Is This the "Day of the Diesel?"

kdhspyder · December 2006

I am all ears for a gasser product that can put in diesel mpg numbers.

1) Prius.. better acceleration, same or better overall FE, same price range, same size, available everywhere at near invoice
2. HCH.. similar acceleration, same FE, similar cost, size and available everywhere also.

alltorque · December 2006

As for getting 140 hp out of a 100 hp motor, I don't frankly believe that, those figures are the tuners' equivalent of snakeoil. You don't typically get those benefits from chipping, and if you do, you probably won't get it without compromising drivability and reliability. You are not beating VR6's with a 1.9 liter TDi.

Sorry, pch101, but vicyum is on the ball. There are quite a lot of chipped TDi's in the UK. 150bhp from the 130bhp motor is common, 180bhp less so, but not unusual. Have a look at the attached site and plug in make and model to look-see what can be done - simply............and the cost. These guys are very highly regarded by the "spirited" TDi drivers - not a drop of snake oil in sight.

www.jabbasport.com/

By the way, ULSD, (the only kind available), is more expensive that U/L gasoline here in UK; same tax regime but higher base price. And still diesel car sales grow. Easy to fgure out why, at least to those who use TDi's etc as their daily driver. In fact, not having a diesel available is seen as being a failing in a manufacturer's portfolio. Even Jaguar offer very good diesels and, of course, VAG, BMW and MB have been doing so for years.

The "Day of The Diesel" ? Yes. Just a matter of time for USA.

ruking1 · December 2006

As YOU know from prior discussions on this thread and others, those were some of the finalists in the process of getting both the Jetta TDI and Honda Civic. I would however have gotten a diesel Civic. It would be for the same reason as the diesel VW.

ruking1 · December 2006

I would also agree!! It is literally amazing the mods you can do!!

Indeed my positon is that diesel models should be part of any oems offerings.

pch101 · December 2006

150bhp from the 130bhp motor is common, 180bhp less so, but not unusual.

Yes, 150 hp from 130 hp is believable, in that's only 15%. You can often chip a turbocharged motor, whether gas or diesel, and get a similar result.

140 hp from 100 hp is a 40% gain, and less believable. You can only get so much from a chip installation, and that's when you starting getting into the realm of hype. Without putting it on a dyno, I wouldn't be inclined to believe it.

And again, you can chip any turbocharged motor, whether gas or diesel. Turbocharging lends itself to chipping in part because the boost characteristics can be manipulated. This is inherent to the turbo, not to the type of fuel used by the engine.

winter2 · December 2006

I do not think you are getting what I am saying or else I worded it poorly.

If you refine crude oil without cracking it, you will get X% gasoline and Y% diesel fuel. That is a given. If you take the heavier remaining fractions and run them through a cracker, it will take less heat to make diesel fuel than gasoline. Gasoline is more volatile and the carbon chains are shorter and to break or crack the longer carbon chains requires more energy/heat. Since diesel fuel(middle distillate) has longer carbon chains, it would take less energy/heat to produce.

kdhspyder · December 2006

If you take the heavier remaining fractions and run them through a cracker, it will take less heat to make diesel fuel than gasoline. Gasoline is more volatile and the carbon chains are shorter and to break or crack the longer carbon chains requires more energy/heat. Since diesel fuel(middle distillate) has longer carbon chains, it would take less energy/heat to produce.

You are right this is the key unknown for me in what inputs it takes to release the additional products like gasoline, diesel/fuel oil, etc from the lower residuum. What you say makes sense but there's nothing that I could find explaining it.

winter2 · December 2006

Here is one source for trans gear ratios.

http://www.allpar.com/model/jeep/liberty-2005.html

ruking1 · December 2006

Basically the strategic goal is given the technological state of the art is to get as much profitable usable sellable/marketable products as cost effectively as you can.

So for discussion purposes purely from a barrel of oil refinement and passenger vehicle point of view is for the passenger vehicle fleet percentages to be in line with the technological production ratios of oil. This would be at 46% and 23.4% This will structurally require LESS barrels of oil and its subsequent production refinement and distribution. (multiplier effects also, actually DOWNWARD divisional effects)

So out of a 42 gal barrel gas is 19.3 g Gas 46% , 9.83 g 23.4% Diesel (process gain is 2.47 g 5.9%)

So in theory if the passenger vehicle fleet were closer to 23.4% diesel that would cut back barrel of oil demand enormously. Currently of course it is 97% gasser and 3% or less diesel.

