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.

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

Biodiesel. Make it yourself and recycle used veggie oil.

That's what I like about diesels. Stuff that would go in a landfill gets burned up. The batteries in hybrids are going in landfills.

Plus, diesels put out the power for those of us who want/need it. Hybrids may be generally green... but the performance factor is, well.. disheartening.

My thoughts, in no particular order:

1) I'm not convinced that bio-diesel is all that "green" when you consider the manufacturing process. At least it is renewable and burns cleaner, though.

2) I don't understand why hybrids have gasoline engines. It seems like a great application for a small diesel.

3) I bought a gasoline tractor because diesel and asthma don't mesh well, and gasoline is available nearby. In hindsight, if fuel prices had been as high then as they are now, and if I had realized how little diesel I would have to haul in, I would have gone that route instead. Besides, if I had bought a diesel, it might still be running

4) The 4 cylinder gasoline auto S10 I inherited could sure benefit from the torque curve of a little diesel for daily driving, especially for pulling the hills (even empty ...).

5) The little Honda Fit I drove recently gets great gas mileage, but it has to rev its little heart out to get anywhere.

6) The soot IS a concern .....

7) Batteries don't last that long, and are also toxic.

2) The one and only reason is cost. Most of you are familiar with the cost premium that diesels have in pickup trucks. That will take another huge leap in 2010 with more aftertreatment and other technologies needed to meet emissions goals. Now, add on the cost of a battery and other hardware needed to make it a hybrid, and you're quite easily looking at a $10K option. When you're talking about a $25,000 car turning into a $35,000 car, that's a HUGE deal.

6) I see soot as not much of an issue. DPF technology is quite good, and has been proven for years in Europe. New diesels in the US all have them now also. Combustion and fuel injection technology in diesels is growing by leaps and bounds and the engine-out soot emissions of diesels is being dramatically reduced.

Hybrids don't have to perform poorly. Witness,

http://www.businessweek.com/autos/content/...age_top+stories

Very good mileage for a car of it's size and 0-60 in 7.6 seconds. Certainly not supercar territory, but for an Altima, good enough for 95% of the customers out there I bet. Good gas mileage too. If they made more of them and let the public know it was out there, it might just be a hit.

Toyota is trying their hand at using the electric motors to boost performance, and not just focusing on good fuel economy, especially in the Lexus line. Honda tried it with the V6 Accord and is pulling it, because their sales were horrible. They plan to come out with a dedicated hybrid vehicle soon instead. Customers think of a Prius when they think of a hybrid. It's all about the environment or your gas bill each month when you buy a Prius, not performance. If you want performance, there are certainly cheaper (purchase price) ways of getting it than either a diesel or a hybrid.

I'm a global warming skeptic, so the whole "emits more carbon dioxide" argument doesn't really do anything to sway me.

My main thoughts with any alternative powertrain is that while they save lots of gas/fuel, am I going to make back all the money I spend on the upgrade? On the newer HD trucks, I just don't see it happenning unless, maybe, resale is figured in. I wonder if the 1/2 tons will be better? My brother had a TDI Jetta, had the usual VW issues, but also it had expensive problems like glowplugs that needed to be replaced at 50K miles (for $500). That could buy a lot of gasoline. I haven't heard of widespread reliability issues with Hybrids, but there's not tons of them out there yet. Also, when you add in the total cost to manufacture, do hybrids really help The Big Picture? At least diesels have other benefits (big torque, great mileage and an improved driving experience). Hybrids do seem to work great in some venues like city driving and taxis. They really shine and the operators love them for that.

Seems to me that a corolla, civic, aveo, etc make more sense if you just want some fuel efficiency out of a commuter. I drive a Mustang GT to work every day, so much for that.

That article was written in a tone that made it obvious that the author had a predisposition toward favoring hybrids over diesels. It's what all the cool kids talk about I guess...

Did not read the article but my thoughts could be summed up by looking at a vehicle in my sig.

I love torque.

The 5.3 in our Silverado doesn't cut it as a tow vehicle compared to the LS2 in our Trailblazer SS.

If I could get the towing grunt of the LS2 plus decent mileage in a light duty pickup by going to a diesel I'd probably be all over it.

I'd be much less inclined to have interest in a small diesel car.

I won't go near a hybrid before something along the line of the Volt is available and proven.

I'm not a global warming skeptic, but I don't think C02 is the whole story. I think deforestation, paving, and construction play a big role too.

To draw a historic analogy, at the risk of going off on a tangent:
In the last year of Clinton's administration, Greenspan was hell-bent on curbing inflation and thought unemployment was too low, so he kept hammering at the interest rates to cool off the economy. Everyday, thousands of layoffs were being announced on the news, but most of the announcements were for several months in advance. Actual, measurable unemployment was still low. By the time the layoffs really started kicking in, it was too late. Those jobs have gone overseas and they will never come back. The capacity for those jobs will never come back, because the infrastructure and capital to support it was permanently dismantled and sold off.

Maybe you buy my summary or maybe you don't, but that doesn't really matter. I only brought it up for illustration. The point is, by the time the evidence is incontrovertible, it will be much too late. It may already be too late. Positive feedback (the bad kind, sort of like roll-oversteer) is already kicking in bigtime, whatever the cause.

Does that mean I've stopped driving my Camaro? No, I am still talking out of both sides of my mouth, and I really didn't like driving that little Fit for a day. Nevertheless, I have a young daughter, and I'm not at all happy about the direction her world is headed.

The problem is modern diesels are completely different animals than your 99 Jetta. They are now much more expensive to buy and repair, and are not as efficient, since they are hit with stiffer emissions requirements.

I guess I didn't really answer one of the questions. If I could buy a half-ton fullsize pickup with diesel torque at a manageable price, yes I would seriously consider it. If I could buy a half-ton compact/midsize with diesel torque, I would seriously consider that too, even though the wheelbase and weight may be insufficient for safely towing anything really big.

Basically, I'd like to have a 3/4 ton S10

Completely agree. The problem is the auto industry is the peg sticking out of the hole at the moment. Congress is hell bent on hammering that peg down. I hope for everyone's sake, that the burden is shared more with other industries than what I read about in the news every day.

Had it not been for a family situation, I wouldn't be in a deisel right now. The initial cost premium, fuel premium pricing and the ridiculous costs associated with maintenance basically prices a deisel out of the market for most of us.

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.

Analogies are great and I have one as well.

The nclear power industry took a HUGE black eye after TMI. All of a sudden, nuke power was bad joo-joo and the industry ground to a hault. It has taken sky rocketing energy prices and rolling brown outs to make people educate themselves and realize that nuke power really isn't that big of a deal.

The medical industry generates exponentially more radioactive waste than the nuke power industry generates and has 1/10 the regulatory scrutiny.

It will take an uproar about all the toxic waste from trashed batteries from hybrids to make folks realize that the black soot isn't as bad as drinking lead.

By that time, deisels will be so regulated and dumbed down that they will be useless in anything other than lawn mower.

Perception ...

Just to clarify what I mean when I say I'm a global warming skeptic.

I think the planet probably is warming.
It *might* be partly due to human factors.
If it is due to human-caused CO2 production
-please tell me how much levels need to be lowered to avoid "x" as a side effect.
i. furthermore, please show me exactly how lowering our CO2 output by an incremental amount will help so we know when enough is enough.

I think we need to know this because we as a society need to make some big changes that will cost literally trillions of dollars. What's that going to buy us? Are we better off just dealing with the symptoms? What are the potential benefits of global warming?

Not to mention these ultra-long-range projections are coming from the same general "knowledgebase" (ie climatologists and meteorologists) who cannot accurately forecast the next hurricane season.

And don't get me started on the potentials for mass centralization, loss of personal freedoms, and outright corruption that the so called "solutions" could spawn.

This will be all I say on the subject because this isn't really the right forum for this. You can PM me if you really want to continue this discussion.

Sorry for the

Plant life would thrive with a global temperature increase of a few degrees.

So you expect to lob in your opinion, then declare that any dissent is off-topic? Umm, no, and actually I think it's germane to the original question.

Nevertheless, we agree on a several things, I think.

1) You are never going to get the answers you are looking for, as I assume was your point. It's kind of like asking how good your helmet and cage need to be. Up front, the pragmatic answer may be, "whatever is required by the rules". You'll only really know afterward that it was or wasn't enough.

2) Knee-jerk reactions that feel right can be very wrong after you dig through the details.

A great example was the McDonalds switch from relatively-benign styrofoam to non-recyclable paper and cardboard for their food wrappers. The environmentalists who forced the switch apparently weren't aware that the FDA required paper food wrappers to be plastic-coated, or that paper comes from <drum roll, please ...> paper mills.

Just wanted add a few of my own thoughts here:

I love my diesel truck, I burn way less fuel than I ever did with my gassers, and I pound hills flat doing it. More power, way better mileage.... I'll take it. As for the extra cost, I see it as an upgrade. Z28's cost more than V-6's, and Z06's more than C6's. And if more folks bought them the costs associated would fall too. What common thing hasn't come down in price when it's use became widespread? Brian's brother had issues with a VW Diesel. Because it's a diesel, or a VW? I've had 5 GM vehicles. 3 were GREAT. 1 was ok, and the other was a rolling piece of crap. I bought 3 after the bad one figuring lemons happen and never had those issues again.

I do believe the planet is warming, and I really don't know how anyone couldn't believe that it is. Moreover, that it's not because of humans. Yes, the planet could be warming on it's own--after all something happened to make the ice-ages end, but we're helping.... Everything we do either creates heat, regardless of whether or not you buy Carbon emissions as a greenhouse gas. Your cars, trucks, brakes, Air Conditioning, furnance, TV's, cell phones and so on all create heat. Hell, just the amount of people on the planet if we didn't use any fuel creates more heat. You can see that by standing in a crowded place, it cools down when the people dispurse. Yep, I'm like Sean. I have fun cars, I tow with a truck where I really might not *need* to do so. But I also try and be responsible. Hence the diesel truck, the reason I bought new car (not a mileage miser, but less fuel than the truck uses), I have cats on my Camaro, I turn my furnance and AC down when I'm not home, I recycle what I can. I really think if folks in general just cared a tiny bit more we'd all be better off.

I'm not all that worried about loss of personal freedoms because of evironmental concerns. The environmental laws that exist now (or maybe in the '90's), but weren't around in the '70's haven't caused anyone problems. Ok, no more leaded gas--that doesn't seem to be an issue. I'm a lot more scared about being called and enemy combatant and tossed in Gitmo without any due process, orand knowing there are those that can do what they want and get away with it time and again without penalty. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Best line I've seen in a signature: "that's ok, I wasn't using my civil liberties anyway".

Sorry, I guess I digressed. This started with a diesel vs. hybrid topic.... I think anything that can help lessen our need for oil is good (environmentally, economically, and politically). I'm not saying STOP USING OIL. I think hybrids are a decent idea, and even though a lot of folks buy them for the statement they make instead of the help they can be, they are still saving some oil. However, if you leadfoot a Prius and a Jetta, or a Hybrid Silerado and my Dodge, I bet the diesel wins in both cases on mileage and costs. And we can run renewable fuels in them as well. I wish like hell I could get Biodiesel around here. I'd pay a little more for it even--after all when it's $3 a gallon, what's $3.10?

No, you can discuss anything you want. I won't say any more on the subject, though. That's what I mean when I say "This will be all I say on the subject."


The "I" is the important part.

And no, I have not "declared dissent off-topic". What *I* said was off-topic, and I'm merely stating that I will not further participate in that discussion because it really isn't the gist of what the original post was.

Once again you may do as you please (of course).

By the way, where I live the power to recharge that plugged-in electric comes from strip-mined coal and dammed rivers. Nothing's ever as simple as it appears ....

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 ....

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

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.

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...

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.

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.

I can?
Great.
Where do I send her?


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.

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

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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

Tony
Your resident hybrid driving non-hippie

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.