Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!

Diesels in the News

14748505253171

Comments

  • winter2winter2 Member Posts: 1,801
    I run B5 to B20 from time to time. Performance wise things are the same. However, the engine is quieter and is smoother when B5 or more is present.
  • larsblarsb Member Posts: 8,204
    Clean Ram Diesel

    Dodge has just fired the latest — and cleanest — shot in the big-pickup diesel wars.

    A new 6.7-liter Cummins diesel engine is now available in the Ram heavy-duty full-size pickups — the 2500 and 3500 models — and is being touted by Chrysler Group as the cleanest diesel available in a truck in the U.S. market.

    In fact, the new inline six-cylinder turbodiesel engine also is the first to meet EPA 2010 diesel emissions standards in all 50 states, the automaker says.
    "This is the cleanest mass-produced diesel engine available in the pickup market," Bob Hegbloom, Dodge's truck marketing manager, said during a recent media preview of the new diesel-powered trucks in Austin.

    The engine, which replaces the 5.9-liter Cummins diesel that was introduced in 2003, has a 90 percent or more reduction in pollutants over the engine it replaces, Hegbloom said.

    The reductions were made possible by not only the introduction of ultra-low-sulfur diesel fuel in the United States beginning last fall, but also through the use of new technology.

    That technology includes a filter that Chrysler says virtually eliminates emissions of particulate matter — the major component of the infamous black smoke often seen coming out of the tailpipes of diesel-powered vehicles.

    Other technology includes a so-called adsorber catalyst, designed to remove 90 percent of the nitrous oxide, or NOx, emissions from the combustion of diesel fuel. NOx has been one of the most troublesome pollutants in diesel exhaust.
  • jkinzeljkinzel Member Posts: 735
    Excuse me for being the cynic here, but isn’t this a little counter productive in the quest to reduce fuel consumption?

    While I applaud Chrysler’s introduction of another diesel option, it seems to be going in the wrong direction, i.e., more HP, more fuel consumption. Chrysler already has the reputation of having the most fuel guzzlers of the big three.

    Should we not be putting smaller diesel engines in passenger cars?
  • bristol2bristol2 Member Posts: 736
    Chrysler is just getting ahead of incoming regulations for all diesel engines in non-big rig vehicles.

    Now if they would just put one of those into a 1500, they might improve their mpg and get a few sales...
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    IF Dodge were to cut that engine in half and put it into a 1/2 ton PU they would have my support. The sad part is 90% of those fire breathing Ram diesels are not needed by the buyers. Just another picture of what is wrong in the auto industry. I see these 3/4 and 1 ton trucks everywhere is San Diego lifted with tires the size of Rhode Island. They serve no useful purpose. I am a firm believer that those buyers would be happier with a lifted half ton with a diesel engine that gets twice the mileage. EPA & CARB is who we can thank for those monster trucks running around. They ban small diesel engines and look the other way on the big ones. STUPID logic IMO!
  • winter2winter2 Member Posts: 1,801
    According to the diesel technician at the Jeep dealer, he told me that Chrysler will be putting small Cummins diesels in both the Dodge Dakota and RAM 1500 in the next year or two. The Dakota will get a four cylinder turbodiesel while the RAM 1500 will be getting a six cylinder turbodiesel. He had no details beyond this except to say this will happen.

    If these diesels do come to fruition, they will have significant low end torque and pulling power that will poop on Chevrolet/GMC's, Ford's and Toyota's parade big time. Big towing power with good FE to boot.
  • hwyhobohwyhobo Member Posts: 265
    IF Dodge were to cut that engine in half and put it into a 1/2 ton PU they would have my support.

    Ditto. I've been talking about it ever since the MB 2.7l diesel showed up, but whatever I say, I guarantee you the big three will do the exact opposite. Apparently, I am not the voice of their target audience. :P
  • hwyhobohwyhobo Member Posts: 265
    The Dakota will get a four cylinder turbodiesel while the RAM 1500 will be getting a six cylinder turbodiesel.

