Well a bit of the chicken and egg routine. Back in 1971 when I bought a 1970 Bug used, it got 34 mpg. At the time,not much touched that metric. So obviously I had to pay a premium. It would have been far cheaper, etc, to get an American car, but no American car (at that time) got 34 mpg. Fast forward to 2003 and at that time not much got 50 mpg with a range of 44-62., with the capability of autobahn performance. I would have like to buy an American car BUT... see above. I would also have liked to buy a Honda Diesel , but as you know it is not available at this writing in the 2005 time frame. Actually it just recently came to market in Europe in 2004? . Hybrid? Way too high a premium. Autobahn like performance? Try one!
Up until recently, diesel has been running close to 30 cents less per gallon than regular unleaded. Two weeks ago I paid 2.99 for diesel while regular unleaded was 3.36! Yesterday I filled elsewhere, 281 for diesel, 2.88 for gas. If you look around, many stations in MD are offering diesel for less than gas.
I will agree with you though, never in Potomac, MD. I live in Gaithersburg.
I checked the fuel pricing at Flying J for MD and diesel is $2.73 and regular unleaded $2.76. Wow, diesel less cost than gas in MD. Diesel in my area is less cost than gas about 10 months of the year. In general, diesel engines are more efficient than gasoline, the best solution is likely a diesel hybrid.
"We have to be careful that we don't try to impose a technology on the market."
What Ghosn is saying is, if the people want high mileage diesels, we need to sell them what they want. Not what we think they need. That is imposing. The best way to find out what the people want is to open the market as Canada has done. Not try to cram a technology down the throats of the American people, because a few think it is best for all of us. California already tried this with imposing the electric vehicle onto the automakers & the public. GM wasted a couple billion dollars developing a ZEV car and infrastructure. Now it is all in the dump, money wasted. Ghosn does not want a repeat of that mess.
Near Tacoma, WA at a Shell station today I saw Reg unleaded $2.79, diesel $3.05. Even at that higher diesel, it would be $500 a year cheaper to drive a VW TDI @ 42mpg compared to my Ford Ranger 4.0L @ 23mpg at 12,000 miles per year. The american auto makers have hitched there stars to the big cars and SUV's and wont let go. If just one of them would make a high MPG diesel like the TDI, they could make a fortune. WA and OR want to adopt CA emission laws in the next few years and unless auto makers fight it, diesels will be an even harder sell.
Your observations bring up a good point. While those same states yammer about alternative fuels and complain about ever increasing fuel usage and green house gas emissions, they systematically cut off the sale of cars tha actually USE atternative fuels, use LESS FUEL and actually yield LESS green house gas emissions !!
Again #2 diesel is at the point leaded regular was in the late 1970's. Do they really think we'd be at the emissions point that we are 35 year hence if we had NOT converted to unleaded regular??
Also keep in mind that one of the reasons 35 years hence that we still have the #2 diesel issues is because of THOSE VERY SAME STATES!!!!???? They did NOT convert #2 diesel.
Does it make sense to spend say 1B on R and D for gasser technology that will reap say 13B? YES.! On the other hand does it make sense to spend again 1B for passenger car diesel technology for 100M? NO!!!
I keep hearing the same old criticisms about hybrids...They cost too much more than their counterparts. I keep wondering why ...on the other end, when the car is 5 or 6 yrs old, Won't it be worth considerably more than those same counterparts? That being said....Whats this occasional criticism about the "BATTERIES"? They've got one very famous record todate and with the warrantee that is good as gold why even mention this NON-ISSUE. The Hybrids have been well received and their customer satisfaction is to be praised. Car & Driver & Motor Trend & Consumer's Report have given sound thumbs up on them (especially Prius). People standing in line to own a piece of the "GREEN" ROCK has to account for something. The Nay-sayers can say what they will...The Hybrids are what the public want. What do you think the resale value is of ....say an Escalade or a Hummer or a Navigator? Bet they're piling up dusty hoods cuzz no one in their right minds wants a 9 mpg guzzler. Railroadjames
I don't think so. A few will buy them to be green. A few will buy them for the technology and a few will buy to save gas. You mention Escalade's & Hummers as being parked because of the price of gas. It just is not happening. They are still racing by me on the freeway going 85 MPH. GM has sold over 300k Suburban & Tahoe sized vehicles so far this year. That is over twice as many vehicles as all the hybrids combined. People that buy a $65k Escalade or LX470 are not even thinking about the price of gas. They like the vehicle and they buy it and drive it. If it costs a C note to fill it, so what, it is only money. If you can afford an Escalade or a Lexus LX470, you should have enough money to pay cash for it. If you have to finance that kind of purchase your not being very wise with your finances to start with. If it is a business write-off as many of that type vehicle are, gas prices are irrelevant. You are putting the gas on the company CC. I know it does not bother our management to all drive new Tahoe's and Expedition's on the company dime.