So in the this context, gasser hybrids are tactical. Indeed I have referred to the gasser as the one trick pony. Hybrids theoretically will affect/effect or lessen demand. The HUGE disadvantage will be the infrastructure costs. And higher costs in the extra equipment needed to effect the 20% savings and the HUGH extra energy needed to produce this. Diesel on the other hand is strategic AND tactical and alternative. It does not use gas, uses the other part of the barrel, so to speak. Its use is also less and it cost less upstream and downstream . In addition one can even get off the above grid in that it can use so called alternative fuels, such as farm products, waste products: farm industrial and experimental, industrial products and new technological natural convergencies such as diesel from algae, coal gassification forming diesel, diesel from natural gas and the good news is: it goes on and on and on.

goodcrd · December 2006

Thanks winter2. The gearing of the trans makes sense for the CRD which makes it's power ealier as does a gas v8.

highender · December 2006

1) Prius.. better acceleration, same or better overall FE, same price range, same size, available everywhere at near invoice
2. HCH.. similar acceleration, same FE, similar cost, size and available everywhere also.

I don't know ...but I drove a Prius before...and the car had felt like it was trying really hard to go, when my family (4) was in it. The same family of 4 ( now weighing slightly more

) does fine when merging on the freeway in a diesel Jetta.

I even have a towing hitch on the Jetta TDI. I doubt the Prius could tow regularly....

Again, I would agree that fuel economy are similar...arguably Pruis is better, or Jetta is better...

I disagree that the price is similar....I think it costs more to own a like year, like optioned Prius. COuld not find one for near invoice.

I did not drive the HCH, but I do hope it is better. From what I hear, the real world fuel economy is worst than either Prius or Jetta TDI. I hear the hybird electric motor does just minor improvements in the FE .

I think the Prius would be better for the environment if they can make the battery issue more GREEN and cost effective. I do not think they can make the engine last longer...since it is a gasser, and there is no way around it because they used a thin walled engine in order to reduce weight and improve gas mileage. Perhaps in the future they can make a low revving , thick walled engine that last long...to 400,000 miles, and also save gas/diesel........

cheers..

ruking1 · December 2006

Yeah, I think I was more impressed with the geez whiz this tech is cool, than any of the performance parameters!!! Part of the due diligence, actually call it DRILL, I go through is to talk to the mechanics who maintain things. So if they use words like WOW, bullet proof, easy to work on, yada yada, I tend to dig more or become more reassured. If they bad mouth it (hard to do if someone is paying you ) or are strangely reserved, then that gives me the heebie geebies!! This of course triggers a full blown criminal forenic audit aka look deeper.

So for example I find that tires do not last on Prius'. Sure there are better than oem replacements but you lose fuel mileage. (Hmmmmmmmm wasn't that part of the point anyway?) etc etc. Any of those gee whiz systems go down, and of course it will probably go down 1 mile and 1 min out of out of warranty, they very costly. The other thing I found hard was you really have to drive with an anal retentive mind set. So it is wonderful if one is so inclined. I am not.

I did a spread sheet on the Prius and the TDI is WAY cheaper to run. It is so almost on any parameter you wish to run.

vicyum · December 2006

The other TDI diesel website has dyno number posted all the times by members, tuners. You can find dyno number, drag race 1/4 mile time slips. A lot of dyno numbers were done with witness, different setup to ensure the number is correct and not manipulate. This is no hype or promotional materials.

Also don't forget torque is very important, not just hp. I drove a MR2 turbo, chipped A4 and 8 cyclinder Q45 before the TDI and I can honestly tell you my TDI is very fast.

ruking1 · December 2006

I am glad you are having the fun you are with it!! The torque for the hp is truly impressive.

One of the crazier things I have seen was the dyno of a modified diesel truck. It posted something like 1200 # ft of torque!!!! WOW!

So what was the mpg for the MR2 Turbo?

kdhspyder · December 2006

I don't know ...but I drove a Prius before...and the car had felt like it was trying really hard to go, when my family (4) was in it. The same family of 4 ( now weighing slightly more ) does fine when merging on the freeway in a diesel Jetta.