    Oh, but the 6.7l is a six cylinder. Maybe that's what Chrysler understands by "smaller" - a fewer number of cylinders while the displacement rises to the level of a small locomotive. :confuse:
  • KCRamKCRam Member Posts: 3,516
    As an owner of a Cummins-powered Dodge Ram, I'll clear up some of the questions.

    Rams with the Cummins diesel are above the 8500-pound GVWR rating that governs whether or not a vehicle must be EPA rated for CAFE purposes. The competition for diesels in this class are high-horse large displacement gasoline V8s and V10s that don't come close to the fuel economy of the diesel, or the torque for that matter... the available engines for my 2005 Ram 3500 were:
    - 5.7L Hemi - 330 hp/375 lb-ft
    - 5.9L Cummins - 325 hp/610 lb-ft
    More grunt and less fuel used... kind of a no-brainer.

    As for the upcoming smaller diesels, Cummins has developed two light duty diesels to be used in the Ram 1500, Durango, and Dakota, a 5.6L V8 and a 4.2L V6. They opted for the V-block layout because there's less hood space in the Durango/Dakota chassis. These engines, along with the current 6.7L inline six, all meet 2010 emissions in all 50 states.

    kcram - Pickups Host
  • hwyhobohwyhobo Member Posts: 265
    Here is the article. I quote the relevant fragment:

    European versions could have a diesel engine, Burns says. And the South American Volt could have an internal combustion engine fueled by pure ethanol.

    So, GM is as usual asleep at the switch. The concept of diesel engines in the US hasn't crossed their mind yet. I can't even get sarcastic here. I wouldn't really expect anything else.
  • jkinzeljkinzel Member Posts: 735
    You know, having read the article about the Volt, it brings to mind the Movie, “Who Killed the Electric Car”. Is it going to happen all over again, GM makes an electric car that is so successful at solving environmental issues and is so popular with the public that it threatens (watch the movie and draw your own conclusion) who/what ever to the point that it is stopped and scrapped.
    Stay tuned.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    Essentially we as citizens or consumers, in the process of partaking in a common interest (this thread) have solved the conceptual energy issues in the short term. A plug in electric with a diesel engine (for those that obviously want or need it) with a electrical range of 100,200,300 miles, have solved the mpg conundrum. So a Jetta with 50 mpg (14.5 gal) can go 700 miles and with plug in can go 800,900,1000 miles. So 50 mpg now turns into 57, 64.28, 71.4 mpg. and with almost ZERO emissions for 100,200,300 miles. All this with NO legislation/strong armed/force tactics.

    Compare and contrast this with how "regulators" want to solve this. NEW EPA mileage estimates are up to 20% lower than so called "old" EPA estimates. There is real talk of 4 per gal unleaded regular. Getting a new unleaded regular refinery is literally a political impossibility. Even if one were granted, it would be tied up for literally years and litigation/s preceeding this could cost millions, if not billions. To force NEW regulations will cost literally BILLIONS in new investments for those mythical cars that get 30-42 mpg!!!!!!! ????
  • winter2winter2 Member Posts: 1,801
    This engine is larger than the engine it replaces but gets better FE and is 50 state certified through 2010. It is a new, completely from the ground up engine which is cleaner and yet more powerful than the V-8 diesels offered by GM or Ford.

    Yes, it does not seem to make sense. I have a diesel in my Jeep Liberty. It displaces 2.8L and is a four cylinder, a rather large one at that but still gets very good FE and will pull 5000 pounds and still get better than 20 MPG. I get close to or exceed 30 MPG on long trips. My Jeep is no fly weight at over 4300 pounds and has the aerodynamics of a cinder block.
  • winter2winter2 Member Posts: 1,801
    Do you have a link to these new engines from Cummins?
  • hwyhobohwyhobo Member Posts: 265
    This engine is larger than the engine it replaces but gets better FE and is 50 state certified through 2010. It is a new, completely from the ground up engine which is cleaner and yet more powerful than the V-8 diesels offered by GM or Ford.

    I have no problem with that logic. I just wish Dodge gave an untapped market an option of a small (~3.0l), ultra-efficient diesel in a 1500 for those who only need it for around-the-house duties and occasional weekend trips.

    I perfectly understand why my friend who does landscaping would need a large engine with significant torque (or those who tow), but I strongly believe there is a significant market of those who never perform any such demanding tasks, yet would love the utility of a full-size pickup.

    I also believe that like me, many of those people will not buy a gas-guzzling current 1500 not because we are looney tree huggers, but because any unecessary waste of resources (any resources) is repulsive to our nature.
  • jkinzeljkinzel Member Posts: 735
    Nicely said hwyhobo.

    In that list of resources I include my hard earned money and if I can go from an 18mpg gasser to 30mpg light diesel (hypothetical figure at this time) then I save that hard earned recourse.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    Indeed a diesel that gets 25-35 mpg would add a capital U to the concept of UTILITY.
  • jkinzeljkinzel Member Posts: 735
    then I save that hard earned recourse.

    Perhaps I meant “resource”.
  • larsblarsb Member Posts: 8,204
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    The ML 320 is the same weight as the Toyota Landcruiser 1991-1997(EPA 13c/15h) and the DIESEL MB will get 23 city/27.5 highway. Essentially this is app 45%/83% better fuel mileage depending upon where one is coming from! Again some so called small economy cars do not get 27.5 mpg!! How can we get more no brainer than this?
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    They missed the R320 CDI. Four models now in MB showrooms. Well, most are sold by the time they roll off the truck. I look for MB to ramp up US production of the diesels to meet the demand. With the Grand Cherokee diesel that makes 5 for DC none for GM, Ford and Toyota. The new Big 3 may get caught snoozing.

    http://www.mbusa.com/models/main.do?modelCode=R320CDI
  • winter2winter2 Member Posts: 1,801
    I just wish Dodge gave an untapped market an option of a small (~3.0l), ultra-efficient diesel in a 1500 for those who only need it for around-the-house duties and occasional weekend trips.

    Unfortunately that will not come to pass. I grant you that a 3.0L turbodiesel makes wonderful torque (nearly 400 lb-ft for the MB version) but Dodge/Chrysler is of the opinion that a larger displacement engine that the host, Kcram, mentioned will serve it better. First of all the larger displacement engine will be more stoutly built than the MB offering and will be easier to maintain and service. Another issue is that most Americans beat the living daylights out of their pickups and the MB engine as good as it is would not hold up to that type of abuse/pounding. Thirdly, the engine is being produced domestically by Cummins which has a very good reputation in the larger Dodge trucks, thus that same reputation will carry over to the smaller diesels. Four, Cummins has developed a good emissions system for their engines, so why re-invent the wheel?

    MB does have a 4.0L V-8 turbodiesel that puts out over 300 HP and over 500 lb-ft of torque. I believe that engine will appear in the GL class.
  • KCRamKCRam Member Posts: 3,516
    Cummins press release announcing DaimlerChrysler as the primary customer:
    Cummins Press Release Oct 11 2006

    The USDOE pdf file regarding the development:
    Cummins Work Toward Successful Introduction of Light-Duty Clean Diesels

    kcram - Pickups Host
  • bristol2bristol2 Member Posts: 736
    That Cummins powerpoint presentation is one heck of a post!

    You have some good contacts.

    I wonder how fast they can be to market?
  • larsblarsb Member Posts: 8,204
    Another indication that Dodge made a BIG MISTAKE when it killed the plans to produce ESX-3 Diesel/Hybrid sedan:

    Biodiesel Jetta uses less fossil fuel than Prius
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    I think it was timing. I am sure they would not have gotten it by CARB without ULSD being in place. So it would have been a big loser. Lots of IFs in the auto business.
  • hypnosis44hypnosis44 Member Posts: 483
    The Great American Sales machine stumbles on with Great Public Relations and sales blurbs - but the usual very bad scholarship and math. The entire life cycle of the vehicles would need to be compared as well, as the fossil fuel involved in all aspects of growing crops including the additional production of tractors and all ancillary energy components.
  • roland3roland3 Member Posts: 431
    ... Once For All, I don't know what is in the snake oil additives but I am sure it is not sulfur. Sulfur does NOT provide lubricity but the refinery process of removing sulfur does lower lubricity and the refiners are adding a lubricity agent.
  • moparbadmoparbad Member Posts: 3,870
    Diesel Cars in North America

    Diesel Particulate Filters

    The above articles may be of interest.
  • moparbadmoparbad Member Posts: 3,870
    Jeep Grand Cherokee

    I would love to have a Dakota with the 3.0L diesel.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    this is hidden in plain sight. Perhaps I should not have posted this. :(:)

    The local fuel station sells unleaded regular 3.39 and #2 ULSD 3.05 per gal.

    The 2003 VW Jetta EPA''s are 24/31, 24/31, 42/49 mpg 2.0/1.8T/1.9 TDI. So the cost per mile driven figures are: $.113/.113/.061. #2 ULSD is .052 cents or 46% cheaper, per mile driven.

    An apples to oranges comparo with a Civic with the same commute being common are: 38/50 mpg, (3.39/38=.0892105)(3.05/50=.061) or 31.62% cheaper.

    But then again in Venuezula the price of gas at the pump is .12 cents!

    "What does gasoline cost in other countries?"

    By John W. Schoen
    Senior Producer
    MSNBC

    link title
  • hypnosis44hypnosis44 Member Posts: 483
    See post 2523 by the HOST.
  • winter2winter2 Member Posts: 1,801
    In parts of Montgomery County MD, just north of Washington D.C., ULSD 2.839 to 2.899, UL regular 3.039 to 3.199.

    So why buy spark ignition powered cars?
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    I think what we are seeing is good news for diesel fans. I think they have gotten their act together on producing ULSD. The closest diesel station to me this morning has ULSD at $2.99 and regular unleaded as $3.39. During the run up of gas last year diesel stayed within a dime of regular. I will continue to track it. When the prices reverse I will buy another diesel vehicle. This is more in line with the price difference in most of the EU. A major factor in them selling over 50% diesel cars there. I think we will see that trend as soon as approval is signed for all 50 states on several German and a couple Japanese diesel vehicles.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    ..."See post 2523"...

    The emphasis is on diesel (but you knew/know that). Your intent is the sound of one hand clapping. One might wish to ignore the fact the passenger vehicle fleet is upwards of 97% gasser for (a) simple but yet at the same time complex reason/s. So if you are ok paying more (46% more) to achieve the same goal, (miles driven), then so am I. :) Harder to do it cheaper (like model for like, or even a quasi; apples to oranges) when there has been literally no choice for a very long time, in the matter. The post mentions at least one advantage to diesel. It is also probably apparent which is more consumptive of resources, which would be another advantage to diesel.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    A post by Larsb,sometime ago might point the way to the shape of things to come in so called super car pantheon.(read: highly consumptive of fuel, high power and high cost) Most of them (gassers) are lucky to get 12-18 mpg on a long down hill with a tail wind. The Corvette Z06 can get up to 25-28 mpg, but that is one of very few that do. Indeed a diesel with a twin turbo that gets 48 mpg on RACE day. Not bad either to get a sub 4 second (or so) 0-60 metric. Up to 70 mpg would certainly get a lot of peoples' attention if produced in the 6000 unit per year on up category.
  • once_for_allonce_for_all Member Posts: 1,640
    I don't know what is in the snake oil additives but I am sure it is not sulfur.

    On the contrary, when I go to the tractor store to look for fuel additives, I am buying the jugs that add sulfur. And I do not feel bad about it either. The older engines were designed that way. I figure the 3600 trees I farm remove enough "bad" air that someone should actually send me an air pollution credit reimbursement. Hey, if you are paying to pollute, someone should get paid to clean up also :)

    John
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    I believe the red dye diesel you can buy cheaper for your tractors is still the old higher sulfur formula.
  • once_for_allonce_for_all Member Posts: 1,640
    nope, they are all the same. They simply add the dye in as they fill the truck. Otherwise, they can deliver clear diesel at red diesel tax free prices if you sign your life away :-).

    I can request and pay for additional additives, but nothing that will make it out of spec. I prefer to add my own.

    John
  • roland3roland3 Member Posts: 431
    ... Once for All, it is a petrochemical fact that sulfur does not add lubricity. I would especially avoid any snakeoil that has this as a content. It could say a lubricity additive has been added to (or for) sulfur reduced fuel. AGAIN: the process of removing sulfur reduces lubricity. If anything, sulfur, if it could be considerd by itself, would reduce lubricity.
  • hypnosis44hypnosis44 Member Posts: 483
    "...sulfur does not add lubricity." "...removing sulfur reduces lubricity."

    These two statements do not work together.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    My local truck stop has a separate tank and pump for red dye diesel. It comes under a different ruling. It can have a much higher sulfur content than ULSD that is now mandated. You can smell the difference when you pump it into the can. No special release to sign. They just warn you not to use it in your on road vehicles. I mix it with ULSD for my Kubota because the dealer told me that ULSD was not recommended in my tractor engine. There are so many conflicting stories it is hard to know who to believe. For sure not the government.
  • hwyhobohwyhobo Member Posts: 265
    "...sulfur does not add lubricity." "...removing sulfur reduces lubricity."one
    These two statements do not work together.


    By removing a few words from the original post you change its meaning to suit your purpose. Very clever.

    The original post said, "The process of removing sulfur reduces lubricity", not "Removing sulfur reduces lubricity". Try to carefully analyze the two statements. They are not equivalent.

    So yes, they work together just fine, unless you change them.
  • roland3roland3 Member Posts: 431
    ... Hwyhobo, the keyword here is "process". In the process of removing sulfur something happens that reduces lubricity. I am trying to remember exactly what this is, but my library is quite random. The additive people probably are not helping, because most apparently think it is the missing sulfur that is the problem. 25 years ago the additive people promoted their product as a great benefit to high sulfur fuel. It is my belief that there absolutely no value to any amount of sulfur, one of the pluses of biodiesel. BTW, one of biodiesel's main strengths is it's great lubricity.
  • hwyhobohwyhobo Member Posts: 265
    Hwyhobo, the keyword here is "process"

    That was what I was trying to convey to hypnosis.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    You are right about biodiesel and lubricity. And one of the real positives with biodiesel is no sulfur. As more engines are designed to run specifically on ULSD I think the whole additive issue will go away. My Passat was only driven in CA. I only used ARCO diesel as it was ULSD for a year before the mandate. It ran very well with no additives. I think the main reason for additives would be cetane boost and de-icing.
  • winter2winter2 Member Posts: 1,801
    Let me try to clear up some of the confusion concerning the role of sulfur in diesel fuel. When we speak of sulfur in diesel fuel, it is not in a free state floating around in the fuel, but is part of an organic molecule that occurs naturally in the fuel. I do not know the name of this compound (or compounds) but it does have some lubricating properties.

    In the process of creating ULSD, this compound is destroyed to get the elemental sulfur out of the fuel, thus the reduction in lubricity. Refiners have been adding some lubricity compounds/chemicals to replace this destroyed compound. As mentioned by some in other posts, two percent biodiesel (B2) returns all of the lubricity to ULSD.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    It makes me wonder why the ethanol mandate did not include biodiesel in the ULSD to at least B5. I believe that Jeep delivers their diesel vehicles with B5. I think that Germany mandates B5. It would solve several issues with most diesel engines and it is renewable. I guess biodiesel being a grassroots effort does not have the lobby money to push things through Congress.
  • winter2winter2 Member Posts: 1,801
    Removal of sulfur in itself does not increase the cetane of diesel fuel, but in the process of de-sulfurization some of the aromatic compounds naturally found in diesel fuel get removed or destroyed, thus increasing cetane. The downside to this is that the energy content of diesel fuel goes down a smidgen (about 1%) with the loss of these aromatic compounds. On the plus side, you end up with far fewer particulates and far fewer PAH compounds, the latter a know carcinogen.
Sign In or Register to comment.