The other interesting thing is that for how much SUV's are vilified, they have taken app 20 years to become 12-15% of the passenger fleet. So how long do you think it will take for hybrids to become the same % ?
So say you can wave magic wand and get rid of them all? The imported oil remains STILL center stage. The market is still there for the product. As is the market for GASSERS fuel!!??? Continued use of unleaded regular will not diminish the demand for unleaded regular. It is a bit like a cocaine addict trying to kick the habit by limiting the cocaine.I am in no way trying to suggest criminalizing the use of unleaded regular. I own suv's also and ever since 1986, I have wanted a 20-30 mpg fuel sized SUV. 19 years later there is one that fits the bill, the Dodge Sprinter, MB common rail diesel.
You also can not effect the shift to alternative fuel, if you continue to limit the markets in alternative fuels. So if you consider diesel, alternative fuel for passenger vehicles, please note that passenger car diesels are fully 2.3-2.9% of the passenger vehicle fleet and most are diesel work type trucks.
railroadjames, i think you might be wrong about your bet about "dusty hoods" of the monster SUVs. recent sales of the monster SUVs has still been pretty good - a huge increase from last year - if i understand the data i've read correctly. i thought that $3/gallon would be enough to put the kibosh on monster SUV sales. but now it looks like i was wrong about that. so i say "bring on $4/gallon". or $5/gallon. whatever it takes! fight the power! (but not the torque!)
The current sales-count of monster-size gas-guzzlers has very little reflection on the way people will actually use them.
Remember before the boom in the 90's? People used truck-like vehicles very differently. The nonsense of using a SUV for the commute to work on drive pavement was unheard of. Of course, that was the day when there were only a few, like Bronco. People actually drove them off-road at times! Big pickups were workhorses back then. People actually put stuff in the bed and towed trailers! Small pickups, like Ranger, were cheap economy car alternatives. Full-Size conversion vans were treated like recreational vehicles, used primarily for vacation & weekend travel.
In other words, it appears as though that age is beginning to return. Watch for it. I have already seen undeniable evidence of a SUV decline. Looking at the parking lot at work and shopping locations, I'm seeing far fewer of them. They used to outnumber cars. Now cars have regained the majority.
Just because someone owns a SUV, does not mean they are using it the same way anymore.
Just because someone owns a SUV, does not mean they are using it the same way anymore.
Hopefully with affluence in America, people are buying vehicles more use specific. If you solo commute get a small high mileage car. Save the SUV for weekend trips with the family and the PU for trips to Home Depot and the dump.
Their assumptions for fuel costs are just plain silly, $1.55 for diesel? $1.80 for gas? Re-do the math with $2.89 for regular and $3.09 for diesel, which is what I just drove by.
I did look this weekend, found about 5 stations between Potomac, MD and Ocean City MD that offered diesel. Diesel was not cheaper in one single case. It was 3 cents higher at its best price, and 20 cents more at its worst. On average I observed diesel prices about 12-15 higher, I'd say.
Autoweek made a very bad assumption.
Mistake #2, the fine print even says they ignore the $2000 tax break, which amounts to $800 for people in the 40% tax bracket.
If you replace a 4l Ranger with a TDI of course you'll save a ton on fuel, but a TDI can't really do all the duties a Ranger can, in terms of payload and towing. That's not really an "equivalent" replacement.
Even an Escape hybrid would not be - those can only tow 1000 lbs.
We should stick to apples to apples. A TDI hatch could replace a Focus hatch pretty even (sacrificing some performance), sure, but not a Ranger.
I do not know where you live but diesel here is generally on par with regular unleaded in some places. In many other places brand name diesel enjoys a 5 to 20 cent advantage in price.
Your comments about hybrids rings so true. They are frail and are expensive commuters at best. They are an expensive and very small bandaid to a big problem.
Diesel is a better alternative. It is environmentally more friendly and can use alternative fuel, something no gasser can do. A broken in Jeep Liberty CRD will exceed 30 mpg on the road, something an Escape hybrid cannot do. A TDI hatchback will kill most any gasser economy-wise.
If you read my post you would not come to that conclusion. First of all, try using 100% ethanol in a gasser. Do you really think your Prius can survive that? If so, then why aren't you doing it?
Ethanol gets way less MPG than gas and surely way less than #2 diesel. They also can charge far more for a far less costly and efficient fuel. So in effect one burns far more fuel that if either only gas or diesel is used. You may not see the irony here?
The burning of ethanol is not mitigated by current catalytic converter technology. In fact ethanol burning in industrial use has been banned for a long time by the EPA.
