Why do Americans not drive diesels?
bbc.com
bbc.com
See http://www.autosavant.com/2009/08/11/the-cars-that-killed-gm... for some history.
GM really should have been allowed to die in 2008.
The entire economy of Michigan (and many neighboring states) would have collapsed. Over here in West Michigan, we have many companies—ranging from mom-and-pop injection mold shops with 50 employees to large companies like Gentex, Delphi, etc. Those companies were already struggling back in 2008; GM going away would have meant the death of most of them.
I hate many of GM's historical business practices as much as anyone (there used to be two streetcar lines within a quarter-mile of my home, dammit), but the saving of GM was a critical component in preventing a catastrophic depression, especially for Michigan—which was already suffering before the Great Recession hit.
EX: Verizon vs. the old AT&T and the new AT&T.
Given the above, I do not think GM has always been right. GM has been part of many morally questionable practices. I think GM was on a terrible course from the mid 1970's to the early 2000's[0]. Those diesel engines in particular were incredibly shitty. My dad was one of those guys who loved the idea of diesel and who got the stares and the smirks.[1]
In the early 2000's they started to try to change. It is very difficult to change a large organization like GM.[2] I don't think today's GM is the same GM from 1920, 1939, 1970, or 1990. If it was, I wouldn't work here.
Many say it would have been worth it to let GM die. Under circumstances other than the 2008 economic downturn, it might have been.
Much of the severity of the 2008 crisis was largely (immediately) due to shock related to the collapse of Lehman Brothers [3] and the refusal of anyone to take over those assets at any price.
Very few people worked for Lehman Bros. A LOT of people work in the automotive ecosystem.
Before bailing out GM, the govt and GM DID look around for other financing/buyout options. No one wanted to take that on.
The saying "whats good for GM is good for the country" is largely outdated nowadays, but many people still think that way, and the collapse of GM would have been psychologically devastating, as well as financially devastating to many thousands of people.
[0] The infamous "ignition switch" design process started in 1997 (Valukas PDF page 35). The Valukas report is very interesting, I recommend it for everyone who is interested in system design. http://www.nhtsa.gov/About+NHTSA/NHTSA+Electronic+Reading+Ro... (bullet 4)
[1] My family has owned a 80's VW diesel rabbit, an 81 diesel Audi 5000 (20 years old at time of purchase), an 80's diesel Suburban (terrible engine), and various diesel work trucks.
[2] GM is not a single organization. It is more accurate to think of all the external organizations such as: UAW-GM, GM branded dealerships (which are not owned by GM), GM Suppliers (which also supply other companies). Then there are all the internal organizations: GM Truck Manufacturing, GM Car Manufacturing, Global Brands, etc, etc, etc.
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_the_Great_Recession http://fcic-static.law.stanford.edu/cdn_media/fcic-reports/f...
From the above: In addition, the government’s inconsistent handling of major financial institutions during the crisis—the decision to rescue Bear Stearns and then to place Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into conservatorship, followed by its decision not to save Lehman Brothers and then to save AIG—increased uncertainty and panic in the market.
Yeah, erm.. about that timeline.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2014/02/18/gm-cobal...
I think it's safe to say GM didn't exactly clean up its act after the early 2000's. If I did that same thing with my small business, I'd probably be charged with manslaughter by gross negligence... or perhaps outright murder since I knowingly allowed innocent people to die in order to rake in more cash.
> If it was, I wouldn't work here.
k
That being said, I do still think that the course was changing. The ignition switch in question was designed in 1997. Vehicles are hideously complicated; Conway's Law[1] would indicate that the organizations involved would also be hideously complicated, and they are! The Valukas report mentioned above calls out specific shortcomings in this regard.
If your small business produced vehicles on the scale of GM, I would be very very surprised!
That's a very corporate shill way of putting it. Their actions were murderous. They let people DIE.
Do you not GET THIS somehow or are you attempting to gloss over this issue?
>If your small business produced vehicles on the scale of GM, I would be very very surprised!
Please don't be disingenuous with artful dodging. You're not smart enough to get away with that with me, sorry. I'm VERY OBVIOUSLY not discussing an issue of complexity, I was discussing an issue of ethics and morality.
It's an issue where GM knew they were killing people and did nothing about it for a long time because it wasn't profitable.
No wonder the GM corporate culture is so twisted. You're trying to turn this around as an attack on my supposedly "simple" business instead of owning up to the fact you work for a scummy corporation that killed people in the name of the almighty buck.
You may not want to face that fact and instead go running to another wikipedia link on humorous adages in hopes of distraction, but I'm not falling for it, guy.
People are dead because of your company's lack of ethics. GET IT?
If your goal here is to be public relations for GM, you're failing miserably and I suggest you move along. You're just making me resent GM even more. If you were my PR person, I'd fire you for incompetence.
But, that's how I run MY business anyway.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8bT6txm4RpA
This was slightly before the great strikes in Flint, Michigan, and those working conditions are obviously both hazardous and extremely inconvenient. But it shows what an amazing enterprise a large car factory was already then, and the world has come far since those days.
15 years ago was the mainstreaming of common rail direct injection and particulate filters (on passenger cars) which cemented that
Eg: in my country automatic cars are not popular and it not about the price, even in top segments cars people think that automatic cars are bad
The supply just isn't there; maybe there is a lag between cost-unconscious new-car buyers [ordering new cars], and cost-conscious used-car buyers [buying what the new car buyers leave].
Source: I used to work in the automotive remarketing industry.
This includes not only a visual inspection of all safety-relevant parts of a car but also a check of the emission values.
How is this handled in the US?
There are exceptions with older (vintage) cars, and relatively new cars.
As with most things, these laws vary from state-to-state, and even county-to-county within said states.
Kentucky had a limited emissions inspection regime from 1999-2005, when it was killed by the Republican governor. The only current inspection requirement I know of is if you purchase an out-of-state used vehicle. We have plenty of ancient cars on the road that have never been inspected.
Sometimes police officers will pull you over if you have obviously-broken headlights or such, and tell you to fix it, but not often.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle_inspection_in_the_United_States
Source: I have an appointment for car inspection this morning.
Edit: certain counties
One of the problems is that VW that they add premium options to the TDI marque. So you can't get a bare bones Jetta TDI without the highest trim level, fancy wheels, and other things that add to the cost. On top of that the gasoline ones are efficient enough where the price difference becomes a non-factor, even when taking the MPG into account.
They are damn fun to drive though, torquey without the compromises of a 4 cylinder gasoline engine. The used market on the sportwagens is great too, which is why we ultimately traded it in for a Tiguan since the demand for the wagens was high enough to make that a relatively easy financial decision.
Unfortunately VW doesn't do diesel Tiguans in the US, which is weird, you'd think the SUV market would be a no-brainer for TDI.
The fantastic fuel economy was the icing on the cake.
The GTI gets rid of one of those problems, and is a spectacular car in its own right.
Complex solution: Chip the engine - some people prefer a smoother power curve, which can be achieved with a tune.
I imagine that yes, being able to keep it in low gears would have helped, and indeed putting it into manual mode for some of the parts I found the worst (rapid turns from one busy street to another) helped, but it put it in the "More trouble than it was worth" category.
That being said, the TDI was a great car, and a serious contender for my money. I just preferred the GTI a bit more, but given I love the GTI, that's good company to be in.
It's geared lower, for one thing, only 2000rpm at 75mph.
FWIW, I traded in a 2012 TDI with the DSG for a manual Mk7 a few days ago. Love the stick, although it's taking some getting used to (this is my first manual).
Also in the manual's favor is the $1,100 cheaper upfront cost and not needing a ~$400 transmission service every 40k.
Your note about the Tiguan makes me sad. I'm moving back to the US next week and was seriously thinking about getting a Tiguan (and hoping for a diesel). I'll add the Sportwagen TDI to my list.
Wagen is a great vehicle. I love mine.
That said, on an absolute level in Germany Diesel is still about 1.7x more expensive than Diesel in the US and about 2x more expensive than gas in the US.
Also, It should be noted that the Total Cost of Ownership benefits is not clear cut. Diesel generally has higher Miles per gallon rating, and is cheaper in some countries like India. But diesel engines are more expensive to make, maintain (bills for routine service are higher) and do require a expensive rebuild after a few hundred thousand kilometers (Newer diesel engines have got much better in this regard).
On a side note, it is quite hard to find hard data on the true TCO of cars that can help consumers make a decision.
Gasoline is also a dirty fuel that does a lot of health damage, but the particles in the exhaust are much smaller and less visible, so people mistakenly assume it's cleaner and better than visible Diesel smoke.
