[94bird]

I'm interested in what most of you think regarding the below article. As some of you may know, I'm not a big diesel fan, but as fate sometimes deals us a cruel hand, I've been working on diesel engine calibration for a couple of years now, and have recently taken a job at GM's Milford Proving Grounds calibrating the 4.5L diesel that will be coming out in 1/2 ton trucks for '09. Much of the auto industry has big plans for diesel and I'd like to hear if you agree with the writer of the below article or if you might find a use for a 1/2 ton Silverado or F150 with 500 lbs*ft of torque. Or, let's say, something along the size of a Ford Fusion with a 2.0L diesel in it, making 300 lbs*ft of torque.


====================================================

From 8/6 Automotive News:

Any time I drive a prototype vehicle around Los Angeles, the first question from fellow drivers is not "Hey, is that the new Volvo?" but rather "Does that come in a hybrid?"

Are you sick of the hybrid hype yet? Evidently, American car shoppers aren't. J.D. Power and Associates predicts 2007 will be the biggest year ever for gasoline-electric powertrains. As the Detroit 3 join Toyota, Honda and Nissan with their own hybrids, especially in light trucks, their popularity will likely get even stronger.

Yet, seemingly, following any story I write about the Toyota Prius or any other hybrid, I get inundated with hate e-mail from diesel-loving skeptics.

"Diesel is the answer!" the elbow-patch crowd exclaims. "Haven't you been to Europe? See how successful they are over there? Just you watch. Diesel will catch on in America as well."

I'm not buying it.

Diesel joy in England

I lived in London for nearly a year, and I experienced the diesel miracle. I found joy behind the wheel of a Ford Mondeo diesel that was far better than its petrol-powered siblings. In addition to its wondrous torque, the Mondeo delivered my wife and me on a 600-mile jaunt to England's Lake District on one tank of fuel. Similarly, I was smitten with little Peugeots and VWs with gutsy diesels under the hood.

But Eurodiesels make up for their cost premium over petrol cars thanks to massive tax breaks from Europe's national governments. Diesel fuel is cheaper for the same reason. Without those subsidies, the retail story would likely be quite different.

Then there is the emissions quarrel. A survey by the United Kingdom's WhatCar? magazine showed that the Honda Civic Hybrid, Toyota Prius and Lexus RX 400h hybrids are greener than their counterpart diesels in terms of carbon dioxide emissions. The only diesels that outperformed the Civic Hybrid and Prius were a couple 1.0-liter buzz bombs that will never make it to American roads.

But that doesn't stop the oil-burners from trying to convince us that diesel is the way.

I spent a week driving the new Mercedes-Benz E320 Bluetec. Technically, I shouldn't have been driving it in California, as it doesn't pass emissions regs here. But with a nudge and a wink, the keys were in my hand.

For all the publicity surrounding Bluetec, I expected blistering performance and astonishing mileage. I got the former, but not so much the latter.

Nothing eye-popping

In a 955-mile week, which included a 600-mile freeway-only dash to the Sierra Nevada Mountains, the diesel delivered a respectable but hardly eye-popping 30 mpg. That's basically the same mileage figure delivered by the Lexus hybrid RX 400h sportwagon and GS 450h sedan that the diesel crowd loves to bash.

Even on the 200-mile return run to Mojave that entailed a 5,000-foot descent -- feathering the throttle the whole way -- the Bluetec's mileage improved to just 33.3 mpg. So much for its 35 mpg EPA highway rating.

On the performance side, the Bluetec was indeed a star. Its staggering 400 pounds-feet of torque made quick work of passing big rigs on I-395 and quickly dispatched the two-lane freeway's Mad Max aspect.

But in city driving, the Mercedes' transmission jarringly surged between first, second and third gears. Pulling sedately from a red light routinely resulted in something like whiplash, as the diesel hunted to find the right combination of efficiency and power. This dysfunction repeated itself in slow-and-go freeway conditions as well.

Diesels have made huge strides since the clattering, stinky '70s VW Rabbits and their glow plugs. But diesels will always have a particulate perception problem, no matter how clean they claim their emissions are. Even though automakers and refiners now are trapping particulate crud as small as five microns, it isn't good enough.

Crud in the blood

The new California standard may require filtering below two microns. Those minuscule carcinogenic particles remain aloft for weeks and are absorbed directly into the bloodstream. Yuck. If the petroleum refiners don't play ball and clean up the fuel, that's an expensive moving target for engine makers to hit.

"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."

Finally, there's the matter of obtaining ultralow-sulfur diesel fuel. Mercedes apocalyptically warned that filling the Bluetec with anything but that fuel would result in emissions system damage, plagues of locusts and the return of disco.

Upon pulling into Mobil, Arco, Shell, Alliance and two Chevron stations in blue-collar San Pedro, Calif., I was unable to find a pump that dispensed regular diesel fuel, let alone a place that sold the ultralow-sulfur variety.

Realize that San Pedro is a town full of building contractors who will argue for hours whether their Cummins Ram pickup can kick the snot out of your PowerStroke F-250. Still, it took a 13-mile journey to find a Shell station that sold the right stuff.

That's the final straw. With a hybrid, any filling station will do. Heck, in the near future, any wall outlet will do, what with rapid advances in plug-in hybrid technology.

Then consider that Toyota sells nearly as many hybrids in America as BMW or Mercedes sells total cars, let alone their small fraction of diesels, and you see the consumer already has made the decision. Plus, hybrids are a natural gateway to fuel cell vehicles.

Sorry, oil-burners, you missed your chance. Hybrids got the jump. Diesel has too steep a mountain to climb, even if it has 400 pounds-feet of torque.

======================================================

[94bird]

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.

I agree. An engine's efficiency is really hit hard with the very strict emissions requirements of today. Diesels especially are going to get hit hard for fuel efficiency with the exhaust backpressure and regeneration (cleaning out) requirements of LNTs, SCRs, and DPFs. DPFs have to be cleaned out every 400 miles or so. This is done by adding a good bit of post injection fuelling to raise the exhaust temperatures in the DPF to approximately 600 deg. C. As a general rule, this is done for at least 10 minutes before the DPF is clean. NOx aftertreatment also has to be cleaned out. Luckily, this can many times be done during a DPF regeneration, but this is not a small fuel economy hit.

It is very likely that diesels of 2010 will have about 10% less fuel economy than today as a result of the above and other regulations.

Of course, gasoline engines are having hundreds of pounds of batteries and electric motors added to their vehicles also. Not directionally correct for fuel economy either.

[DRD T-bone]

A few points:

-Hybrid batteries are recyclable and there are large labels on the batteries that note this. Obviously not everyone will follow this, however, Nickel Metal Hydride batteries (NiMH) are less environmentally toxic than the lead acid batteries used in other automobiles

-The argument of Diesel vs Hybrid is fine and dandy, but what it comes down to is that because the US has such tight NOx standards, diesel hasn't been an option lately. Do diesels get great gas mileage? Yes, their part power efficiency is much higher than a standard port injected engine of equivalent power. But once again the argument isn't worth bringing up being as diesels currently aren't much of an option in small cars (European and Japanese NOx standards aren't near as tight as ours). As was mentioned, there are technologies coming down the pipeline that will come close to leveling the diesel playing field, however at some cost. The Toyota Hybrid system was created in response to the freedom car initiative (I think?) to have high mileage while still meeting NOx and particulate standards in the US.

-Diesel fuel takes less refining than gasoline so, in my uneducated opinion, it's safe to assume without subsidies/taxes Diesel fuel would be cheaper than gasoline. Diesel is taxed much higher than gasoline here in the states.

-Hybrid longevity has been proven to some extent. There are Priuses being used as taxis with around 200,000 miles that are still on their first battery pack

-As mentioned before, being a hybrid doesn't necessarily mean that it's a poor performer. The Honda Accord hybrid had more power than the standard Accords, basically a power and fuel economy upgrade. The Lexus hybrids are no slouch either. My Saturn Vue Green line is faster than the standard 4 cylinder Vue.

I think that diesels and hybrid technology are both good things that can be aimed to acheive the same result and can be used along side one another in the same application as well. Ultimately I envision clean diesels (that can also run on anything up to straight Biodiesel) with mild hybrid capability (stop/start and brake regen, i.e. Saturn Vue Green Line, Saturn Aura Green Line, Chevy Malibu Green Line) as being the best overall "solution" next to fully electric vehicles. Much easier to implement, less intrusive system, less complexity, cuts down on brake pad wear, still gives warm and fuzzy feeling that you're Al Gore's best buddy (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

Tony
Your resident hybrid driving non-hippie

This post has been edited by DRD T-bone: Aug 13 2007, 05:12 PM

[94bird]

Biodiesel can bring it's own issues, such as worse fuel economy and increased NOx emissions. To say nothing of the increased cost of the fuel.

This all comes down to 2 things IMO:

1. Do we want to reduce our foreign oil dependency or decrease greenhouse gas emissions? Depending on our priority, there might be different solutions.
2. Just how much are we willing to pay in general to solve our answer to question 1? Are we willing to pay for an increase in the cost of food to use biodiesel or E85, or increased electricity cost if plug-ins catch on in a big way? Will the market pay for a plug-in diesel hybrid to save the planet or our foreign dependency on oil? It certainly isn't financially justified with today's economics.

I bet all of us are familiar with "How fast do you want to go? How much money do you have?" Same principle applies. Just about anything is possible, given the right financial incentive.

[Pilot]

That's a very sound point. I recall learning about an interesting bet involving environmental stewardship vs. the economics of scarcity. If I remember, I'll look it up tomorrow. The concepts involved are slightly different from this discussion, but the idea is generally the same in my view. Money, technological advance, and resource scarcity all go hand in hand and regardless of the best choice (however you view "best" being), the financial concerns are going to dictate which path we follow.

[sgarnett]

In some ways, I think the cost of oil is still way too low, at least in the USA. It's allowing us to make some really poor long-term choices. I'm not suggesting they should be artificially raised (by taxes or whatever), but it might be wise to assume they will go a lot higher.

This post has been edited by sgarnett: Aug 14 2007, 11:20 PM

[DRD T-bone]

In some ways, I think the cost of oil is still way too low, at least in the USA. It's allowing us to make some really poor long-term choices. I'm not suggesting they should be artificially raised (by taxes or whatever), but it might be wise to assume they will go a lot higher.

Our gasoline is heavily subsidized so the cost at the pump isn't what you're actually paying for oil, but yes, we have it extremely cheap compared to Europe/Japan and others! There are various predictions out there as to when oil production will peak (look up Hubbert's Peak Oil Curve), but when it does expect prices to go nowhere but up barring any major oil well discoveries.

[FBody383]

Our gasoline is heavily subsidized so the cost at the pump isn't what you're actually paying for oil...

Really? So the government is taxing folks to give additional profits, which are legitimately earned IMHO, to the refining companies?

Now I understand some of the liberal's position - they can blame the oil companies for making "obscene profits" while raising taxes on them to continue to support the subsidy.

I tend to believe that current energy prices are still too low to to encourage the development of new technologies. There is still a large gap in the opportunity costs between crude and most of the renewables.

While the idea of using government to enact measures such as CAFE is distasteful, it did work. It worked because of the profit motive in being able to sell cars to the U.S. consumer.

My $0.02... I've just been in the asset managment/trading/marketing of energy since 1990.

[DRD T-bone]

Our gasoline is heavily subsidized so the cost at the pump isn't what you're actually paying for oil...

Really? So the government is taxing folks to give additional profits, which are legitimately earned IMHO, to the refining companies?

Now I understand some of the liberal's position - they can blame the oil companies for making "obscene profits" while raising taxes on them to continue to support the subsidy.

I tend to believe that current energy prices are still too low to to encourage the development of new technologies. There is still a large gap in the opportunity costs between crude and most of the renewables.

While the idea of using government to enact measures such as CAFE is distasteful, it did work. It worked because of the profit motive in being able to sell cars to the U.S. consumer.

My $0.02... I've just been in the asset managment/trading/marketing of energy since 1990.

As far as the first statement goes, a few smiley's would help determine the level of sarcasm present pls, but yes? I remember reading that a lot of the subsidies for gasoline will be phased out fairly soon, however. Too lazy to find sources at the moment.

[BigEnos]

So the gov't subsidizes something that it also collects tax on? Seems backward.

[FBody383]

As far as the first statement goes, a few smiley's would help determine the level of sarcasm present pls, but yes? I remember reading that a lot of the subsidies for gasoline will be phased out fairly soon, however. Too lazy to find sources at the moment.

Sorry, no smilie and no sarcasm. If you run across the source again, drop me a link.

There was some talk about suspending the federal tax on gasoline to give consumers a price break. The tax is a fixed number of cents per gallon and is supposed to support road construction and maintenance - with rising fuel prices and inflation this tax is much less effective than at its inception. It wouldn't have mattered if they suspended the tax, the price volatility of crude could have covered that anyway. But I do agree that any premium attributable to global geopolitical concerns has long been overdone.

Just don't bring up medical insurance and social security. (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/banghead.gif)

[94bird]

As a quick aside, it's my understanding that biodiesel is currently subsidized by the government at about $1 per gallon and is still substantially more expensive than petroleum diesel. In Michigan the state government is even giving 15 years of no taxes to any company that starts up an alternative fuel company here.

[CMC#5]

hahaha motor gas is not subsidized in the US...it is taxed, though not enough IMHO

What I want to know is why the answer to the same question is so different here than in the EU or Japan. Why are particulates so important here/not important there that it apparently completely changes the answer? Doesnt seem to make a lot of sense to me.

Something that hasnt been brought up...why not more gas? As in, compressed natural gas? Seems to me I could outfit a compression station in my garage for relatively small amounts of money and never go to a gasoline station ever again. Arent cng vehicles some silly amount cleaner than diesel OR mo-gas?

[DRD T-bone]

Before my foot completely gets stuck in my mouth, I guess I'll point you towards this:

Linky

Put together by a not so neutral party, but it gives a good idea of some of the things that a portion of tax monies go to. My original statement was a little heavily worded, apologies for that. My focus has been on technologies, not money/economics unfortunately (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/unsure.gif)

This post has been edited by DRD T-bone: Aug 27 2007, 10:37 PM

[CMC#5]

(IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/rotf.gif) That is great comedy. A very good example of how to use simple math to try and convince people that your point of view is correct, irrespective of any sense of reality.

Here is a good headline the writer would apparently like to see in the papers:
NEWSFLASH - The US government actively subsidizes EVERYTHING by allowing corporations to "write off" normal expenses of doing business!!!!!

There are other great tidbits this article includes in the "cost" of gasoline such as vehicle insurance, uncompensated costs due to travel delays because of congestion and accidents, cost of building and maintaining parking facilities, fire police and other emergency response services, and of course lets not forget the skyrocketing costs of pollution caused by gasoline (remember, pollution is caused by gasoline, not the burning of gasoline by the end user...), the entire US defense budget is just one giant oil company subsidy, etc etc

Thats fine, but remember, you could put a similar paper together on every single product in existence, so therefore every product is subsidized. For a little more down to earth (albeit still biased, after all, it doesnt account for the salary of the the Deputy Secretary of Energy...an obvious subsidy) check out http://www.thepriceoffuel.com/

[DRD T-bone]

(IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/rotf.gif) That is great comedy. A very good example of how to use simple math to try and convince people that your point of view is correct, irrespective of any sense of reality.

Here is a good headline the writer would apparently like to see in the papers:
NEWSFLASH - The US government actively subsidizes EVERYTHING by allowing corporations to "write off" normal expenses of doing business!!!!!

There are other great tidbits this article includes in the "cost" of gasoline such as vehicle insurance, uncompensated costs due to travel delays because of congestion and accidents, cost of building and maintaining parking facilities, fire police and other emergency response services, and of course lets not forget the skyrocketing costs of pollution caused by gasoline (remember, pollution is caused by gasoline, not the burning of gasoline by the end user...), the entire US defense budget is just one giant oil company subsidy, etc etc

Thats fine, but remember, you could put a similar paper together on every single product in existence, so therefore every product is subsidized. For a little more down to earth (albeit still biased, after all, it doesnt account for the salary of the the Deputy Secretary of Energy...an obvious subsidy) check out http://www.thepriceoffuel.com/

The best comedy is based on the truth (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) Now you're going to make me read that "paper" that I posted (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/sad.gif)

[FBody383]

hahaha motor gas is not subsidized in the US...it is taxed, though not enough IMHO

It may be taxed enough but like Social Security, the collected funds aren't properly allocated.

Something that hasnt been brought up...why not more gas? As in, compressed natural gas? Seems to me I could outfit a compression station in my garage for relatively small amounts of money and never go to a gasoline station ever again. Arent cng vehicles some silly amount cleaner than diesel OR mo-gas?

Al, you could... the local authorities are not going to like having the gas compressor in the neighborhood and the neighbors certainly won't like the idea. On the other hand, I would LOVE to sell you the electricity for the compression and refrigeration. (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif)

Before my foot completely gets stuck in my mouth, I guess I'll point you towards this

I'll check it out. I also may have come across too strong; certainly not my intention.

Got to love a group that can "actively discuss" things and still have fun on and off track...

[CMC#5]

Now you're going to make me read that "paper" that I posted

Nahh, all you have to do is only listen to what the big oil companies say. They wont steer you wrong. (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

I don't know what tier this bin that emissions standards mean in detail, nor have I gotten the details of how these guys rate things...but on this page you can see a cng civic being praised over a prius even though it has inferior mpg...Its interesting also to see how much "greener" the same package is going from regular gasoline to cng (the standard civic is on the list)
2007 greenest vehicles

David, here's what I was thinking of for fueling...phill

[rmackintosh]

Diesels aren't just for towing anymore....

Banks Dmax Race Truck

Yowza......might have to ditch the Camaro and convert the tow vehicle.....





....now what would I tow with?????

[Bud M]

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.

I managed to routinely get about 11 mpg with my '77 Civic CVCC. Trying to get any performance out of a 55 hp car means keeping the gas pedal on the floor pretty much all of the time... and of course it didn't hold up so well.