It does sound loud when the small 1.5L is revved all the way up at max acceleration and it 'feels' different since there are no noticeable gear shifts. However at a stoplight with a V6 auto or a truck or any SUV the Prius will always be away from the light the quickest ( electric motor torque ). The larger HP vehicles will catch up soon but the Prius is quick off the line. Ditto the merging and quick passing effect. The electric motor jumps on instantneously like a super charger so there is no downshift lag, it just goes.

I even have a towing hitch on the Jetta TDI. I doubt the Prius could tow regularly....

Youre right the Prius probably wouldn't do too well in towing.

Again, I would agree that fuel economy are similar...arguably Pruis is better, or Jetta is better...

I disagree that the price is similar....I think it costs more to own a like year, like optioned Prius. COuld not find one for near invoice.

The Prius costs next to nothing to maintain. Oil and filters every 5K mi /6 mos. A coolant change at 60-100k mi. Rotate the tires as needed. Normal wear items but the brakes have been going over 100K mi regularly since a lot of the slowdowns are coasting and the engine is off not puling the vehicle forward. That's it ... forever.

Almost all of them now in the Mid Atlantic region are just above invoice. Big stores have as many as 30 in stock.

I did not drive the HCH, but I do hope it is better. From what I hear, the real world fuel economy is worst than either Prius or Jetta TDI. I hear the hybird electric motor does just minor improvements in the FE .

The HCH is not as quick as the Prius it's more like the TDI. It does achieve a good regular 45 mpg+ on an annual basis according to the data at GH. This as opposed to a gasser Civic which would average about mpg annually.

I think the Prius would be better for the environment if they can make the battery issue more GREEN and cost effective. I do not think they can make the engine last longer...since it is a gasser, and there is no way around it because they used a thin walled engine in order to reduce weight and improve gas mileage. Perhaps in the future they can make a low revving , thick walled engine that last long...to 400,000 miles, and also save gas/diesel........

The current NiMH batteries are the greenest of all current batteries. There is nothing remarkable about them. They get recycled like any other part of the car. Toyota and Honda ICE engines are the strongest part of their vehicles. Normally one can expect these to last well into 200,000 miles which is 15 yrs of driving for most. Far longer than 90% of the population will ever drive them. Thick walled engines are disappearing like dinosaurs. The new technologies are all aluminum engines for gassers that will still go well into the 200K-300K range.

BTW with the Atkinson cycle and the way the HSD monitors the ICE it is low revving. Most normal cruising is done at about 1600 rpms. A good part of the time the ICE, even when cruising, is at idle at about 950 rpms. A large part of slow speed driving is done with the engine off entirely. These HSD vehicles are very very gentle on the ICE's.

winter2 · December 2006

It is interesting that when we had those horrible hurricanes last year, a couple of refineries that were devoted to producing diesel fuel were converted to produce gasoline. I wonder how much diesel fuel they are able to extract from a barrel of oil at a cost effective price?

ruking1 · December 2006

You know, that is an interesting question.

It would have been neat to watch the price of ULR go to the moon while the price of diesel went to HADES. Pre Katrina I literally bought #2 diesel in the Covington area (near New Orleans, LV) and Biloxi MS area (on return) RETAIL for app 2.55 per gal.

It was not to be, as you know, President Bush indirectly enforced price manipulation of ULR by strongly suggesting that refiners redirect their efforts to provide more ULR supply, which they complied. This had the effect of market manipulation for diesel (unforeseen tightening of supply with normal demand) and it stayed par and rose at times in the near future. It should have sunk and stayed DOWN.

winter2 · December 2006

It is rather interesting that Dodge uses a four speed automatic on their Cummins powered pickup trucks. The Cummins has a power curve not unlike the CRD and makes about twice as much torque in the same RPM range.

I disagree with your comments about where V-8 gassers make their power. I have driven Chevy 283's all the way up to the Chrysler 426 hemi. The small block Chevy and and Chrysler 318 and the 340 needed to be spooled up past 3000 RPM before you got a kick in the butt from the torque they produced. The larger engined cars I have driven include the Oldsmobile with the 394 and of course the hemi. They made torque similar to the CRD (low revs) and it came on faster and at lower RPM's say 2000 to 2200 RPM's. What I have learned with gassers is that large displacement goes with large torque at lower RPM's. For contemporary diesels there is less of a correlation with displacement and torque.

ruking1 · December 2006

Yeah I am thinking a 5,6,7, possibly 8 speed auto would better match the gearing due to much higher diesel torque curves. One thing that does keep me out of the American diesel truck market is this mis-match. Indeed if I were to get the Dodge (Cummins) 2500 series, it would be in a 6 speed MANUAL.

winter2 · December 2006

I to have driven a Prius with three on board and found it lacking in performance. I found the transition from electric to ICE harsh and when I needed power it sounded like I was revving the engine more than I needed to when compared to the diesel I drive.

I feel that the Prius is not that green because it still uses gasoline and in present form cannot use any other fuel save for E10. E85 is out because of the loss in FE and because E85 eats aluminum alloy.

Gassers no matter which combustion cycle they use cannot be run as lean burn engines and dump more unburned HC and CO into the atmosphere than does a diesel. The batteries are a non-issue if handled correctly.

ruking1 · December 2006

This is a SWAG given the figures on E85 Chevrolet products but there is a 25% hit vs gasser fuels.

So using three figures for the Prius 60/50 avg 48 mpg, the hit would be as follows (SWAG HERE FOLKS) 45/38 avg 36.

The good news of course is 85% is alternative fuel (ethanol) the bad news is 15% of that is ULR. And the costs go ever higher as the price of ethanol is PAR with ULR.

Compared with the nexus DIESEL it makes not much sense at all VW JETTA 18k, 42/49 and 48/49 avg vs 2004 Prius 25K

It is HARD to make up the cost differences of 7,000. When you add to that, you are continually digging a hole with a -12 miles per gal. The governments will want to see payoffs for its matrix many line item tax credits and write downs. It is a lose, lose, lose , proposition. One clue, even government agencies are not embracing ethanol products (hint, most government tax credits and write downs are moot to them!!?? It is a lose lose lose proposition.

pch101 · December 2006

Chip makers often exaggerate or overstate the power gains from chipping. I have no doubt that some of them claim 40%gains, but that doesn't make it true.

You can get some benefit from modifications, but you can only mod so much. There are a lot of naive kids who think that new ignition wires and advancing the timing with a chip will give them a 50% horsepower gain, but they are wrong.

And let's not forget that if you have engine problems and the dealership realizes that you have chipped your car, they will likely attempt to invalidate your warranty. You had better hope not to have engine problems that might lead them to figure this out.

ruking1 · December 2006

I am sure he is very acquainted with the points you have made. The interesting thing about VW chips (for TDI anyway) is they are almost instantly removable and replaceable. So in that EXTREMELY remote case of possible warranty fulfillment, the chip is long since GONE.

pch101 · December 2006

The interesting thing about VW chips (for TDI anyway) is they are almost instantly removable and replaceable. So in that EXTREMELY remote case of possible warranty fulfillment, the chip is long since GONE.

That's false. The day of the physical chip swap is long behind us. Today, there is no physical chip installed; instead, the existing ECU software is "remapped" (reprogrammed). The basic tool for the install is a laptop, and no chip is removed, installed or swapped.

The chipmakers claim that their programming is undetectable, but that remains to be seen. But the chip is not GONE, not by a long shot.

pch101 · December 2006

You're out of date on what happens with new engines. They are "flashed", not so much as "chipped."

If you have an old car, such as one from the 90's, then yes, it will likely be a physical swap of one chip for another. This is not the case with newer cars, and won't be going forward.

moparbad · December 2006

pch....

Your incorrect about a physical chip. My Golf TDI was chipped and the chip was physically removed and a new one put in it's place. The original chip could be swapped when going to the dealer, if so desired.

ruking1 · December 2006

There are numerous web references if you care to look for 2003 VW TDI "chips". I think you think it doesn't exist if you don't look.

But if you really do look, it is actually there. Ah up to 2006 hmmmmmmmmmmm.

http://www.parleysdieselperformance.com/site/988369/product/VAG-TDISB

pch101 · December 2006

(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

ruking1 · December 2006

"(Banging head into wall...) "...

