous and hilarious. hey gbrozen, tell us more aboutyour cat "mittens". dog photos too. maybe a photo of your pets in your vehicle(s)! (i'm serious). btw, it is not news to all of you that power equals delta energy over delta time - this is by definition. for me today was not a day-of-the-diesel since it's getting the 10k oil change at the dealer. regarding turbos & superchargers - one reason we see those more on euro models is that some euro countries have engine displacement taxes/limits, so forced air induction is a way to get more power & torque without being subject to the tax/surcharge/whatever. pch, your points are well taken by me and my 2 bengal-cats, for what little that is worth! but me and the bulk of this week's autoweek magazine survey-responders think "clean-diesels" are going to be the biggest factor in increasing USA fleet fuel economy. btw, as of a couple years ago, there is/was a dude out there who has a diesel engine in a corvette stingray - google it - it is "out there".
MODERATOR /ADMINISTRATOR Find me at kirstie_h@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name. 2015 Kia Soul, 2021 Subaru Forester (kirstie_h), 2024 GMC Sierra 1500 (mr. kirstie_h) Review your vehicle
Attached is copied from a UK motoring forum, Pistonheads. Seems relevant to some of this forum's discussions. Apologies for length.
Lowest emissions in the world, claims VW
Volkswagen claims to have produced the cleanest ever turbo-diesel engine. According to Wolfsburg, first test drives show reduced nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions. In the Jetta a new 2.0-litre common rail diesel engine with a NOx reservoir catalytic converter was used, which complies to the Californian emission standard ‘Tier 2 / Bin 5’, the most stringent worldwide. Four other US states -- Massachusetts, New York, Vermont and Maine -- are also mandating limits of NOx emissions to 70 mg per mile.
VW engineers used new emission post-treatment technology with the result of 90 per cent lower NOx. The first production run of the ‘Clean TDI’ with NOx post-treatment system will be made during 2008 in the USA.
Standards compliance meant the development of new emission treatment technology, so VW came up with two new systems connected to the oxidation catalytic converter and the particle filter in the exhaust system.
New NOx reservoir catalytic converter technology is currently being tested for car models below the Passat class. Nitrogen oxide is absorbed like a sponge, leading to a high level of efficiency. As with the particle filter, the system is regularly cleaned without driver intervention. To do this, the engine management system changes operation modes for a few seconds.
Larger and heavier models feature the Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) catalytic converter. The central element is an aqueous solution such as AdBlue, which is transported in an additional tank made from stainless steel or plastic. Urea comprises 32.5 per cent of this solution, which is continuously injected into the exhaust system in front of the SCR catalytic converter using a metering valve. The dosage is made according to the gas emission stream.
The urea solution is finely atomised by a grille and is converted in hot exhaust gas into ammonia before it reaches the catalytic converter. The ammonia then reacts with the nitrogen oxide in the catalytic converter and separates it into nitrogen and water. Unlike pure ammonia, AdBlue solution is non-toxic, odourless and biodegradable. Volkswagen intends to install the additional tank so that the car can be driven without maintenance between services. US regulations mandate that the system must be fully functional for at least 150,000 miles.
BlueTec is a joint project between Volkswagen, Audi and DaimlerChrysler, and is intended to establish the diesel engine further in the American car market. The manufacturers are convinced that the diesel engine is the clean, low-consumption alternative for future car use, which is backed up by current economic and political conditions. Each of the manufacturers involved in the BlueTec joint project is working on individual technical solutions for stringent exhaust gas emission standards and plans to market these independently.
Thanks, that's Great news! Any guess on torque at X RPM? Also, the new Chrysler T&C is reportedly exporting the 2008 version to Europe with a diesel. Any solid news on that, any hope for US distribution?
Not in the near term. It might be the "Decade of the Diesel" staring in 2010
There are still a few issues to sort out. One is the lack of production capability. If interest is high we might see more models in 5 to 7 years.
The second issue that needs to be resolved is the higher price of diesel. Diesel is running 30 to 50 cents higher than regular as I write this. The mileage advantage starts to evaporate at those prices. A person also needs to factor in any premium for a diesel engine.
That sucking sound you hear is all the diesel fuel going to Europe!
Till then, those with diesels will have to run around at 25-35% cheaper per mile fuel prices!! The %'s go up with unleaded regular on par with #2 diesel!! (36.73% CHEAPER)
Today's local corner store prices 2.89 #2 diesel, 2.49 unleaded regular (dont forget there is a much great population and percentage of folks using unleaded premium which is pretty close to the #2 diesel prices)
So a 2003 Jetta TDI 49 vs Jetta 2.0/1.8T is TDI $2.89/49 mpg= $.0589795 per mile vs gasser 2.49/31 mpg= .0803225 per mile. or .2657163 % CHEAPER.
ruking1, you are doing a great job but how about setting up your calculator to just output whole % numbers ? 98 decimal places is great in the lab but kind of pointless in the real world. Presume your last post meant 26.57163% CHEAPER, (i.e. circa 27%), not .2657163% (?). Sorry to be picky but I'm a simple soul and lose track when number strings get too long. Not a complaint, just a request.
As for other posters questions : No idea what the Torque output of these new engines will be but can't see why they'd be vastly different to today's, (my 2 year old 1.9 TDI is 130bhp/228lbft).
Will post any other good diesel news, from Europe, as I see it.
Great forum and super contributors. Thank you all.
“Till then, those with diesels will have to run around at 25-35% cheaper per mile fuel prices!!”
Is cheaper fuel the key or is it total ownership cost? You can get a Honda Civic for about $16,000 which gets 40 mpg on the highway (2007). A nearby dealer had a 2006 Volkswagen Jetta Sedan 1.9L DIESEL Edition for $26,600. I would be better off getting the Civic and saving $10,600. If you put the $10,600 in a CD at 4% you would make $424 in interest the first year. The interest would more than offset the fuel savings. You can also look at the finance savings if you buy on credit.
It looks like the Civic using CNG is cheaper.
From the 2005 EPA Fuel guide Jetta ................................................... M-5 ...... 1.8/4 .... 24/31 ..... $1,082 ... P T ........................................................... M-6 ...... 1.8/4 .... 21/29 ..... $1,220 ... P T ........................................................... A-S5 .... 1.8/4 .... 22/29 ..... $1,170 ... P T ........................................................... M-5 ...... 1.9/4 .... 38/46 ........ $567 ... D T ........................................................... A-S5 .... 1.9/4 .... 32/43 ........ $646 ... D T ........................................................... A-S6 .... 1.9/4 .... 35/42 ........ $611 ... D T
Is cheaper fuel the key or is it total ownership cost? You can get a Honda Civic for about $16,000 which gets 40 mpg on the highway (2007). A nearby dealer had a 2006 Volkswagen Jetta Sedan 1.9L DIESEL Edition for $26,600. I would be better off getting the Civic and saving $10,600. If you put the $10,600 in a CD at 4% you would make $424 in interest the first year. The interest would more than offset the fuel savings. You can also look at the finance savings if you buy on credit.
Gosh this line of reasoning is awfully familiar :surprise: . Wonder where I've heard it before?
Comments
"Er, there's a link in the post! Go ahead and click on it, it won't bite."
The link you supplied has no reference to your claim which is why I asked if you had a source for your statement.
The first quote is self contradictory and includes a non sequiter.
"...using a turbo allows you to use a smaller engine to get the same power."
This was not under discussion or being questioned and was not the object of your post.
"turbo should create some fuel savings as compared to a larger engine with the same output, as the EPA will tell you."
Could you supply the EPA source you are referring to. Also, the claim is not supported in real world examples such as the one I provided comparing Volvo turbo to non turbo on the same engine where any increase in power was accompanied by a decrease in fuel economy.
"...racing, you won't get much if any fuel savings because boost is almost always on...."
The cars in question were also street driven where the effects on mileage were apparent and measured. The forced induction products being installed sometimes included a disclaimer that modifications would result in decreased fuel economy.
The link you supplied has no reference to your claim which is why I asked if you had a source for your statement.
The link that I provided in #494 is from FuelEconomy.gov, which is a website from the EPA. It says the following (you can read it above where I posted it previously, but I'll repeat it for your convenience):
Turbochargers and superchargers are fans that force compressed air into an engine’s cylinders. A turbocharger fan is powered by exhaust from the engine, while a supercharger fan is powered by the engine itself.
Both technologies allow more compressed air and fuel to be injected into the cylinders, generating extra power from each explosion. A turbocharged or supercharged engine produces more power than the same engine without the charging, allowing manufacturers to user smaller engines without sacrificing performance.
Potential Efficiency Improvement: 7.5%
Please feel free to read the link in #494. I copied the above verbatim from that source.
"...using a turbo allows you to use a smaller engine to get the same power."...This was not under discussion or being questioned and was not the object of your post.
I have made this point so many times now that I may as well just link to my prior posts! It has been one of my central points throughout this entire discussion.
The forced induction products being installed sometimes included a disclaimer that modifications would result in decreased fuel economy.
Yes, if you take a given powerplant and add a turbocharger to it, you should get more power and some reduction in fuel economy. But -- and please read this carefully -- if you use a turbocharged engine in place of a larger normally aspirated engine with equal output, the turbo motor should get better fuel economy than would the larger normally aspirated motor, because the smaller motor will be producing lower overall horsepower most of the time, which will result in higher fuel efficiency.
Come on, folks, this thing has been awfully redundant. Please go back and read the prior posts if don't follow this issue.
I will give you a B+ for avoidance, a C+ for blather, and a D- for Dancing. It is not clear from your posts if you really know anything about cars in the real world, so I will give you an Incomplete in Automotive.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
Turbo's get more power than NA engines of the same size. Big whoop!
Turbo's get better FE than NA engines of the same power. Again, big whoop!
Neither of which get the same amount of FE and torque as comparable diesel engines.
And that's what you seem to have a problem understanding.
:confuse:
However, I have pointed out that:
-The diesel advantage is not as great as some of you claim when you compare turbocharged motors of equal output to each other. In other words, some of you need to stop exaggerating and isolate the diesel component from the other aspects at work here.
-Some of you are attributing benefits to diesel that are actually attributable to forced induction and lower power. Give credit where it is due, instead of giving 100% of it to the diesel, and recognize that the fuel savings would be less if you compared comparable cars.
That's it, all very simple stuff that, never in my life would I have imagined could have possibly been regarded as being even remotely controversial. This is just basic fact that I figured would be covered within a few posts without any drama.
Yet this seems to have spiraled downward into some quasi-religious discussion that pits a Diesel god against a Gas god in a contest for heaven or hell, when they are simply two different fuel choices that each have their advantages and disadvantages.
Edit: This supports my doubts that diesel will ever be a viable player in the US market, unless fuel prices go through the roof and/or if fuel taxes are changed to give the advantage to diesel as is the case in Europe. (And the latter will never happen here.) If diesel can't be discussed dispassionately, instead of being typecast as a non-mainstream product that can't be assessed or criticized on its merits, then it will never be viewed as being much more than a "cult" product that appeals only to a few diehards. Honestly, folks, this should't be that big of a deal.
... In other words, some of you need to stop exaggerating and isolate the diesel component from the other aspects at work here.
"....
31 epa - 49 epa does not = 18 /49 which does NOT = .3673469 % percent.
I think you have only you to thank for your credibility.
But I agree with you,
..."That's it, all very simple stuff that, never in my life would I have imagined could have possibly been regarded as being even remotely controversial. This is just basic fact that I figured would be covered within a few posts without any drama."...
However the drama was all yours.
..."Edit: This supports my doubts that diesel will ever be a viable player in the US market, unless fuel prices go through the roof and/or if fuel taxes are changed to give the advantage to diesel as is the case in Europe. (And the latter will never happen here.) If diesel can't be discussed dispassionately, instead of being typecast as a non-mainstream product that can't be assessed or criticized on its merits, then it will never be viewed as being much more than a "cult" product that appeals only to a few diehards. Honestly, folks, this should't be that big of a deal. "...
Actually the best would be to NOT buy any diesel products. Even with this emphasis, the passenger vehicle fleet is a tad less than 3%. Now a lot of oems are planning to bring diesel products to the USA market. I would be against BANNING diesel products and indeed, it would be next to impossible to do so. However the benefits of diesels have caught on. So even if it doesnt so call catch on, I will run the diesel I have even at todays price inequities, at between 26-35% cheaper per mile. With growth, the price of #2 diesel should approach par with unleaded regular. It is already PAR with unleaded premium and the unleaded premium gasser population is bigger than diesels'. My take it would be slow growth like in SUV's which is 12% of the passenger vehicle fleet.
Tell me, how do you believe those two with such differing performance characteristics make for a fair comparison? Is the fact that they both have four tires make them similar enough in your book?
By the way, you're going to get to sit front-row center, with VIP tickets to the mosh pit. I have you to thank for my new role in the metal world -- rock on!
So if it is already 26-35% cheaper than unleaded regular it will be even better than that given the unleaded premium population and the real reason why they use unleaded premium.
Again if you do the math which you either can't or won't, it is easy to see that even diesel cars in Europe per mile driven equal some of our gassers per mile driven in the USA. Indeed one of my prior posts does a per mile driven in UK and USA. So in terms of cost per mile driven "Europe" so to speak is ALREADY upon us!!! You might not see this, for math is SEEMINGLY a barrier to you.
While the fuel costs might be lower overall on a per mile basis, the per gallon costs are higher. Of course, if you want to argue with the Department of Energy about that, go right ahead!
That is because that was NOT said. Your quote indicates that is what YOU said, but that would be WRONG, and a GROSS DISTORTION of what I said and wrong again. So if truly your quote is what you are saying I would agree with you that you would be WRONG!! IS it?
So for example: local unleaded regular is 2.49. Diesel is 2.79. Unleaded PREMIUM is 2.79. Which two are at par? Which is cheaper? Which two are more expensive. Which one is cheaper?
Please note -- I have not been critical of the technology, just the exaggerations being made about the technology. I think that they have their place, but that place probably won't be a large one in the US market.
If you're trying to claim that a slower car is a better car because it gets better fuel economy, then I'd say -- compare the car to a car with similar performance!
Comparing 90hp cars to 180 hp cars is just not honest. (I suppose that I could use harsher words to describe such extreme comparisons, but I'll keep those to myself.)
He keeps avoiding why diesel engines get better FE then gassers.
I did? I figured that referencing the lower rev range and higher compression accomplished that. Perhaps I didn't do it with enough emotional conviction to please you!
He believes a Gas engine is dominate due to it having a greater Peak Hp then a diesel engine of the same displacement.
It does help it to go faster. Horsepower is good if you want to go quickly, as any racer should know. Even a diesel race car has to develop horsepower to be competitive...and it needs a bigger engine to do it.
That is your opinion, but over all it is mal adaptive.
90/155 vs 180/173 is exactly that. Too bad for you you find it hard to deal with. But is 90 mph in a a 90 hp car faster or slower (or the same) in a 180 hp car? I already know that the 90 hp car gets 48 mpg. The 180 hp car will be bragging to get 31 mpg. But as you have already said 49-31 is not = to 18 / 49 is not equalled to 37%. So for example if you use that to justify NOT getting a diesel, that is fine. A few of us have already told you a diesel will probably not be something you'd be happy with.
Particularly for people who enjoy driving, acceleration makes no difference at all. We may as well start comparing Chevy Aveos to Maserati Quattroportes side by side, being that they both have tires and CD players, and can both get to 80 mph.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
MODERATOR /ADMINISTRATOR
Find me at kirstie_h@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name.
2015 Kia Soul, 2021 Subaru Forester (kirstie_h), 2024 GMC Sierra 1500 (mr. kirstie_h)
Review your vehicle
EltonRon
Host- Automotive News and Views
Those examples do not have diesel models, so they are totally irrelevant to the diesel thread.
A few of us have already told you a diesel will probably not be something you'd be happy with. You are wasting time on a diesel thread.
The majority of Maserati vs Chevy Aveo "TYPE" postings are almost ALL totally irrelevant (gassers with no diesel models). So anti diesel posts are a thinly disguised vilification of diesel and those that are thinking of them. Those that have them are usually happy with them and the concept.
Of course it is apples to apples to compare Jetta against Golf against New Beetle etc.
Actually, I'd like a twin turbo diesel Corvette 6 speed road car. This probably won't be happening for at least 5 years. Most Corvette purists would freak in the mean time of course.
Indeed even the one who draws this bogus analogy/comparison thinks so. The take is to blamed it on imaginary straw persons.
But even at that, it is instructive, as attitudes like that actually are held at the market and regulatory levels, to name a few. But as posted before, it is IMPOSSIBLE to ban diesel. That is the real secret that is increasing becoming apparent. So it is interesting to study that skitzoid opinion. The core issues are there is WAY too much to lose at a MYRIAD of levels to change, even to a minority position of 12 % of the passenger vehicle fleet population being diesel, i.e. similar to the population size of SUV's. Diesel model SUV's would indeed offer multi solutions. That is the so called "problem/s", but I see it as a multiple myriad of opportunities.
The upshot: the greater the railing or vilification, the greater the growth.
It is also obvious the European oems just have to get their already made diesel models to comply with US standards which as they have demonstrated on the gasser side to be just the course of doing business in the USA. The Japanese and US oems might have a way TOUGHER row to hoe, as they do not produce anywhere near the % of diesel models as in demonstrated in Europeans passenger fleet being 50% DIESEL and GROWING. So logistically it is NOT geared to produce diesels in any numbers or %'s. The reality is it is geared to produce close to 98-99.9 % GASSER.
MODERATOR /ADMINISTRATOR
Find me at kirstie_h@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name.
2015 Kia Soul, 2021 Subaru Forester (kirstie_h), 2024 GMC Sierra 1500 (mr. kirstie_h)
Review your vehicle
How about diesel in NASCAR ? Just a thought.
I think this thread has been excellent and you can now proclaim that "Yes, this is the day of the diesel - almost".
A sound bite able reason? NATURALLY, since diesel IS 50% and growing in Europe. The DB9 to me is truly a beautiful car. Some call it a modern work of art. (Won't know for 30-50 years to see if folks wont pay millions then)
"Wikipedia" online reference is no substitute for years of experience and knowledge and has provided less than complete info. on the subject of chipping of recent diesel cars sold in the US. Majority of diesel cars sold in the last 6 years were VW TDI's and the chip tuning process involved an actual chip and soldier. The ECU had to be removed from the vehicle. Upsolute and Wett for example.
Torque, Torque, Torque, Torque. The joy of diesel.
quote pch101(Banging head into wall...)
It is commonly called "chipping", even though the new cars don't require a chip swap, just as we often call all tissue "Kleenex" even though it isn't all a Kleenex brand product. Perhaps Wikipedia will help you to learn about this:
Chip tuning refers to changing or modifying an EPROM chip in a car's or other vehicle's electronic control unit (ECU) to achieve better performance, whether it be more power, cleaner emissions, better fuel economy, or better appearance.
This was done with early engine computers in the 1980s and 1990s. Today, the term chip tuning can be misleading, as people will often use it to describe ECU tuning that does not involve swapping the chip. Modern ECUs can be tuned by simply updating their software through a standard interface, such as OBDII. This procedure is commonly referred to as engine or ECU tuning. ECUs are a relatively recent addition to the automobile, having first appeared in the late 1970s.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chip_tuning
Biggie three case/s in point. 25-35 mpg turbo diesel engine products for GM Tahoe, FORD Explorer/Expedition/Navigator, DCB products. This would literally revolutionalize this segment. And with ZERO additional mpg legislation. But wrongly/correctly the SUV has become the poster child for vilification.
btw, the mpg dropped substantially with AC running in the humid/warm southern states - to about 40 mpg! ew!
as for the benz E320 and just 22% better mpg - i used to own a gasser E320 and it maxxed at 22 mpg. it was a 4matic though, and was the least reliable car i have ever owned. the features and ride quality were top notch though. i'll probably buy another benz some day, but will only consider diesels.
folks, thanks for reminding me of the DASHER DIESEL automatic a friend had back in the 80s. WOW was that thing a slug, but the soot-clouds it could put onto tailgators were stupendous and hilarious.
hey gbrozen, tell us more aboutyour cat "mittens". dog photos too. maybe a photo of your pets in your vehicle(s)! (i'm serious).
btw, it is not news to all of you that power equals delta energy over delta time - this is by definition.
for me today was not a day-of-the-diesel since it's getting the 10k oil change at the dealer.
regarding turbos & superchargers - one reason we see those more on euro models is that some euro countries have engine displacement taxes/limits, so forced air induction is a way to get more power & torque without being subject to the tax/surcharge/whatever.
pch, your points are well taken by me and my 2 bengal-cats, for what little that is worth! but me and the bulk of this week's autoweek magazine survey-responders think "clean-diesels" are going to be the biggest factor in increasing USA fleet fuel economy.
btw, as of a couple years ago, there is/was a dude out there who has a diesel engine in a corvette stingray - google it - it is "out there".
how bout a pic of my other cat who can drive. He's named Toonces. ;b
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
MODERATOR /ADMINISTRATOR
Find me at kirstie_h@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name.
2015 Kia Soul, 2021 Subaru Forester (kirstie_h), 2024 GMC Sierra 1500 (mr. kirstie_h)
Review your vehicle
i lose more cars that way ....
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
Lowest emissions in the world, claims VW
Volkswagen claims to have produced the cleanest ever turbo-diesel engine.
According to Wolfsburg, first test drives show reduced nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions. In the Jetta a new 2.0-litre common rail diesel engine with a NOx reservoir catalytic converter was used, which complies to the Californian emission standard ‘Tier 2 / Bin 5’, the most stringent worldwide. Four other US states -- Massachusetts, New York, Vermont and Maine -- are also mandating limits of NOx emissions to 70 mg per mile.
VW engineers used new emission post-treatment technology with the result of 90 per cent lower NOx. The first production run of the ‘Clean TDI’ with NOx post-treatment system will be made during 2008 in the USA.
Standards compliance meant the development of new emission treatment technology, so VW came up with two new systems connected to the oxidation catalytic converter and the particle filter in the exhaust system.
New NOx reservoir catalytic converter technology is currently being tested for car models below the Passat class. Nitrogen oxide is absorbed like a sponge, leading to a high level of efficiency. As with the particle filter, the system is regularly cleaned without driver intervention. To do this, the engine management system changes operation modes for a few seconds.
Larger and heavier models feature the Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) catalytic converter. The central element is an aqueous solution such as AdBlue, which is transported in an additional tank made from stainless steel or plastic. Urea comprises 32.5 per cent of this solution, which is continuously injected into the exhaust system in front of the SCR catalytic converter using a metering valve. The dosage is made according to the gas emission stream.
The urea solution is finely atomised by a grille and is converted in hot exhaust gas into ammonia before it reaches the catalytic converter. The ammonia then reacts with the nitrogen oxide in the catalytic converter and separates it into nitrogen and water. Unlike pure ammonia, AdBlue solution is non-toxic, odourless and biodegradable. Volkswagen intends to install the additional tank so that the car can be driven without maintenance between services. US regulations mandate that the system must be fully functional for at least 150,000 miles.
BlueTec is a joint project between Volkswagen, Audi and DaimlerChrysler, and is intended to establish the diesel engine further in the American car market. The manufacturers are convinced that the diesel engine is the clean, low-consumption alternative for future car use, which is backed up by current economic and political conditions. Each of the manufacturers involved in the BlueTec joint project is working on individual technical solutions for stringent exhaust gas emission standards and plans to market these independently.
Rocky
P.S. Will this diesel be more impressive than the VW V10 ???? :surprise:
There are still a few issues to sort out. One is the lack of production capability. If interest is high we might see more models in 5 to 7 years.
The second issue that needs to be resolved is the higher price of diesel. Diesel is running 30 to 50 cents higher than regular as I write this. The mileage advantage starts to evaporate at those prices. A person also needs to factor in any premium for a diesel engine.
That sucking sound you hear is all the diesel fuel going to Europe!
Today's local corner store prices 2.89 #2 diesel, 2.49 unleaded regular (dont forget there is a much great population and percentage of folks using unleaded premium which is pretty close to the #2 diesel prices)
So a 2003 Jetta TDI 49 vs Jetta 2.0/1.8T is TDI $2.89/49 mpg= $.0589795 per mile vs gasser 2.49/31 mpg= .0803225 per mile. or .2657163 % CHEAPER.
As for other posters questions : No idea what the Torque output of these new engines will be but can't see why they'd be vastly different to today's, (my 2 year old 1.9 TDI is 130bhp/228lbft).
Will post any other good diesel news, from Europe, as I see it.
Great forum and super contributors. Thank you all.
Is cheaper fuel the key or is it total ownership cost? You can get a Honda Civic for about $16,000 which gets 40 mpg on the highway (2007). A nearby dealer had a 2006 Volkswagen Jetta Sedan 1.9L DIESEL Edition for $26,600. I would be better off getting the Civic and saving $10,600. If you put the $10,600 in a CD at 4% you would make $424 in interest the first year. The interest would more than offset the fuel savings. You can also look at the finance savings if you buy on credit.
It looks like the Civic using CNG is cheaper.
From the 2005 EPA Fuel guide
Jetta ................................................... M-5 ...... 1.8/4 .... 24/31 ..... $1,082 ... P T
........................................................... M-6 ...... 1.8/4 .... 21/29 ..... $1,220 ... P T
........................................................... A-S5 .... 1.8/4 .... 22/29 ..... $1,170 ... P T
........................................................... M-5 ...... 1.9/4 .... 38/46 ........ $567 ... D T
........................................................... A-S5 .... 1.9/4 .... 32/43 ........ $646 ... D T
........................................................... A-S6 .... 1.9/4 .... 35/42 ........ $611 ... D T
Civic ................................................... A V ...... 1.7/4 .... 30/34 ........ $491 ... CNG
........................................................... A V ...... 1.7/4 .... 35/40 ........ $729 ... LB
........................................................... A-4 ...... 1.7/4 .... 29/38 ........ $818
........................................................... A-4 ...... 1.7/4 .... 31/38 ........ $794 ... VTEC
........................................................... M-5 ...... 1.7/4 .... 32/38 ........ $794
........................................................... M-5 ...... 1.7/4 .... 36/44 ........ $691 ... LB
........................................................... M-5 ...... 1.7/4 .... 32/37 ........ $794 ... VTEC
........................................................... M-5 ...... 2.0/4 .... 26/31 ........ $964
Gosh this line of reasoning is awfully familiar :surprise: . Wonder where I've heard it before?