None of these [alleged drawbacks of diesels] are true any more
Then why do diesels not dominate the auto market in the United States?
Then why do diesels not dominate the auto market in the United States?
I live in the US and drive a diesel Passat, and I regularly get 40+ mpg without paying attention to how I drive or particularly close attention to whether my tires are fully inflated.
To address the comparisons you brought up above, some are clearly wrong:
High mass-- irrelevant; gas mileage is higher.
High bulk-- irrelevant; the car is normal sized.
High smog pollution-- not since the introduction of ultra-low sulfur diesel in the US in 2007.
That leaves the causes of the poor market acceptance as
Poor performance.
High cost.
High noise pollution.
Something else we haven't thought of
On cost, I've been saving money on gas on a per-mile basis since I bought it. So far, I think I've saved around $1000 on gas. I don't know about the market price for diesels vs. equivalent gas cars across the market, but I'd be surprised if I lost on this.
The difference in engine noise is not noticeable inside the car; I don't know whether my neighbors hate it or not. I am quite certain that engine noise was not a factor in my purchasing decision at all.
So, I don't know, gravitycop. I'm as mystified as you are. If diesels are this great, why doesn't everyone in the US buy them?
My best guess is that people don't think of it as an option. They remember the loud, smelly diesels of the 70's and think, "Hell, no, I want a nice shiny Honda Accord!"
12 points by demallien 20 days ago | link
Hey! Put some carriage returns in there! You're screwing up the page rendering...
I was briefly irritated with whoever was screwing up the rendering. Then I realized it was me. Damn!
Thanks, gcop.
What about the increased tire-wear and decreased handling that I mentioned? http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=458104
How can one make a car's engine heavier without certeris paribus making those two things worse?
High bulk-- irrelevant; the car is normal sized.
Engineers have to shoehorn engines into engine bays. The larger the engine, the more expensive the shoehorning. Their are myriad examples in the automotive press of automakers running into the engine-bay-size obstacle when trying to fit larger, more-powerful engines into existing car models.
High smog pollution-- not since the introduction of ultra-low sulfur diesel in the US in 2007.
NOx emissions are not affected by fuel sulfur level. Cleaning up the smog emissions of diesels still requires expensive bandaids that gasoline engines (as long as they operate at low-enough temperatures) do not require. If diesel-level NOx emissions were allowed for gasoline engines, then ceteris paribus gasoline engines would be more powerful and efficient and less costly.
Originally (under the EPA's Tier 1 regulation), there was a dual standard (gasoline and diesel) for light-vehicle smog emissions. http://www.dieselnet.com/standards/us/ld.php
Now, there is a single standard (Tier 2 regulation). http://www.dieselnet.com/standards/us/ld_t2.php
The same emission limits apply to all vehicles regardless of the fuel they use. That is, vehicles fueled by gasoline, diesel, or alternative fuels all must meet the same standards. Since light-duty emission standards are expressed in grams of pollutants per mile, vehicles with large engines (such light trucks or SUVs) have to use more advanced emission control technologies than vehicles with smaller engines in order to meet the standards.
And there is still a price premium for the engines, so that point stands. They just aren't inefficient or terribly polluting any more.
You said that none of those diesel-drawbacks I listed have been true for some time. If that were the case, it might seem that the public is taking its time coming around. here is a recent forecast for diesel market share in the U.S.: http://news.google.com/news?q=%22diesel+market+share%22
Automotive industry analysts at JD Power have forecast that diesel market share in the US will quadruple to 9 percent by 2015
Only 9% market share by 2015? And the technology has no drawbacks in comparison to gasoline?
And in any case, market share quadrupling between now and 2015 in an automotive market is rapid adoption.
How about a counter-argument based on the lack of availability of diesel pumps? Seriously, that's the worst thing about owning a diesel car-- trying to find a gas station that pumps diesel.
Then again, I do live out in the country...
My best search algorithm is to locate the nearest freeway exit, then find the nearest gas station.
Diesels are all over Europe and American tourists don't even notice.
The difference is a whole bunch of chicken and egg problems, that influence price, availability, choice and support.
European governments introduce market disortions that favor diesels. They also allow high smog emission levels, which again distorts the market in favor of diesels.
Recently, there was a year in which there were no diesels at all on the American market, because no diesel at that time could meet the required smog-emission regulations. The trend has been: Americans care about clean air, and Europeans do not, and therefore the latter have been more willing to operate diesel cars.
But it doesn't explain why we allow all of our large trucks to use diesel, does it?
Do you think that's just a loophole big enough to drive a truck through?
Interestingly, I can't recall where I read this, but allegedly particles big enough to cause smog are easily filtered by the human body. Where as particles so small they don't cause smog tend to be absorbed more easily.
And so some clean air regulations might have actually made things worse.
- higher road tax for a diesel, in some countries 200% more than a gasoline car of the same weight - extra requirements such as factory installed particle filters on diesel exhausts - extra tax penalties on diesel fuel
Europeans care about clean air very much, and most European cities I've been to compare favourably with the American cities of similar size that I've been to. (Detroit, Los Angeles, New York vs say Paris, Madrid, Amsterdam and Berlin).
In former eastblock countries the situation is worse though.
As for the rest of your arguments, you should test drive a BMW 5 series diesel and we'll talk about power, handling and more of those items you mentioned.
And let's not even get started on reliability, diesels are in a completely different ball park when it comes to that. Here a diesel car that has 200k on the clock counts as 'just broken in', the same chassis with a petrol engine would count as being at 60..70% of its economic lifespan.
2009 X5 35d vs. 2004 X5 4.8is: http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/suvs/112_0902_2009_bmw_x... http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/suvs/112_0504_2005_luxur...
35d 4.8is
hp: 265 355
lb/hp: 19.3 14.1
0-60: 6.7 5.9
1/4 mile: 15.1 14.3
60-0, ft: 128 114
Though the engine produces a stunning 425 lb-ft of torque at just 1750 rpm, the forward surge doesn't feel dramatic. [...] X5 owners shouldn't feel too cocky [...]
Press the pedal to overtake [...] and the engine note invades the cabin. [...]
We often hear tall tales of European diesels, stories of ridiculous fuel economy, supercar acceleration, and unmatched utility. [...] the truth isn't quite so dramatic
Topgear on those same cars, better data: "
All the bigger BMW engines are wonderful and the X5 boasts three of the best. You can go for a ‘base' 3.0i petrol(268bhp, 0-62mph in 8.1 and 130mph), the diesel version of the 3.0litre (232bhp, but because of the extra torque 0-62mph in the same 8.1 and the same 130mph top end), or go for the range-topping 4.8-litre V8 with 350bhp, 150mph and 0-62 in 6.5."
So, exactly the same performance for two 3.0 liter engines by a quality manufacturer, one diesel, one petrol.
And yes, if you increase the displacement the petrol engine will get more power but that is no longer a fair comparision.
Why? Are they both turbocharged? http://www.google.com/search?q=bmw+x5+35d+biturbo Do they both weigh the same and take up the same amount of room in the engine bay? Do they both cost the same?