I can can see you are having fun now!! So is the reason you sometimes stop is because it feels so good? Diesel on!

goodcrd · December 2006

I should have stated that since a v8 develops more torque ealier then a v6 or 4 cylinder gas engine it will produce more power at lower rpms. And yes the larger the displacement the more low end torque. I miswrote.
But to understand how to match a trans to an engine you must see the torque and power curves. For the CRD to have the same or better top end performance of the 3.7 it would need another speed to give it a higher top speed. But these vehicles are 4WD off roaders that shouldn't be driven over 80 mph. There is no need to reach 100+ MPH speeds. They are made to push 4 drive wheels under load and not bog down. They need low end power. Go to VM motori's web site and look at the Torque and power curve for the CRD engine yourself. Then look at one for a gas 4 cylinder turbo or non-turbo and you will see the power characteristics of the diesel and gas engines. This will shed some light on why these engines are being used for better fuel economy and low end performance. I wish they would also superimpose a curve of fuel consumption per rpm at a standard load. This would help pch101 understand how much more fuel efficient a diesel engine is then a gas engine at lower RPMs. The Gas engine doesn't approach or equal the efficiency of a diesel engine until it reaches peak power. And only at peak power will the gas engine equal the efficiency of a diesel, which is more efficient throughout all rpms but peak power. But no matter what, the added energy in a gallon of diesel will keep the diesel more economic then the gas engine.
As to getting Gasoline from a barrel of crude. Over 20 years ago a barrel of crude only produced about 13 gallons of gasoline. The main reason they get so much today is they adjusted their process to make more gasoline. It's the product which is in the highest demand. They can adjust the process up or down depending on the demand. And demand today is Gasoline. We use the excess gasoline from other countries like those in Europe. They sell us their excess so they give a tax incentive to diesel users in Europe so they can sell the costlier excess gasoline to the US. It's dollars and cents!
How is you CRD doing? I just cleaned a mouse nest out of my air filter box. It runs better then the 2002 Liberty 3.7 I had. I used to average 19 mpgs the and now with the crd it's a honest 26.5 average. Go figure :surprise: .

pch101 · December 2006

This would help pch101 understand how much more fuel efficient a diesel engine is then a gas engine at lower RPMs.

I have consistently pointed out on this thread that diesels have better fuel economy for a given amount of output than do gas engines.

What I have been pointing out is that some of you are overstating the degree of benefit. I never said that there was no benefit, just not as much as some of you would like to say.

Surely there must be a way to discuss this reasonably without resorting to inappropriate comparisons and hype.

goodcrd · December 2006

EPROM's had to be replaced. If they could be reburned (reprogrammed) they could be reprogrammed and reused. EEPROM's can be reflashed (reprogrammed) without being removed from the ECMs. This discussion is leading to nonsense. Just say reprogrammed the engine controller and don't go into the details.

ruking1 · December 2006

"I just cleaned a mouse nest out of my air filter box. It runs better then the 2002 Liberty 3.7 I had. I used to average 19 mpgs the and now with the crd it's a honest 26.5 average. Go figure :surprise: "

Probably one of the extra maintenance items for diesels. I clean the VW's snorkle screen every 5,000 miles (17 times so far) and inevitably it always has at least some debris. The dirty filter box side of the unit seems to only have fine sand so the filter is really doing its job.

pch101 · December 2006

Just say reprogrammed the engine controller and don't go into the details.

The details matter because you have people reading this who apparently believe that it is not possible to detect a chipped car.

On the older cars, when the chips were physically swapped out, the dealer mechanics could tell because the casing would have been opened. These days, flash programs may attempt to have a "stock" tuning that mimics the OEM program so as to avoid detection, but a good tech may be able to tell that the ECU has been hacked. Either way, you might get caught, and if so, you might have a warranty battle if the manufacturer attributes vehicle damange to the "chip".

When discussing chipping, people should understand that chip claims are often exaggerated, that the engine's performance characteristics may change in ways that aren't entirely positive, and that warranties may possibly be affected. It's not just a matter of paying a few bucks, and getting some magic fix that has no drawbacks.

goodcrd · December 2006

I think you just want to argue. Nothing is being overstated. Go back to the 1980 VW diesel rabbit which wasn't turbo charged and get the specs and mpgs. Then compare it to the non turbo gas model. And you thought all diesels had to be turbocharged. Your not being reasonable in these discussions. Basic diesel to basic gas engine. Then see which was helped most by a turbo. "Both" Gas more then Diesel.

pch101 · December 2006

Nothing is being overstated.

The 37% figure is completely overstated. To consider fuel economy without considering performance is off base.

If I tried to make a favorable comparison of an old 4-cylinder Mustang over the 5.0 liter V8, while completely ignoring the performance benefit of the 5.0, you'd all laugh. Forgive me for having similar feelings when I see 90 hp cars being compared to 180 hp cars as if they are identical but for fuel economy.

goodcrd · December 2006

Gullible people are born everyday. And the techs can also change parameters. Anyone with a laptop and the proper programming also. Chips can be swapped out. But it is still the burden of the car manufacturer to prove that the modification caused the failure. It mostly affects the emissions. Most performance reprograms eliminate the emissions to increase performance. They're not worth it. Some increase governed engine rpms to increase top end performance. If it is done right you are just retuning a detuned engine. And most cars are detuned to stop drivers from out driving what the chassis was designed. Having a 150 mph capable car with tires rated at 105 mph max is not safe. I would not "chip" a street legal car. A special use vehicle. Yes!!!!

goodcrd · December 2006

Lets do the comparison. But we would also need the weight of the cars. If the weight of the 4cylinder manual Mustang is close to the VW diesel rabbit of the time lets go. I'm game.

pch101 · December 2006

You need to read my post again. I was talking about the ridiculousness of comparing a 4-cylinder Mustang with an 8-cylinder Mustang based solely on fuel economy, while ignoring the obvious lack of performance of the 4-cylinder.

That's precisely the sort of reaching you all make by comparing 90 hp Jettas to 180+ hp Jettas, when even a basic knowledge of vehicles should tell you that an engine that produces double the output is going to use more fuel, because power requires fuel. Of course, the much weaker car uses less fuel -- that would be true no matter what kind of fuel was being used!

elias · December 2006

hi folks. i'm in orlando now, walkin the walk, driving the drive, peeling off multiple >900 mile days in 06 jetta TDI. mpg increased southbound on maryland fuel, it's over 47 mpg now @ real 77 mph speeds with long runs where all the traffic is >> 80 real speed. (as opposed to speedo-indicated speeds). winter(green)2, you drove duster 340? NICE. iirc, that was a pure race engine, only in production to satisfy some stock-car requirements. any bald mopar-heads out there to confirm/deny that?
personally i try to make my fleet fuel economy and fuel mix match the ratio at which diesel*miles and gasoline*miles can be extracted from a bbl of average fuel. i suppose if the USA fleet balance was too heavily diesel i might want to buy gassers instead, to help get the USA fleet fuel mix optimized at the proper ratio.
for my own fleet & miles/types-of-driving, the gasoline miles can only be more useful and fun than diesel miles if the gasser miles are in a rocket car like GTO or Z06 or CTS-V or M5 or SRT8. so except for performance cars like that, i'll vote with my wallet for DIESELs.
HAPPY OILY/SOOTY/PARTICLE-TRAPPED/WAY-MORE-EFFICIENT DIESEL NEW YEAR YALL !

ruking1 · December 2006

May the rest of the trip be safe! I hope the rest of the trip continues to be a blast! The even better news about your 47 mpg at 75-80 speeds is that at 50,000 to 60,000 miles your engine will be fully broken in, (highest compression @ app 550) and your mpg, given similar conditions will be even better. Best of luck! Happy New Year!

winter2 · December 2006

My CRD is doing just fine. Have had the ball joint recall and F37 recall done. Finally had the EGR valve fail too at 14.2K miles. They blame the S500 fuel. Found a good Chrysler-Jeep dealer in West Palm Beach on Okeechobee Blvd near the Florida Turnpike. They did a fabulous job. After the F37 was done and the EGR valve was replaced, the drivability of my CRD improved significantly, especially when cold. It use to stumble a little in the first few hundred feet after the first start of the day. Since F37, acceleration from a stop is easier to modulate and it is less abrupt. FE remains unchanged and I still get 29 - 31 MPG on the road about 20 - 21 around town. Have not found any mice in my CRD yet.

winter2 · December 2006

What I have been pointing out is that some of you are overstating the degree of benefit. I never said that there was no benefit, just not as much as some of you would like to say.

I agree. The benefit gained by the majority of diesel users is about 20% to 25% in FE.

ruking1 · December 2006

It would be easy to fudge the math ( 2003 VW Jetta highway vs Highway 1.8 T AND 2.0 (non turbo)) 31/ TDI 49,(49-31=18/49=.36733469 PERCENT) but as I saw you post "that would be dishonest, wouldn't it"? I would also agree as I have just reported the data and did the math.. So in your mind, you just ignore it. I am ok with that. Of course, that does not much for credibility.

The interesting comparison and contrast would be if I drove the 1.8 T and or 2.0, the way I drove the TDI, I strongly suspect (SWAG) the mpg would be even less than 31, thus making the percentages greater than 37% !!!!!

ruking1 · December 2006

"I agree. The benefit gained by the majority of diesel users is about 20% to 25% in FE."

I would agree also, but only if I do the very thing PCH vilifies folks for, and considers apples to oranges or a totally off-base comparison !!!!!

If I compare my gasser Civic epa 29/38, (38-42 commute) to the VW TDI epa 42/49, (48-52 commute), the difference is 39-50=11/50= 22% Funny how the logic doesn't work both ways? Funny how PCH likes defective comparisons to benefit illogic conclusions. So IF the CIVIC had a turbo would the MPG be MORE or less?

If done correctly for sure performance would be "better".

But some more interesting data. Honda Civic has MORE hp 115-TDI 90hp = 25 hpp E. Civic weighs 436 #s LESS than the TDI.

qbrozen · December 2006

To consider fuel economy without considering performance is off base.

It doesn't matter what anyone says. You find a way to argue with it. We've shown you that performance is just as good, if not better in a car like the E-class Benz, but then you complain that the gasser isn't turbo'd, so its not fair. Yet, what can we do about it? Benz doesn't have a turbo gasser e-class. That's not our fault. We can only compare what exists. FACT: the gasser and diesel benz are comparable in performance while the diesel gets ~27% better mileage. I don't see why this has to be such a problem ... so I can only deduce that you ARE in fact arguing for the sake of arguing.

pch101 · December 2006

you complain that the gasser isn't turbo'd, so its not fair.

(If I keep banging my head into the wall this much, I'm going to have to form a metal band.)

I pointed this out even before the Mercedes example -- turbocharging provides benefits to both types of engines.

And in any case, are you really surprised that a 3.5 liter naturally aspirated engine with 60 more horsepower gets worse fuel economy than a somewhat less powerful 3.2 liter with a turbo? Even if the 3.2T was a gas engine, you would also expect to get better fuel economy than you would with the 3.5.

As it turns out, the E350 has a fuel economy advantage over the E550 -- the EPA city rating for the E350 is 27% higher. Again, given the power output difference between the two motors (in this case, 114 hp), why would that surprise anyone?

pch101 · December 2006

Thanks, I referenced the 20-25% range myself and agree with you, based upon comparing similar cars with similar performance.

I just don't understand the propensity of some of the diesel fans here to stretch the truth. The thing is that 20-25% is actually pretty good, so why some feel the need to stretch this figure, I don't know.

ruking1 · December 2006

"Thanks, I referenced the 20-25% range myself and agree with you, based upon comparing similar cars with similar performance.

I just don't understand the propensity of some of the diesel fans here to stretch the truth. The thing is that 20-25% is actually pretty good, so why some feel the need to stretch this figure, I don't know. "

Math doesn't agree with you.

pch101 · December 2006

OK, I'm buying that guitar and amplifier stack today.

I think it's a no brainer that a car that needs 14 seconds to hit 60 mph has some serious disadvantages to one that hit that speed in less than 8 seconds. Back in their day, we didn't compare 88 hp Mustangs with 205 hp 5.0 liters without remembering which car could outperform the other, even though the 4-cylinder has a city EPA rating that was 44% better than the V8.

In terms of performance, your 90 hp Jetta has more in common with the 1.0 liter 3-cylinder Chevy/Geo Sprints/ Metro's of yore than it does with the 1.8T gas engine that could get to about 90-100 mph in about the same time that the diesel needed to get to 60 mph. (And the Metro 1.0 liter had similar fuel economy.)

Of course, this faster car is going to use more fuel than a slower one. If you are a car guy, shouldn't that be kind of obvious?

Is This the "Day of the Diesel?"

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles