Diesels - only for towing vehicles?, Hybrid vs. diesel Options

[mitchntx]

Anyone ever watch "Bullsh!t" on Showtime?

Penn and Teller take a subject and dissect it. I saw one on recycling that proclaimed recycling plastic takes more energy to accomplish that manufacturing it the first time.

I realize it's entertainment, but they bring up some good points ....

[jeffburch]

The wife is in the market for a new car.
We discussed the need for more smaller diesels in regular cars.
Volvo, VW and Merc's about it.
I heard about the new Duramax and that Cat had a motor they were shopping around.
I think they will be a great success.

She'd like a 2.5L TDI with 250 Ft/# of Tq in a Chevy HHR or Dodge Caliber please!

jb

[sgarnett]

From 8/6 Automotive News:"The horrible Achilles heel for the diesel people is that particulates are much harder to manage than hydrocarbons," said Eric Noble, analyst with The Car Lab in Orange, Calif. "They're already doing pretty unnatural acts, like putting cans of urine onto the cars to meet the current standards. You can only imagine how hard it will be to meet the future standards."

I assume or hope that is at least somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but what exactly is the urine can, and what does it have to do with diesels?

[trackbird]

From 8/6 Automotive News:"The horrible Achilles heel for the diesel people is that particulates are much harder to manage than hydrocarbons," said Eric Noble, analyst with The Car Lab in Orange, Calif. "They're already doing pretty unnatural acts, like putting cans of urine onto the cars to meet the current standards. You can only imagine how hard it will be to meet the future standards."

I assume or hope that is at least somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but what exactly is the urine can, and what does it have to do with diesels?

They were using some kind of a urea injection as part of the emissions process in some vehicles. I read some things on it, but I really just glanced over them and it's been a while ago. So, I'll turn you loose with urea injection and diesel and point you at google for the time being. That should get you started.

[BTA01]

I would definitely consider both a 1/2 ton diesel and a mid sized car with a diesel (one with a turbo would be much better).

As for the article, i see what they are saying, but the it didin't change my mind on diesels or hybrids.

my 2 cents:
as it has been pointed out, diesels cost more for several reasons, which probably scares a lot of people off. limited demand is a big factor (fewer stations that carry diesel and if fewer are sold construction costs are greater)

a majority of the public seems to accept what they are told rather than informing themselves, which has hurt several industries/products. Nuclear was pointed out (but that is probably a discussion for another day...).
I personally have not done the research to qualify this (I'm part of the problem too...), but based on my general knowledge I think that the total energy consumption/environmental impact of a hybrid is probably higher than that of a diesel considering the manufacturing, life and disposal.

off topic mini-rant:
I see all sorts of cars with "great" gas mileage but you find out that great means 32-35 (hwy) mpg. Why would I drive a vehicle with minimal performance when I often get 28-29 (HWY) mpg in my TA? I will admit that the difference in fuel economy between a 4-cyl and the ls-1 is greater in city driving, but I do mostly highway driving.

i'm not sure any of that had a real point... (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif)

[94bird]

From 8/6 Automotive News:"The horrible Achilles heel for the diesel people is that particulates are much harder to manage than hydrocarbons," said Eric Noble, analyst with The Car Lab in Orange, Calif. "They're already doing pretty unnatural acts, like putting cans of urine onto the cars to meet the current standards. You can only imagine how hard it will be to meet the future standards."

I assume or hope that is at least somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but what exactly is the urine can, and what does it have to do with diesels?

Urine is a reference to the urea that will be used in future diesels to reduce NOx in the tailpipe. It's major constituent is ammonia (NH3), which works quite well to reduce NOx to N2 and H2O. You might have heard of AdBlue before. I believe the first ones to use it in pass cars in the US will be based on the Mercedes V6 BlueTec. That engine goes in the Jeep Grand Cherokee also. This year they are not using urea, but they are also only Tier 2 Bin 8, which does not allow them to sell the engine in 50 states. Next year the plan is they will release the engine with urea injection into the exhaust, which will meet Tier 2 Bin 5 (50 state legal). The 5 gallon or so urea tank will likely have to be refilled about every oil change. The plan is quick oil change places and dealerships and some gas stations will carry gallon sized containers of it.

There are several competing technologies to using urea, such as a LNT (lean NOx trap) and Toyota's DPNR (diesel particulate NOx reduction) system. Toyota is not using their system in the US yet, but likely will by 2010. I believe the new Cummins diesel in the Ram is using a LNT. A LNT uses heavy loading of precious metals, much like a catalyst, and traps the NOx. Once the trap gets close to full, a large amount of fuel is "dumped" into the engine using a very late post injection. This very rich exhaust lasts for only about 4 seconds, releases the NOx, but much of it is reduced into N2 and H2O. No urea is used, but the catalyst materials in the LNT are very expensive. In general, a LNT is seen as a viable technology for 2 liter engines and smaller. Once you get bigger than that, the sheer cost of a LNT is prohibitive. A SCR catalyst (selective catalytic reduction), used with urea, uses much cheaper washcoat material.

Here's a brief list of things coming down the pike for diesels:

1) Sequential turbocharging - not directly being used to make more power. Instead, the turbos are needed to drive more EGR, and thus reduce the engine-out NOx. At least there is the capability for more air flow if this is done with that as a goal.
2) NOx aftertreatment - either urea and SCR or LNT.
3) Higher fuel pressure - already at 1800 bar (about 26000 psi) and going for 2000 bar just after 2010. Helps to lower smoke.
4) Piezo injectors - helps with response time to allow 7 injections per stroke. The extra injections are needed to "regenerate" aftertreatment devices like the DPF and LNT, as well as to lessen the noise from diesels. Higher fuel pressure creates more noise, so pilot injections will play an even more critical role.
5) Cylinder pressure feedback - already announced for a 2.9L V6 sold in Cadillacs in Europe. Will come here soon enough. This helps to reduce the variability in emissions in a fleet.
6) Lowering compression ratio - lowers NOx, but also hurts efficiency and thus fuel mileage. Also drives more cold start enablers, like intake air heaters, charge cooler bypasses, EGR cooler bypasses, etc.

None of these are cheap additions to a diesel engine.

However, gasoline engines are getting expensive battery packs and transmissions, direct injection (like diesels, but much lower fuel pressure), cylinder cutout (displacement on demand). Some of my friends are working in the hybrid group, especially on the dual mode transmission (2 electric motors in the automatic transmission) for the V8 SUVs that GM will start selling next year. I'm very anxious to see what that sells for, as with the 2 differently sized electric motors, it's an attempt to help out low and high speed driving and use less of the engine's gasoline power. It won't help much with towing, but for any other use, this technology just might rival diesels. BTW, that transmission was jointly developed by GM, Chrysler, and BMW. None of them could afford to do the transmission design and development on their own. If these rivals had to join forces to develop it, you can bet it won't be a cheap option.

I believe this is one of the most interesting times to be an automotive engineer, as the technology coming down the pike is amazing. However, I think it's going to be one of the worst times to be an auto consumer. This technology does not come cheap.

[94bird]

The wife is in the market for a new car.
She'd like a 2.5L TDI with 250 Ft/# of Tq in a Chevy HHR or Dodge Caliber please!

You can get 300 lb*ft with only 1.9L of displacement using a diesel turbo. In a 3000 lbs. car, using that engine, you should also be able to get well above 40 mpg.

[jeffburch]

I can?
Great.
Where do I send her?
(IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/dunno.gif)

jb

This post has been edited by jeffburch: Aug 9 2007, 07:10 PM

[trackbird]

I can?
Great.
Where do I send her?
(IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/dunno.gif)

jb

I think Mike is speaking of a VW TDI (you'll have to go used at this point) with a "chip" and a clutch upgrade. You can take a 90 hp 1.9 diesel and make 350 ft lbs/180 hp with a chip and few other mods. I also think Mike confused you with Mericet (who owns a TDI golf).

[94bird]

I can?
Great.
Where do I send her?
(IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/dunno.gif)

jb

I think Mike is speaking of a VW TDI (you'll have to go used at this point) with a "chip" and a clutch upgrade. You can take a 90 hp 1.9 diesel and make 350 ft lbs/180 hp with a chip and few other mods. I also think Mike confused you with Mericet (who owns a TDI golf).

Actually, I should have said that diesel engines are capable of those targets. They are not for sale in the US yet.

[Car Enthusiast]

sorry for to pick out a point above and bring it back but the statement about deforestation:

there is more GROWTH now in america than there was 100 years ago

growth = more smaller trees but average larger, like 100 years ago there were 2 trees that were 20 inches wide at the base per whatever area of land now there are 3 trees with an average width of 15 inches per the same land area (number are examples not actual numbers)

and new young growing forests clean more air of CO2 and produce more oxygen than old growth forests

[jeffburch]

I can?
Great.
Where do I send her?
(IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/dunno.gif)

jb

I think Mike is speaking of a VW TDI (you'll have to go used at this point) with a "chip" and a clutch upgrade. You can take a 90 hp 1.9 diesel and make 350 ft lbs/180 hp with a chip and few other mods. I also think Mike confused you with Mericet (who owns a TDI golf).

We're all on the same point.
I was just following the thread and adding emphisis to the point that, there isn't enough diesels.
I'm always ahead of the curve. You guys build them, and we'll buy them.
thx,

jb

This post has been edited by jeffburch: Aug 10 2007, 03:01 AM

[sgarnett]

My point was that replacing old OR new growth forest with asphalt certainly doesn't help. I'm fairly confident that we have more asphalt than we did 100 years ago.

This post has been edited by sgarnett: Aug 10 2007, 03:18 AM

[sgarnett]

In a land where perception is 90% reality, seeing black soot rolling out of a deisel's exhaust immediately says "pollution". When a carbed 409 drives away from a stop, leaving no "visible" evidence, it's automatically cleaner.

I should add that my "perception" is based on frequently needing to whip out the inhaler if I get stuck behind a diesel. For some reason, diesel exhaust just chokes me up. Gasoline exhaust doesn't bother me much unless the engine is in really bad shape. In either case, I'm talking about the very diluted fumes from following the vehicle at low speeds, not sucking on the exhaust pipe.

However, "greenhouse gasses" and lung irritants aren't necessarily related.

[Ojustracing]

I believe this is one of the most interesting times to be an automotive engineer, as the technology coming down the pike is amazing. However, I think it's going to be one of the worst times to be an auto consumer. This technology does not come cheap.

As for someone that runs a Independant repair shop. The consumers are going to take a hugh hit in the pocket book come repair time. I already see it on a day to day basis. I've done some 6.0 PS/Duramax repair work and I can tell you you don't want to be on the recieving end of the bills. I had to spend 5-6 hrs taking apart the front engine acc on the duramax to change a stupid coolant bypass hose. The 6.0 PS needed a 12+hr repair to replace the coolant hose under the turbo going to the EGR cooler. I never thought I would say this but extended service contract's are starting to be the norm and are a viable option. Or once the thing is out of warrenty trade it in. With the way the economy is, alot of people do not have large amounts of extra cash to start footing the bills commonly seen in some of the higher end Diesels. The engine themselves last, but it is all the supporting hardware that is not covered bythe warrenty.

Enough with my rant this morning.

John

[rpoz-29]

What surprises me is even with all the advances in technology, "good" mileage these days is no better than a mid 70's Corolla, B210, Civic, Rabbit. I understand that federally mandated safety and emissions have added weight, but jeez. Remember when the Honda CVCC engine was introduced? They put it in a Civic that was bigger, heavier, and more powerful than it's predecessor AND got better mileage. A buddy had a Rabbit diesel that, although was a wretched little car, got better than 50mpg, and was pretty dependable. We had a '75 Vega 3 speed that got 35 mpg highway with an engine in dire need of a rebuild. And the press is flipping out over the "new" 40 mpg Smart Car. I have a 1996 3/4 ton Ram Diesel now and yes, I would gladly consider a 1/2 ton truck with a small diesel, or even a mid size auto with one.

This post has been edited by rpoz-29: Aug 10 2007, 01:28 PM

[pknowles]

What surprises me is even with all the advances in technology, "good" mileage these days is no better than a mid 70's Corolla, B210, Civic, Rabbit. I understand that federally mandated safety and emissions have added weight, but jeez. Remember when the Honda CVCC engine was introduced? They put it in a Civic that was bigger, heavier, and more powerful than it's predecessor AND got better mileage. A buddy had a Rabbit diesel that, although was a wretched little car, got better than 50mpg, and was pretty dependable. We had a '75 Vega 3 speed that got 35 mpg highway with an engine in dire need of a rebuild. And the press is flipping out over the "new" 40 mpg Smart Car. I have a 1996 3/4 ton Ram Diesel now and yes, I would gladly consider a 1/2 ton truck with a small diesel, or even a mid size auto with one.

10 years ago I daily drove a 6 cyl 66 Mustang to high school. I got mid to upper 20's mpg with that 180,000 mile motor with old carb and point type ignition.

From looking at recent stock tunes for gasoline and diesels using my tunning software, the factory is retarding the injection timing for diesels and spark timing for gassers significantly at cruise conditions. The only reason I can think of is for NOx emissions. Lately I have been adjusting my ignition timing at cruise in the Camaro and have been averaging 20 mpg in the city, I could only get 16-17 mpg in the city when the car was stock. Before I started tuning for mpg, I was getting 15 mpg with my mods. I know people who have tuned their Duramax's to get 22-24 mpg on the highway with injection timing and boost pressure changes at cruise, stock they got around 17-19. These are crew cab 4x4 trucks, not small little regular cab 2x4's either.

Emissions reg's are good, but when you have to take a 20-25% hit in efficiency to make the reg's, it makes you think if your car or truck is really burning cleaner overall considering how much fuel you are using.

[robz71lm7]

From 8/6 Automotive News:"The horrible Achilles heel for the diesel people is that particulates are much harder to manage than hydrocarbons," said Eric Noble, analyst with The Car Lab in Orange, Calif. "They're already doing pretty unnatural acts, like putting cans of urine onto the cars to meet the current standards. You can only imagine how hard it will be to meet the future standards."

I assume or hope that is at least somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but what exactly is the urine can, and what does it have to do with diesels?

Urea or anhydrous ammonia are used at power plants in SCR's to remove NOx. I assume it's used for the same things in diesels.

That being said it will be at least 10 years before I'd consider buying a Hybrid. The technology is too new, nobody knows what these cars will be like when they get older, and nobody knows the true environmental impact when it comes time to dispose of these batteries. There is no silver bullet to replace gasoline engines and coal fired power plants (nuke but that's another discussion). However, technology is growing at an incredible rate and you'd be surprised how clean these "dirty fuels" can be burned. Global warming is really, in my honest opinion, a big to do about nothing. Industry is already working hard on these problems and Europe has already made great strides in reducing CO2 emissions. We really aren't that far away from a zero emissions coal fired power plant.

[Ojustracing]

What surprises me is even with all the advances in technology, "good" mileage these days is no better than a mid 70's Corolla, B210, Civic, Rabbit. I understand that federally mandated safety and emissions have added weight, but jeez. Remember when the Honda CVCC engine was introduced? They put it in a Civic that was bigger, heavier, and more powerful than it's predecessor AND got better mileage. A buddy had a Rabbit diesel that, although was a wretched little car, got better than 50mpg, and was pretty dependable. We had a '75 Vega 3 speed that got 35 mpg highway with an engine in dire need of a rebuild. And the press is flipping out over the "new" 40 mpg Smart Car. I have a 1996 3/4 ton Ram Diesel now and yes, I would gladly consider a 1/2 ton truck with a small diesel, or even a mid size auto with one.

I was going to mention this. A mid- 90's car get no better mileage than the current crop of cars with Multiple cylinder shutdown. Guy I work with has a 92 Grand Am 2.3ho with 340,000 miles(Original clutch!!!) and get 32mpg and some change on the highway at 70mph. My 93 Grand Prix 3.1 got 30mpg on the highway. The 07 Impala here with 3.9 with MDS only gets 27. Isnt technolgy great

John

[sgarnett]

In the 70s, most cars, and especially econoboxes, had tiny wheels with tiny, narrow profile tires and tiny little brakes. Those do make a difference (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

This post has been edited by sgarnett: Aug 10 2007, 09:13 PM