Gasoline is arguably worse, since the tiny invisible particulate matter in the exhaust can stay airborne much longer than the larger, heavier particles in Diesel exhaust.
But the article makes a point that I find irksome:
"with lots of relaxed muscle available at low rpms"
Diesels can't rev high (harder to burn, heavier reciprocating parts). So diesels are tuned for low rpm and they all have turbo chargers. By contrast gasoline cars can rev high, so they are tuned for it. Most gasoline cars aren't turbo charged and those that are, are given turbos for the high end. Tune a gas engine right, give it a turbo as well, and it'll get all the diesel's low end power.
I like diesels, but they are absolutely non sensical in the US.
- The high price of diesel cancels the mpg advantage. - The "torquey" argument is total BS (see below) - that's why a car maker includes a transmission. - Nor is engine longevity true anymore ( or inherent to diesels): an average driver's car body (or electronics, or accessories, or rods, ect) will rot before the engine dies.
While I'm at it, Power = torque * rpm. There is no such thing as a "torquey" vs "powerful" engine. If you know one, you know the other. The "torque" vs. "Power" discussion is a proxy for the Power (or torque) vs. rpm and how broad it is. There is actually no reason to know the torque (unlike the curve itself) of an engine
Unless you're designing the engine, when you actually have to know the torsional stress on the materials.
Here's a counterpoint: In my hometown, by far the best-selling passenger vehicles are the Dodge Ram diesels. And having driven a couple of them, they do feel pretty sensical (and very satisfying).
Source: My friend owns a bunch of dealerships
Your friend's diesel is turbo charged, unlike any gasoline powered light truck in the US. And their displacements are, for the most part, larger. Tuned for low end power, and you get the sensation of "easy" power because you don't have to rev the engine. My old grand marquis had a "measly" 200 hp from a 4.6 l gasoline, less than my sister's 1.8 T VW. My 200 were always available, my sister's golf had to scream.
So what? Don't get queasy about downshifting and making your engine scream, in moderation. On a modern car, with our roads the way they are, the engine will outlast the car.
Don't get me wrong. On a large pickup, and given the appropriate task, diesels make sense in the USA. But not for most people.
edit: mostly german manufacturers VW, MB are trying to bring diesel, where as Japanese and American manufacturers are barely testing waters, actually FIAT-Chrysler is the one testing waters.
It's pure regulation.
This is rather silly, but it's the kind of thing that comes up when environmentalists and industry lobbyists are unleashed among politicians.
Industry lobbyists - accepted. But why should environmentalists accept such stupid, environmentally harmful laws?
The relevant emission regulations are described in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_Average_Fuel_Economy
"CAFE has separate standards for "passenger cars" and "light trucks", despite the majority of "light trucks" actually being used as passenger cars. The market share of "light trucks" grew steadily from 9.7% in 1979 to 47% in 2001 and remained in 50% numbers up to 2011."
Thus, the very legislation designed to reduce emissions has resulted in Americans buying bigger and bigger vehicles. From Europe, the rationale for this legislation is hard to understand.
Diesels are more expensive though, perhaps inherently so. The cost of the high-pressure injector system and turbocharger required raise the engine and maintenance costs considerably.
Modern pollution controls (a good thing) have reduced the MPG advantage enough that the fuel cost differential with gasoline is no longer an advantage. It may be that will improve as the industry gains a decade more experience in diesel pollution controls.
And I believe that you get much more gasoline out of a barrel of oil than you get diesel, so moving many cars over to diesel would actually increase oil consumption it seems.
s/compression/injection/
"Throttle" in a diesel actually controls for how long the injection takes place.
But the fuel injected does not detonate immediately, it is allowed to spread out a bit and the chambers are shaped to channel the detonation. It's a short interval but it is an interval. Injecting gasoline at those pressures and temperatures would mean instantaneous detonation of the fuel injected, too early in the cycle which will cause damage (to the injector, and to the crankshaft and/or pushrod bearings because they'll have to deal with more force than what they were designed to cope with because the energy is liberated in a much shorter time-frame). At best this will cause severe degradation of engine life, at worst immediate failure.
Another issue is that the injectors are carefully shaped to deliver a mist of fuel and the properties of gasoline and diesel are sufficiently different that the droplets will be of the wrong size and won't separate cleanly from the injector before detonation occurs.
All in all, not something you want to experiment with so if you find that you've 'gassed up' your diesel vehicle better drain the tank instead of taking your chances.
In winter in Canada it is common to put about 5% gasoline in the diesel fuel to overcome temperature effects on the diesel fuel.
Today, refining technology and hydrocracking allows a barrel of oil to be refined almost completely into whatever end product the refiner wants. Diesel, kerosene, jet fuel (which are all pretty much the same thing actually) or gasoline. So now these refined products are priced more by their energy content which is why the pricing has flipped and diesel now costs more per gallon than gasoline (but can still be more economical overall).
It depends, but anyway it's more certain that originally gasoline was a waste product from refining lamp oil (which is closer to diesel).
Modern diesel engines are very different -- but for eg. industrial and military use, you'll still see some resilient engines that can burn pretty much anything you throw at them, from butter to diesel fuel.
Shame he fell of a boat in the English channel and drowned.
US refineries operate crackers to increase the amount of gasoline in their output:
You can get more gasoline out of a barrel of oil, but you can also get more mileage out of a litre of diesel than litre of gasoline. Diesel has higher energy content.
What's more, diesel fuel can be made from biological materials as well. In fact, we have had people drive their diesel cars with discarded frying oil used in hamburger restaurants to make fries. You have to filter it, and you won't make the current EU emission standards, but for moving a vehicle, it works all right.
Whether it is feasible to move all or most cars in the US to use diesel is then another matter. Diesel engines are a bit noisier, for instance, so someone might object that.
But the everyday driveability of a car with diesel engine, particularly a modern one with turbo, is nice. Lots of torque on low rpm's so it's easy to drive.
In my area the price of gas has gone down very much. Even the premium I use in my car has decreased significantly. Diesel on the other hand has stayed the same more or less. If these lower gas prices are here to stay then I dont find it beneficial to buy a diesel engine.
Diesel Price + Price for Diesel Engine + Extra Maintenance > Gas powered car + associated costs
Diesel engines are mechanically much simpler than gasoline engines - they have fewer moving parts, so fewer places where things can break, and less complex repairs when things do break. This would suggest a lower TCO for diesels, all else the same.
However, all of us drivers have far too much life experience with driving behind/around giant bus and semi trucks that lay down a choking smokescreen.
Like it or not, diesels in America have a history of laying down choking smokescreens. Lack of regulation, lack of inspection, who knows.
Possibly new diesels or car diesels aren't as toxic. If you want to sell diesels to Americans you need to wait for them to forget about the last time they were "gassed" because they were nearby a bus or truck exhaust.
The other problem, living in a northern climate where diesel gels in the winter, its a huge hassle for the few diesel owners we actually have. And as if starting a gasoline engine at -15F isn't enough of a struggle, consider the poor diesel owner. They could sell well in Miami or New Orleans without the fuel issues, but inevitably someones going to move up north and the trash talking will commence. With extensive maintenance, expensive maintenance, they can be almost as reliable in the cold as a gasoline engine... almost. Why not save the extra maint money and buy a cheaper lighter higher powered gas engine? I have no question that the net gain to the environment tilts on the side of diesel in Louisiana, and it Might even net be cheaper. In the north... I strongly suspect the net overall system environmental costs of gas are significantly lower, as is the total system wide cost.
Now that gas prices have dropped in the US, I think alternatives to gasoline have simply become less attractive. When gas was near $4 a gallon a lot of people where disparate for alternative. Now that it's around $2 a gallon, not so much.
They aren't. That's the entire point of the article, hence "It is high time, America, to give diesels a better look."
One effective although expensive way to sell diesels in 2015 would be to buy every pre-2005 or so diesel and melt it down into scrap metal. We can't afford that, although over a very long period of time it'll eventually take place naturally.
Another way would be to enforce emissions limits and emissions testing such that nobody ever sees a 1995 diesel truck laying down a smoke cloud. We've pretty much chosen not to do that, as a society.
Typically, gas stations which sell Diesel fuel put in anti-gelling additives that vary with the time of year. In the 12 years I've owned my car, I've never had a problem with gelling fuel, even when it got down to -5° F.
That being said, I'd have to lean on the glow plugs for 20-30 seconds at those temperatures, in order to get the engine block warm enough to turn over.
Tokyo did ban diesel long ago, but in 2012 there were discussion about allowing them again. France is now trying to avoid them. Knowing about Japan I thought it made sense (with a little big companies / lobby / plot feeling), but now it seems a misguided attempt at being eco-friendly.
A place like Canada could use diesel, due to our brutal winters, but most of the USA is basically tropical in comparison. Electrics just make sense there, because of the weather and the automobile culture in general.
The age of the fossil fuel personal car is entering its last decade.
And I'm talking about nice cars, too. Not tin cans.
http://www.autoblog.com/2010/05/25/bmw-320d-goes-over-1-000-...
Same applies to vehicle fuels. Do not underestimate the energy density of a conventional liquid container filled with hydrocarbons.
Since when do drivers optimize for max miles per tank of fuel? 57.4mpg is extremely low compared to a Tesla's 97mpge [1]. Diesels are great, they just won't make sense when the 35,000$ Model 3 comes out.
1. http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bymodel/2013_Tesla_Model_S.sh...
I wouldn't be so confident. Right now, Tesla addresses a small portion of the expensive sports sedans segment in a few lucky parts of the world. Even then, Tesla cannot make enough cars to fulfill demand. The grid as it is, cannot handle a sudden and drastic increase in demand for electricity and the additional infrastructure needed will be neither cheap nor easily obtained.
I do think the internal combustion engine (w.r.t. to cars) will be relegated to history, but I won't think the transformation will be quick or easy.
If you don't mind having half an hour break every 200 miles, and only drive 60mph. Day to day it wouldn't bother me at all, but for long drives gas is far superiour.
A reasonably short break every two or three hours is something you should be doing regardless of your car's range.
I have yet to have the pleasure in mine, but other Model S owners report that long trips are much more enjoyable than in gas cars, because the quiet, smooth ride reduces fatigue, and the breaks are spaced where you'd want them anyway. The only problem right now is that the charging network isn't fully developed. A common complaint goes something like, "I really wish I could take my Model S for this long trip, but there's a gap in such-and-such place, so we have to take an ICE car instead." I don't think I've seen one person say that they made a trip on electricity but wish they had had a gas car instead.
I spend some time in Korea for work and always drive diesel rental cars and modern diesels are great. I once almost filled one with gasoline because I didn't even realize it was diesel until a Korean co-worker corrected me.
In the end its probably very good for my pocketbook as I've just kept driving my 10 year old Mazda 3 and waiting for the diesels that never arrive.
[1] http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-drive/auto-shows/north-...
[2] http://www.forbes.com/sites/dalebuss/2014/01/09/mazda-delays...
There is a certain subculture of diesel pickup truck owners who alter the engine management computer with aftermarket chips to make it inject a ton of extra fuel, which doesn't burn properly and creates the black clouds of smoke.
I'm skeptical that any filtration system is going to solve that problem. All of the practical systems I've read about either allow a substantial amount of small particulates through, or require some kind of regular maintenance which will screw the rest of us when it's not done.
If we were serious about all of this we (in the US) would convert our heavy duty truck fleet to natural gas. I read one study stating that this would reduce our oil usage by 20%, which would be a strategic accomplishment. The air quality improvement would be a welcome byproduct.
"CNG may be found above oil deposits, or may be collected from landfills or wastewater treatment plants where it is known as biogas[2]."
In Argentina most gas stations have Petrol and Diesel and I'd say ~60% of them have also CNG. It is very easy to find a CNG station on cities, but harder on rural areas.
So it's understandable why a country didn't have diesels 10 years ago, they just weren't very good. With the health issues surrounding partcle emissions and so on I don't blame the US for not changing their diesel regulation and import tradition in a hurry. There are lots of other crazy regulation (and cultural!) things to be changed first, such as the whole pickup truck madness.
Now the price of diesel is always more than gasoline (12% today). When I bought my new car, I had priced out a TDI Jetta, which only came in higher end trims. The amount of money I would save wouldn't break even with the additional cost of the car (over a gasonline model) until about 300k km of fuel savings, which is longer than the average lifespan of a car (diesels probably live longer though). Sure I would have a nicer car, but it was out of my price range and I would be stuck with an under powered engine.
Or is your complaint that you prefer the smog from gas over the smog from diesel?
Regardless there are a lot of great arguments against diesel in this thread (e.g. increased cost Vs. MpG, maintence cost + additional car cost Vs. gas, and so on), this argument ("the smog!") doesn't really feel like one of them.
I've spent a lot of time in London AND American cities, and neither are pleasant. I count the days until most cars are electric and we can breath again. Even hybrids seem like a marked improvement over gas or diesel (in particular during traffic jams).
I was regularly told to stay indoors growing up in LA. You still get a couple dozen smog days a year, but only a couple extreme days. That is way down from the 150-200 days of extreme smog a year that forced me indoors as a kid.
Gasoline is more efficient in terms of miles you can drive per barrel of crude. It also burns cleaner of course, and with the newer gasoline engines, the gap between gas and diesel in terms of MPG isn't that great.
"We're sorry but this site is not accessible from the UK as it is part of our international service and is not funded by the licence fee. It is run commercially by BBC Worldwide, a wholly-owned subsidiary of the BBC, the profits made from it go back to BBC programme-makers to help fund great new BBC programmes. You can find out more about BBC Worldwide and its digital activities at www.bbcworldwide.com."
"BBC Worldwide (International Site) We're sorry but this site is not accessible from the UK as it is part of our international service and is not funded by the licence fee. It is run commercially by BBC Worldwide, a wholly-owned subsidiary of the BBC, the profits made from it go back to BBC programme-makers to help fund great new BBC programmes. You can find out more about BBC Worldwide and its digital activities at www.bbcworldwide.com."
Such a stupid policy to be honest. I live in the Uk and pay my licence fees too.....
In Europe, if a motorist wants to drive a small car that feels like a big one, there is a diesel for every occasion. A 1.6-litre turbodiesel delivers the torque surge of a much larger gasoline engine, yet with the fuel efficiency of a much smaller one. In the UK, diesel sales account for more than half of all cars sold, and even with a stat like that, Britain lags the rest of Europe, which has long preferred diesel to gas.
So why would more Americans not drive diesels? From the European perspective, it would suit the driving style of the States perfectly, with lots of relaxed muscle available at low rpms to cruise vast interstate networks that are the envy of the world. Better mileage means fewer fill-ups, and the on-paper improvements in fuel economy would, overnight, take the US fleet one massive step toward President Obama’s targeted 54.5 mpg national average by 2025. Simply stated, diesel should “work” in the US. “But what do Britons know about our market?” an American might opine. Quite a lot. In significant ways, the diesel market in the US is similar to that of the UK three decades ago.
In the UK of the 1980s, diesel drivers were outcasts. They were required to fill up around the back of the station, over by the truckers, to be looked upon by gasoline burners with a mixture of pity and smugness. And that presumed diesel drivers could even find somewhere to fill up, as not every filling station bothered to stock their fuel.
This sheer lack of availability led to great variability in pricing. As the only filling-station proprietor in 25 miles to stock diesel, Mr. Smith could subsequently charge more or less whatever he wanted. A survey of diesel prices in the US illustrates a similarly maddening snapshot of how scarcity can produce wide price fluctuations, with pump prices varying by up to 50 cents a gallon. But with more diesel purchasers, the laws of the marketplace would kick in, bringing prices into greater alignment. Given the need for low-sulphur refining, diesel would not necessarily become cheaper than premium in the US. It is pricier on the other side of the Pond, too, but although Europeans gripe about it, they still know the savings add up. Diesel generally returns 30% better mileage than gas, and in the dominion of $8 gallons, this is no small advantage.
Mind you, there are two distinct factors working in favour of Europeans’ wallets: fuel with a higher cetane rating, which makes it easier to control NOx emissions, and EU emissions standards that are generally comparable to the US’s Tier 2 standards in all areas apart from, yes, NOx. Even our EU 6 standards, due in 2015, do not quite match the States’ strict limits on smog- and acid rain-causing emissions.
Relative to a gasoline-burning engine, it is more difficult to control NOx in a diesel, which is why, to meet those comparatively stricter emissions limits, diesels in the US are required to use expensive, onboard after-treatment systems, which decrease the amount of particulate matter that leaves the tailpipe. Diesel engines are already more expensive to develop than gasoline units, given their turbos and complex injection systems. After-treatment systems make them even pricier. Here’s the thing: It’s worth it. Diesel used to be a dirty fuel and a dirty word, but recent technologies have addressed both problems, which is why the world outside the United States thinks of the choice between gasoline and diesel as a foregone conclusion. And even with the additional costs, passed on to the consumer, of emissions compliance equipment, the sensory pleasures of a diesel-powered vehicle are difficult to deny.
It is high time, America, to give diesels a better look.