In fact the state of CA just reversed laws they made mandating the use of the alcohol substitute MTBE. They had forced the fuel market to implement its use and required BILLIONS of dollars of capital investment, etc for its mandated use, compliance, manufacture etc. Of course they totally ignored the environmentalists who they listened to in the first place to implement MTBE, who said it was so called "safe"
Turns out they found out AFTER all of this ,the absolutely devasting effects and high costs to mitigat even over unleaded regular after it was fully on the market.
Their assumptions for fuel costs are just plain silly, $1.55 for diesel? $1.80 for gas? Re-do the math with $2.89 for regular and $3.09 for diesel, which is what I just drove by.
$2.73 for diesel in MD, right now, today at Flying J. Regular unleaded $2.78. Flying J lists prices for nearly all of the states and some in Canada and anyone can check the prices using the website. The diesel is less than the gas.
OK, so you were able to find $3.09 diesel. Is there an anti-diesel bias that you are presenting with the $0.36/gallon higher priced diesel than what is listed on site I referenced?
Mistake #2, the fine print even says they ignore the $2000 tax break, which amounts to $800 for people in the 40% tax bracket.
You have to exceed $326,450 to hit 35%, let alone 40% tax bracket. Is anyone who is making that much worried about $800?
And no one is complaining about the horsepower increase it provides.
. > try using 100% ethanol in a gasser.
Since when is absolute replacement necessary? What's wrong with the standard 85 percent ethanol mix instead? That's certainly higher than the 20 percent biodiesel we see currently.
. > The burning of ethanol is not mitigated by current catalytic converter technology.
What in the world are you talking about? 10 percent has been supported industry-wide for years now. 85 percent is for the 1,500,000 FFVs on the road already in the United States.
I stated my view in #367. My MTBE and ethanol fall off has been as high at 20%. On an suv that might not convert to big numbers like on a TDI diesel but nontheless still 20%., which for my .02 cents is huge. If it would be on your .02cents, bring it on!!
What's wrong with the standard 85 percent ethanol mix instead?
I would be happy to tell you. First a Silverado flex fuel PU truck is EPA rated for combined 12 MPG on E85. The same exact truck when you use regular unleaded gets 16 mpg combined. Second and biggest problem is transportation of Ethanol. It is VERY dangerous to transport. There is only one station that I can find in San Diego that sells E85. The big corporations that would like to challenge the oil industry have done a good job of selling the positive side of Ethanol. They have ignored all the negatives. We as a country and the farmers would be better served growing crops for biodiesel than ethanol.
PS you should try some of that E85 in your Prius may run like a scalded ape for a couple miles
I don't doubt that the older versions of ethanol and the technology to utilize it did in fact cause a huge lose. But the data doesn't show that anymore. The lifetime average for my Prius in mixed driving over the past 41,000 miles using E10 is 49.2 MPG.
Then again, substitution should not be a goal. Using less is.
So alternatives are a good buffer, while we wait for the outdated vehicles to expire. That makes non-hybrid diesel a limited choice, since there isn't a whole lot more that can be done for it anymore. Hybrids on the other hand, they can continue to grow more efficient as the electric technology continues to evolve.
"I don't doubt that the older versions of ethanol and the technology to utilize it did in fact cause a huge lose. But the data doesn't show that anymore. The lifetime average for my Prius in mixed driving over the past 41,000 miles using E10 is 49.2 MPG. "
You might consider last winter, the older version of ethanol but I think you are totally missing the point. In so far as diesel is concerned you are at best misinformed. On the down side your statement is not true. What is true is anti diesel folks have done their level best to exterminate diesel as a viable fuel alternative. The truth is they have done a pretty good job of it, if 2.3-2.9% of the passenger vehicle fleet being diesel. But the cool thing is as they ratch up the price of fuel per gal, it almost becomes a no brainer to bring more diesels to market.
Using less fuel does not and I repeat does not lessen dependence on foreign imported oil. Why you think that it does is really beyond me. Sure you might want your dream world a certain way, but.......
Lifetime for 67k using just #2 diesel is 47/48 and I don't even TRY to conserve fuel. I would imagine if I drove my diesel like my friend's drive their Prius's 50-55 is more likely. I have gotten 62 mpg but again that was imitating Prius like driving behavior. Some diesel hobbyists have gone as high as mid 70's
Okay, but you are stuck at no more than 10% Ethanol. Anymore than that in most gassers and seal reliability becomes a very serious issue. Also, no conventional gasser can take full advantage of the octane boost from ethanol without increasing pollutants.
FFV types still have low compression engines so they will run on gasoline. Ethanol has an octane rating of about 110. To take advantage of this, compression ratios would have to be raised to nearly 12:1 !!! In a gasser, higher compression equals more power, but also lots more pollution, especially NOx.
Another two problems with FFV is that they cost more to produce and use more fuel than a straight gasser. So where is the advantage? I do not see any.
I can run up to 20% biodiesel. That is 20%, not 10% like in your Prius or the vast majority of gassers.
One last thing, ethanol is heavily subsidized by the government. Without it, ethanol prices would be so outrageous, no one would use it or if they did, the cost of using it in gas would raise the cost of gasohol to a ridiculous level.
> To take advantage of this, compression ratios would have to be raised to nearly 12:1 !!! In a gasser, higher compression equals more power, but also lots more pollution, especially NOx.
Prius operates at a compression of 13:1, using a specialized pumping cycle that reduces pollution, notably NOx.
> One last thing, ethanol is heavily subsidized by the government.
The governor of Minnesota responded to that very argument against ethanol this morning. He stated that if people believe gas isn't also heavily subsidized, they basically don't have a clue.
*ALL* fuel is getting rather significant $$$ help from the government. Only when it comes to grown alternatives like ethanol & biodiesel, we actually get the benefit of creating rural employment opportunities... helping those local communities survive rather than sending the money overseas.
Prius engines are Atkinson cycle engines, so the stated compression ratio is really the expansion ratio. So the 13:1 compression ratio stated is really not true.
In an Atkinson cycle engine, the intake valve stays open during a portion of the compression stroke, reducing the volume of the air charge, effectively reducing the compression ratio as it is understood to exist in Otto cycle engines.
Civic 12,500 Prius 25,000. Given your LT mileage of 49 on your Prius and 38 on my Civic. On a plain vanilla commute of 50 miles R/T:
it will take me 423,000 to 700,000 miles miles to BE against a Prius.
(100,000 miles / 38 and 49 = 2041- gal 2632 gal =591 gal x $3 per gal = 1773/7500 and 12500= 4.23 and 7.05 x or between 423,000 to 700,000 miles to BE)
So given 13,200 miles per year that divides out to 32 to 53 years. to BE.
Only when it comes to grown alternatives like ethanol & biodiesel, we actually get the benefit of creating rural employment opportunities
I would agree as long as the ethanol can perform as well as biodiesel in their respective engines. From what I have read they can both be produced from feed crops. I know the by-product of biodiesel is used as feed. Do the by-products of ethanol have similar uses? If they both come from the same crops, which gives us the most bang for our crop dollars? I am skeptical of ethanol for several reasons. One of the main ones is the mega corporations behind it. Biodiesel seems to be more grass roots. Little startup companies that are producing and marketing biodiesel. We are getting Willie Nelson biodiesel in 5 stations here in San Diego. I trust his integrity over ADM any day of the week.
Also note this. Biodiesel can be made from used fryer oil/grease such as you would find at any fastfood place. You can also make biodiesel from animal fat/tallow such as you would find at slaughter houses.
Gagrice hit on some good issues. I am NOT against using an ethanol/unleaded reg mix. What I am against is the bogus concept that we are "using less fuel" while we burn MORE and at a much higher cost because of the designer aspect of the so called new blend. Hey if an 100% ethanol machine hits the market, that meets almost any definition of "alternative fuel" The next issue is does it give you the bang for the buck as unleaded reg or even better DIESEL at 37% more than unleaded regular. If not is the price adjusted to give one the ratios per mile driven as unleaded reg or diesel?
"What I am against is the bogus concept that we are "using less fuel" while we burn MORE and at a much higher cost because of the designer aspect of the so called new blend."
I assume you are referring to the 11% ethanol that CA adds as an oxygenator? I have no scientific evidence. When CA switched from MTBE to Ethanol I swear my Suburban dropped 1 MPG. Others have said they get better mileage with non CA gas than the stuff they are selling with 11% ethanol.
Years ago, I used E10 in a Ford Fiesta. Other than clogging my fuel filter, it caused a few other issues. Cold weather starting required more cranking and the colder it got, the harder it was to start the car than with straight gas. Also, I had a stink of ethanol from the exhaust. Performance wise, I had a bit more power. but I lost about 2 - 3 mpg in fuel economy.
I tried several tanks of E10 in a Dodge Dakota I had. Since it was fuel injected, the starting issue was not a problem, but there was that degradation in fuel economy at about 2.5 mpg.
"If the air were clean again" is statement it makes. The two hybrids featured (Prius & Highlander-Hybrid) release 80% fewer smog-forming emissions than the average new vehicle.
Clean diesel doesn't even come close to that. How will it compete against an advertising campaign based on emissions? Its weakness of only providing an efficiency improvement is going to be hard to deny now that the bar is being raised to the SULEV emission rating.
Your comments are very misleading. Hybrids must still burn gas. How else do you charge the batteries? Even if you are charging by regenerative braking you are still burning gas. Even if you run on straight battery power for several miles, you still had to burn gas to put energy into the batteries. So the reduction in emissions you speak of is nothing but smoke and mirrors. The whole concept is nuts. You are still dumping pollutants into the air. The electric motor and batteries really do not matter. The motor needs electricity to run, and the batteries need to be charged by a gasoline burning engine.
Diesels have two weak points, NOx and particulate. Both of these issues are easy to deal with once the sulfur is removed from diesel fuel. Diesels have always put out fewer unburned hydrocarbons and carbon dioxide than any gas engined car or truck.
Many would like to see diesel go away. It would upset the Toyota apple cart, trying to blast it's way to the top of the heap. The truth is Mercedes, Ford, VW, Honda & BMW have all demonstrated diesel cars that can pass the 2007 EPA emissions test. The only sticking point is whether they trust the car owner to maintain the emissions equipment. Since cars first got emissions equipment, some have removed it to enhance performance. Why are they only focusing on the diesel engine?
The Meta One is an advanced research vehicle concept which displays the evolution of automotive design, research and engineering with emerging safety features, personal electronics and the world's first PZEV capable diesel hybrid.
If they can produce one they can produce millions.
You're using one single data point. I've never even heard of Flying J and I've lived in MD for 34 years.
My point is generally speaking diesel costs more, and I'm talking about several data points, not just one.
You saw diesel for $2.73 and regular gas for $2.78. OK, that's one station where diesel is cheaper.
But I've seen many more where diesel costs more. The Wawa in Ocean City MD had regular for $2.59, while diesel was $2.79.
Last night in Gaithersburg, the Chevron went a little crazy. Regular gas was $2.99 and diesel was $3.99! Dunno, maybe they were having a shortage. Other stations along 355 in the area had diesel for about the same price as premium fuel, i.e. 20 cents or so more than regular.
I stand by my claim - that in MD, you will most often find that diesel costs *more* than regular gas, and about the same as premium. Not at every single station, but at most of them, definitely.
As far as the tax brackets go, you gotta be up there to afford a new Jetta. LOL
Again one of the reasons diesel costs so much more is there is app 2.3-2.9% passenger diesels of the total passenger vehicle fleet. vs upwards of 96% unleaded regular consumers. The other thing is a lot of refineries produce "home heating oil" which as the folks who consume it will tell you is FAR cheaper than #2 diesel. So has you can probably deduce" supply and demand is at work here. Most states charge more taxation for diesel also.
I have a few ideas why diesels are such objects of focus.
1. Oil companies. Diesel is relatively easy to produce in comparison to gasoline. It does not require the fancy regional and seasonal formulations that gasoline does. Also, diesel powered vehicle use significantly less fuel than their gasoline powered counterparts. Less fuel and cheaper to make used = less money in their wallets. 2. Biodiesel. This is a threat to the oil companies because it would cut into their profits. 3. EPA - they like gasoline and really do not understand diesel.
However, those emissions are cleansed, removing far more NOx than a traditional gas vehicle... hence the SULEV rating.
. > Your comments are very misleading
Toyota is the one pointing out the importance of SULEV. I simply seconded the idea.
. > Diesels have two weak points, NOx and particulate. Both of these issues are easy to deal with once the sulfur is removed from diesel fuel.
SULEV is an industry standard that clean diesel alone cannot achieve. As stated countless times already, improved hardware is also required. That adds $$$ to the cost, making diesel less competitive.
. > the reduction in emissions you speak of is nothing but smoke and mirrors
Claiming SULEV is bogus will not work. Give up this senseless battle against the EPA rating system.
Comments
I will agree with you though, never in Potomac, MD. I live in Gaithersburg.
In general, diesel engines are more efficient than gasoline, the best solution is likely a diesel hybrid.
ROTFL....hope John reads this...perhaps John knows more about auto industry than Carlos.
What Ghosn is saying is, if the people want high mileage diesels, we need to sell them what they want. Not what we think they need. That is imposing. The best way to find out what the people want is to open the market as Canada has done. Not try to cram a technology down the throats of the American people, because a few think it is best for all of us. California already tried this with imposing the electric vehicle onto the automakers & the public. GM wasted a couple billion dollars developing a ZEV car and infrastructure. Now it is all in the dump, money wasted. Ghosn does not want a repeat of that mess.
The american auto makers have hitched there stars to the big cars and SUV's and wont let go. If just one of them would make a high MPG diesel like the TDI, they could make a fortune. WA and OR want to adopt CA emission laws in the next few years and unless auto makers fight it, diesels will be an even harder sell.
Again #2 diesel is at the point leaded regular was in the late 1970's. Do they really think we'd be at the emissions point that we are 35 year hence if we had NOT converted to unleaded regular??
Also keep in mind that one of the reasons 35 years hence that we still have the #2 diesel issues is because of THOSE VERY SAME STATES!!!!???? They did NOT convert #2 diesel.
Does it make sense to spend say 1B on R and D for gasser technology that will reap say 13B? YES.! On the other hand does it make sense to spend again 1B for passenger car diesel technology for 100M? NO!!!
Railroadjames
Buyers seek HP
I don't think so. A few will buy them to be green. A few will buy them for the technology and a few will buy to save gas. You mention Escalade's & Hummers as being parked because of the price of gas. It just is not happening. They are still racing by me on the freeway going 85 MPH. GM has sold over 300k Suburban & Tahoe sized vehicles so far this year. That is over twice as many vehicles as all the hybrids combined. People that buy a $65k Escalade or LX470 are not even thinking about the price of gas. They like the vehicle and they buy it and drive it. If it costs a C note to fill it, so what, it is only money. If you can afford an Escalade or a Lexus LX470, you should have enough money to pay cash for it. If you have to finance that kind of purchase your not being very wise with your finances to start with. If it is a business write-off as many of that type vehicle are, gas prices are irrelevant. You are putting the gas on the company CC. I know it does not bother our management to all drive new Tahoe's and Expedition's on the company dime.
So say you can wave magic wand and get rid of them all? The imported oil remains STILL center stage. The market is still there for the product. As is the market for GASSERS fuel!!??? Continued use of unleaded regular will not diminish the demand for unleaded regular. It is a bit like a cocaine addict trying to kick the habit by limiting the cocaine.I am in no way trying to suggest criminalizing the use of unleaded regular. I own suv's also and ever since 1986, I have wanted a 20-30 mpg fuel sized SUV. 19 years later there is one that fits the bill, the Dodge Sprinter, MB common rail diesel.
You also can not effect the shift to alternative fuel, if you continue to limit the markets in alternative fuels. So if you consider diesel, alternative fuel for passenger vehicles, please note that passenger car diesels are fully 2.3-2.9% of the passenger vehicle fleet and most are diesel work type trucks.
Remember before the boom in the 90's? People used truck-like vehicles very differently. The nonsense of using a SUV for the commute to work on drive pavement was unheard of. Of course, that was the day when there were only a few, like Bronco. People actually drove them off-road at times! Big pickups were workhorses back then. People actually put stuff in the bed and towed trailers! Small pickups, like Ranger, were cheap economy car alternatives. Full-Size conversion vans were treated like recreational vehicles, used primarily for vacation & weekend travel.
In other words, it appears as though that age is beginning to return. Watch for it. I have already seen undeniable evidence of a SUV decline. Looking at the parking lot at work and shopping locations, I'm seeing far fewer of them. They used to outnumber cars. Now cars have regained the majority.
Just because someone owns a SUV, does not mean they are using it the same way anymore.
JOHN
Hopefully with affluence in America, people are buying vehicles more use specific. If you solo commute get a small high mileage car. Save the SUV for weekend trips with the family and the PU for trips to Home Depot and the dump.
Their assumptions for fuel costs are just plain silly, $1.55 for diesel? $1.80 for gas? Re-do the math with $2.89 for regular and $3.09 for diesel, which is what I just drove by.
I did look this weekend, found about 5 stations between Potomac, MD and Ocean City MD that offered diesel. Diesel was not cheaper in one single case. It was 3 cents higher at its best price, and 20 cents more at its worst. On average I observed diesel prices about 12-15 higher, I'd say.
Autoweek made a very bad assumption.
Mistake #2, the fine print even says they ignore the $2000 tax break, which amounts to $800 for people in the 40% tax bracket.
If you replace a 4l Ranger with a TDI of course you'll save a ton on fuel, but a TDI can't really do all the duties a Ranger can, in terms of payload and towing. That's not really an "equivalent" replacement.
Even an Escape hybrid would not be - those can only tow 1000 lbs.
We should stick to apples to apples. A TDI hatch could replace a Focus hatch pretty even (sacrificing some performance), sure, but not a Ranger.
-juice
I do not know where you live but diesel here is generally on par with regular unleaded in some places. In many other places brand name diesel enjoys a 5 to 20 cent advantage in price.
Your comments about hybrids rings so true. They are frail and are expensive commuters at best. They are an expensive and very small bandaid to a big problem.
Diesel is a better alternative. It is environmentally more friendly and can use alternative fuel, something no gasser can do. A broken in Jeep Liberty CRD will exceed 30 mpg on the road, something an Escape hybrid cannot do. A TDI hatchback will kill most any gasser economy-wise.
So... your claim is that there is no such thing as Ethanol.
That's interesting.
My Prius have already used over 200 gallons of that imaginary alternative.
JOHN
The real gig is does it really change the reasons and the BE points. If they do . what are the factors, etc etc
Ethanol gets way less MPG than gas and surely way less than #2 diesel. They also can charge far more for a far less costly and efficient fuel. So in effect one burns far more fuel that if either only gas or diesel is used. You may not see the irony here?
The burning of ethanol is not mitigated by current catalytic converter technology. In fact ethanol burning in industrial use has been banned for a long time by the EPA.
In fact the state of CA just reversed laws they made mandating the use of the alcohol substitute MTBE. They had forced the fuel market to implement its use and required BILLIONS of dollars of capital investment, etc for its mandated use, compliance, manufacture etc. Of course they totally ignored the environmentalists who they listened to in the first place to implement MTBE, who said it was so called "safe"
Turns out they found out AFTER all of this ,the absolutely devasting effects and high costs to mitigat even over unleaded regular after it was fully on the market.
$2.73 for diesel in MD, right now, today at Flying J. Regular unleaded $2.78. Flying J lists prices for nearly all of the states and some in Canada and anyone can check the prices using the website. The diesel is less than the gas.
OK, so you were able to find $3.09 diesel. Is there an anti-diesel bias that you are presenting with the $0.36/gallon higher priced diesel than what is listed on site I referenced?
Mistake #2, the fine print even says they ignore the $2000 tax break, which amounts to $800 for people in the 40% tax bracket.
You have to exceed $326,450 to hit 35%, let alone 40% tax bracket. Is anyone who is making that much worried about $800?
Ethanol has an important part to play in future energy options for vehicles.
We need a variety of technologies to have the best opportunity for success.
Electric, hybrid, diesel, hydrogen, propane, cng, ethanol and methanol and others.
3.4% is considered "way less". Really?
And no one is complaining about the horsepower increase it provides.
.
> try using 100% ethanol in a gasser.
Since when is absolute replacement necessary? What's wrong with the standard 85 percent ethanol mix instead? That's certainly higher than the 20 percent biodiesel we see currently.
.
> The burning of ethanol is not mitigated by current catalytic converter technology.
What in the world are you talking about? 10 percent has been supported industry-wide for years now. 85 percent is for the 1,500,000 FFVs on the road already in the United States.
JOHN
I would be happy to tell you. First a Silverado flex fuel PU truck is EPA rated for combined 12 MPG on E85. The same exact truck when you use regular unleaded gets 16 mpg combined. Second and biggest problem is transportation of Ethanol. It is VERY dangerous to transport. There is only one station that I can find in San Diego that sells E85. The big corporations that would like to challenge the oil industry have done a good job of selling the positive side of Ethanol. They have ignored all the negatives. We as a country and the farmers would be better served growing crops for biodiesel than ethanol.
PS you should try some of that E85 in your Prius may run like a scalded ape for a couple miles
I don't doubt that the older versions of ethanol and the technology to utilize it did in fact cause a huge lose. But the data doesn't show that anymore. The lifetime average for my Prius in mixed driving over the past 41,000 miles using E10 is 49.2 MPG.
Then again, substitution should not be a goal. Using less is.
So alternatives are a good buffer, while we wait for the outdated vehicles to expire. That makes non-hybrid diesel a limited choice, since there isn't a whole lot more that can be done for it anymore. Hybrids on the other hand, they can continue to grow more efficient as the electric technology continues to evolve.
JOHN
You might consider last winter, the older version of ethanol but I think you are totally missing the point. In so far as diesel is concerned you are at best misinformed. On the down side your statement is not true. What is true is anti diesel folks have done their level best to exterminate diesel as a viable fuel alternative. The truth is they have done a pretty good job of it, if 2.3-2.9% of the passenger vehicle fleet being diesel. But the cool thing is as they ratch up the price of fuel per gal, it almost becomes a no brainer to bring more diesels to market.
Using less fuel does not and I repeat does not lessen dependence on foreign imported oil. Why you think that it does is really beyond me. Sure you might want your dream world a certain way, but.......
Lifetime for 67k using just #2 diesel is 47/48 and I don't even TRY to conserve fuel. I would imagine if I drove my diesel like my friend's drive their Prius's 50-55 is more likely. I have gotten 62 mpg but again that was imitating Prius like driving behavior. Some diesel hobbyists have gone as high as mid 70's
FFV types still have low compression engines so they will run on gasoline. Ethanol has an octane rating of about 110. To take advantage of this, compression ratios would have to be raised to nearly 12:1 !!! In a gasser, higher compression equals more power, but also lots more pollution, especially NOx.
Another two problems with FFV is that they cost more to produce and use more fuel than a straight gasser. So where is the advantage? I do not see any.
I can run up to 20% biodiesel. That is 20%, not 10% like in your Prius or the vast majority of gassers.
One last thing, ethanol is heavily subsidized by the government. Without it, ethanol prices would be so outrageous, no one would use it or if they did, the cost of using it in gas would raise the cost of gasohol to a ridiculous level.
Prius operates at a compression of 13:1, using a specialized pumping cycle that reduces pollution, notably NOx.
JOHN
The TDI 's compression ratio is on the order of 19 to 1.
JOHN
The governor of Minnesota responded to that very argument against ethanol this morning. He stated that if people believe gas isn't also heavily subsidized, they basically don't have a clue.
*ALL* fuel is getting rather significant $$$ help from the government. Only when it comes to grown alternatives like ethanol & biodiesel, we actually get the benefit of creating rural employment opportunities... helping those local communities survive rather than sending the money overseas.
JOHN
In an Atkinson cycle engine, the intake valve stays open during a portion of the compression stroke, reducing the volume of the air charge, effectively reducing the compression ratio as it is understood to exist in Otto cycle engines.
it will take me 423,000 to 700,000 miles miles to BE against a Prius.
(100,000 miles / 38 and 49 = 2041- gal 2632 gal =591 gal x $3 per gal = 1773/7500 and 12500= 4.23 and 7.05 x or between 423,000 to 700,000 miles to BE)
So given 13,200 miles per year that divides out to 32 to 53 years. to BE.
I would agree as long as the ethanol can perform as well as biodiesel in their respective engines. From what I have read they can both be produced from feed crops. I know the by-product of biodiesel is used as feed. Do the by-products of ethanol have similar uses? If they both come from the same crops, which gives us the most bang for our crop dollars? I am skeptical of ethanol for several reasons. One of the main ones is the mega corporations behind it. Biodiesel seems to be more grass roots. Little startup companies that are producing and marketing biodiesel. We are getting Willie Nelson biodiesel in 5 stations here in San Diego. I trust his integrity over ADM any day of the week.
Perhaps they meant "use less oil"?
I assume you are referring to the 11% ethanol that CA adds as an oxygenator? I have no scientific evidence. When CA switched from MTBE to Ethanol I swear my Suburban dropped 1 MPG. Others have said they get better mileage with non CA gas than the stuff they are selling with 11% ethanol.
I tried several tanks of E10 in a Dodge Dakota I had. Since it was fuel injected, the starting issue was not a problem, but there was that degradation in fuel economy at about 2.5 mpg.
"If the air were clean again" is statement it makes. The two hybrids featured (Prius & Highlander-Hybrid) release 80% fewer smog-forming emissions than the average new vehicle.
Clean diesel doesn't even come close to that. How will it compete against an advertising campaign based on emissions? Its weakness of only providing an efficiency improvement is going to be hard to deny now that the bar is being raised to the SULEV emission rating.
JOHN
Diesels have two weak points, NOx and particulate. Both of these issues are easy to deal with once the sulfur is removed from diesel fuel. Diesels have always put out fewer unburned hydrocarbons and carbon dioxide than any gas engined car or truck.
The Meta One is an advanced research vehicle concept which displays the evolution of automotive design, research and engineering with emerging safety features, personal electronics and the world's first PZEV capable diesel hybrid.
If they can produce one they can produce millions.
My point is generally speaking diesel costs more, and I'm talking about several data points, not just one.
You saw diesel for $2.73 and regular gas for $2.78. OK, that's one station where diesel is cheaper.
But I've seen many more where diesel costs more. The Wawa in Ocean City MD had regular for $2.59, while diesel was $2.79.
Last night in Gaithersburg, the Chevron went a little crazy. Regular gas was $2.99 and diesel was $3.99! Dunno, maybe they were having a shortage. Other stations along 355 in the area had diesel for about the same price as premium fuel, i.e. 20 cents or so more than regular.
I stand by my claim - that in MD, you will most often find that diesel costs *more* than regular gas, and about the same as premium. Not at every single station, but at most of them, definitely.
As far as the tax brackets go, you gotta be up there to afford a new Jetta. LOL
-juice
1. Oil companies. Diesel is relatively easy to produce in comparison to gasoline. It does not require the fancy regional and seasonal formulations that gasoline does. Also, diesel powered vehicle use significantly less fuel than their gasoline powered counterparts. Less fuel and cheaper to make used = less money in their wallets.
2. Biodiesel. This is a threat to the oil companies because it would cut into their profits.
3. EPA - they like gasoline and really do not understand diesel.
However, those emissions are cleansed, removing far more NOx than a traditional gas vehicle... hence the SULEV rating.
.
> Your comments are very misleading
Toyota is the one pointing out the importance of SULEV. I simply seconded the idea.
.
> Diesels have two weak points, NOx and particulate. Both of these issues are easy to deal with once the sulfur is removed from diesel fuel.
SULEV is an industry standard that clean diesel alone cannot achieve. As stated countless times already, improved hardware is also required. That adds $$$ to the cost, making diesel less competitive.
.
> the reduction in emissions you speak of is nothing but smoke and mirrors
Claiming SULEV is bogus will not work. Give up this senseless battle against the EPA rating system.
JOHN
I thought it was wise for the CA EPA to exempt my diesel fuel car from smog emissions control tests.!