In Europe, if a motorist wants to drive a small car that feels like a big one, there is a diesel for every occasion.
A 1.6-litre turbodiesel delivers the torque surge of a much larger gasoline engine, yet with the fuel efficiency of a much smaller one. In the UK, diesel sales account for more than half of all cars sold, and even with a stat like that, Britain lags the rest of Europe, which has long preferred diesel to gas.
So why would more Americans not drive diesels? From the European perspective, it would suit the driving style of the States perfectly, with lots of relaxed muscle available at low rpms to cruise vast interstate networks that are the envy of the world. Better mileage means fewer fill-ups, and the on-paper improvements in fuel economy would, overnight, take the US fleet one massive step toward President Obama’s targeted 54.5 mpg national average by 2025. Simply stated, diesel should “work” in the US.
“But what do Britons know about our market?” an American might opine. Quite a lot. In significant ways, the diesel market in the US is similar to that of the UK three decades ago.
In the UK of the 1980s, diesel drivers were outcasts. They were required to fill up around the back of the station, over by the truckers, to be looked upon by gasoline burners with a mixture of pity and smugness. And that presumed diesel drivers could even find somewhere to fill up, as not every filling station bothered to stock their fuel.
This sheer lack of availability led to great variability in pricing. As the only filling-station proprietor in 25 miles to stock diesel, Mr. Smith could subsequently charge more or less whatever he wanted. A survey of diesel prices in the US illustrates a similarly maddening snapshot of how scarcity can produce wide price fluctuations, with pump prices varying by up to 50 cents a gallon. But with more diesel purchasers, the laws of the marketplace would kick in, bringing prices into greater alignment.
Given the need for low-sulphur refining, diesel would not necessarily become cheaper than premium in the US. It is pricier on the other side of the Pond, too, but although Europeans gripe about it, they still know the savings add up. Diesel generally returns 30% better mileage than gas, and in the dominion of $8 gallons, this is no small advantage.
Mind you, there are two distinct factors working in favour of Europeans’ wallets: fuel with a higher cetane rating, which makes it easier to control NOx emissions, and EU emissions standards that are generally comparable to the US’s Tier 2 standards in all areas apart from, yes, NOx. Even our EU 6 standards, due in 2015, do not quite match the States’ strict limits on smog- and acid rain-causing emissions.
Relative to a gasoline-burning engine, it is more difficult to control NOx in a diesel, which is why, to meet those comparatively stricter emissions limits, diesels in the US are required to use expensive, onboard after-treatment systems, which decrease the amount of particulate matter that leaves the tailpipe. Diesel engines are already more expensive to develop than gasoline units, given their turbos and complex injection systems. After-treatment systems make them even pricier.
Here’s the thing: It’s worth it. Diesel used to be a dirty fuel and a dirty word, but recent technologies have addressed both problems, which is why the world outside the United States thinks of the choice between gasoline and diesel as a foregone conclusion. And even with the additional costs, passed on to the consumer, of emissions compliance equipment, the sensory pleasures of a diesel-powered vehicle are difficult to deny.
It is high time, America, to give diesels a better look.
I've heard that it's because the BBC is forbidden from showing adverts to UK citizens, and since they have a little "promoted content" box at the bottom of the page they have to block it from you.
Something along the lines of if they show you adverts, they lose that TV license funding, which would be catastrophic.
I have no idea if that's true, but it passes the sniff test.
For viewers outside the UK there is no such restrictions and given that funding for digital ventures by the BBC is now somewhat limited (due to complaints by the commercial sector that they could not compete with the BBC) they try to recoup some money by running advertising.
None of these are created for a home audience, they are to advance the interests of their host nations globally.
https://web.archive.org/web/20140529122154/http://www.bbc.co...
What else could explain how GM produced those engines?
Although I try to steer clear from hardcore conspiracy theories, sometimes it really is that simple.
It just odd, to me at least, that with such a logical and profitable path laid before them, as the article reminds, that GM could be that incompetent when it came to diesel.
You really think there was absolutely no bean-counting influences when it came to the development of diesel at GM?
Incompetence is not restricted to GM, of course. American cars in general have a pretty bad quality reputation in Europe.
The reason we can't get Diesels is the environmentalist "anti-smog" campaigns of the 70s and 80s, produced emissions standards that prevent Mazda from just importing that car they sell freely in the UK.
Mazda is has been trying to get their Mazda3 Diesel version imported to the USA for a couple years. It's becoming a bit of a joke because they keep thinking they are going to be able to do it and then not being able to get the permits.
Environmentalists really hated diesels in the 70s and the 80s because "smog" and the particulate matter that diesels produce was the big scary thing.
Now gas milage is the big desire but the emissions standards make that nearly impossible.
When I was a kid I had a Toyota Tercel station wagon. That car got 40MPG Highway! And it wasn't an econobox- it was 4WD and a big old station wagon (well big for japanese standards.) Meanwhile, I just bought a 2014 RAV4--- 30 years newer with 30 years more advanced technology-- it's about the same size and weight, also with a 4 cylinder engine but much more efficient computer controlled shifting and the like-- yet it only gets 20mpg highway.
MPG and emissions are a tradeoff-- and the regulatory demands of environmentalists don't seem to take this into account.
If the EPA were to mandate lower sulfur levels (not likely in this century) then our diesel cars would be better.
If it makes sense the new fuel will replace the old one that the big trucks use now, or if not then both will be sold.
The US sulfur limit is 15 ppm. In the EU it is 10 ppm (apparently the available fuel is often lower than that).
I don't have any idea what the effective difference is between fuel with 15 ppm sulfur and 5 ppm sulfur, but I would guess it won't be enormous.
Europe's standard may still be higher, but it has improved here also.
As of September 2007, most on-highway diesel fuel sold at retail locations in the United States is ULSD.
Yes, because during the 70s and 80s smog was a really scary thing. You know the problems China has today? Well, now you understand the direction California was headed in the 70s.
Of course, it's pretty easy to look back, now, and deride the politicians of the day, but you also aren't experiencing lung cancer and birth defects because they headed off the issue by enacting laws that have protected you for the last 30 years.
Now gas milage is the big desire but the emissions standards make that nearly impossible.
That's BS. TDI diesels (edit: burning ULSD) are, today, every bit as clean as gasoline cars and significantly more fuel efficient, while operating in a wide range of climates.
It's emissions that have killed gas milage.
Combine that with the fact that the modern car is probably 1000 pounds heavier (as well as much taller) it's very obvious where the fuel mileage has gone.
And the RAV4 has many more goodies that eat electricity - and did the Tercel even have aircon? Yes, the catalyser burns some fuel, but it is not the only thing there.
The biggest thing probably is that the RAV4 is much more powerful, and in the measurement cycle, the more power there is in the engine, the more of it is used, so the nominal consumption goes up. And to some extent this happens in real life as well. Modern cars are quite overpowered for the actual purposes of transport. Power is nice, because you can feel it when you kick the gas pedal. But that does eat fuel.
You should try comparing diesel and gas models as equally equipped as possible and see what the cost per mile is.
I just bought a 2.5L Subaru Outback, if we had the 2.0L diesel version I would save about $500 over 100,000 miles.
That's not great in my book. Would I buy a diesel Tacoma if one was available? Yes. So I'm a diesel fanboy, but the economics are closer than we think.
That is simply untrue. Even modern diesel engines today produce a ton of extremely fine particulates (PM0.1 or <= 100nm) which are exceptionally carcinogenic.
PM0.1 will happily lodge deeply into your lungs, pass through cell membranes, and lodge into your organs and brain. They've been shown to trigger heart attacks, cause asthma, lung cancer, cardiovascular disease, birth defects and more.
Then there is the huge amount of NOx produced by diesel which causes smog and ground level ozone. Neither is particularly good to breathe. There is a reason why many cities in Europe like Paris are in the process of or thinking about banning diesel cars from their roads.
This does not happen with petrol.
If you are looking at liters per 100KM then they should be equivalent.
[1] http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=7474&id...
And yes, comparing a 25 year old Honda to a one year old Kei car is a bit apples and oranges, so here's the CRX HF's spiritual successor, which surprisingly gets about the same MPG as the diminutive "Smart" car despite being a hybrid:
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=7474&id...
Now, the second thing is purely subjective and if you want a car based on popularity or "being different", more power to you. Here in the deep south, we have guys and gals who buy the biggest, baddest pickup truck they can...and never haul a thing in the bed for the life of the truck. Pure status symbol. I can imagine a similar mindset among the local twentysomethings wanting to stand out from the crowd by driving an equally impractical car.
This is my idea of a truly smart car, and with a sensible price: