Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Pickups Diesels Diesels in the News
8427 messages, Last post on Mar 16, 2010 at 2:11 PM
You are in the Diesels Forum. Your Host is kcram
|
Replying to: altair4 (Sep 24, 2008 3:58 am) Tier2Bin5 'better' than EuroVI? No, just different. Bin5 is more stringent on NOx, less stringent on PM. The differences are enough to keep most of the clean diesels out of the US. See graph in post 6717. I grew up in the Appalachians in the 70s when cars were operating in the biggest box in that graph, and NOx / acid rain was destroying lakes and trees where I lived. The differences between bin5 and EuroVI are insignificant compared to what we had back then. The US should adopt Euro emissions at the same time Europe does so we can benefit from the 40% reduced fuel consumption that diesels offer.
|
|
|
Replying to: hypnosis44 (Sep 24, 2008 9:31 am) Connecticut, D.C., Delaware, Maine, Maryland, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas.
|
|
|
Replying to: altair4 (Sep 24, 2008 10:25 am) Suffice to say the rules and regulations keep the the passenger diesel population low. |
|
|
Replying to: 104wb (Sep 24, 2008 10:23 am) Tier2Bin5 'better' than EuroVI? No, just different. Bin5 is more stringent on NOx, less stringent on PM. The differences are enough to keep most of the clean diesels out of the US. See graph in post 6717. I grew up in the Appalachians in the 70s when cars were operating in the biggest box in that graph, and NOx / acid rain was destroying lakes and trees where I lived. The differences between bin5 and EuroVI are insignificant compared to what we had back then. The US should adopt Euro emissions at the same time Europe does so we can benefit from the 40% reduced fuel consumption that diesels offer. Good accurate data here. However from a business model perspective it doesn't make much sense to invest in new clean diesel technology at this time today. 40% is about the maximum fuel economy benefit that can be expected by driving a diesel over a gasser. However... ..there is a 5-15% premium in the cost of production and sales price of the vehicle; ..there is a 5-15% loss of efficiency due to the emissions controls as you noted; ..there is a 10-20% premium to pay for the fuel. In the best case scenario that 40% fuel economy benefit is reduced to 20% but in the worst case there is a 10% penalty for buying, driving, fueling a diesel over a gasser. It appears to be at best breakeven at this time. Improving the existing gasser technology seems the less expensive/less risky route for the automakers in NA.
|
|
|
Replying to: kdhspyder (Sep 24, 2008 12:48 pm) So why are we even making noise about less fuel consumption and less foreign oil dependency when most folks subscribe to the attitude you have outlined?   I'd be the first to day that 38-42 mpg on a Honda Civic gasser is probably better than 80-98% of the vehicle fleet . But at the same time 48-52 mpg on a TDI ain't bad for a "fuel guzzler"  You will probably agree: the key is we are not REALLY serious about less fuel consumption and less foreign oil dependency!
|
|
|
Replying to: ruking1 (Sep 24, 2008 12:57 pm) Now that you brought up hybrids that IS a route that vehicle makers can take in NA to both save fuel, reduce dependency on foreign oil and make a profit. The new Honda Insight  $18000-$19000 will be a smashing success in this regard IMO. The Gen 3 Prius will gain 50% more sales annually than the Gen 2. The midsized auto segment is about to explode with offerings from GM, Ford and Hyundai along with the Toyotas and Nissans now being offered Profits can be made here...and fuel saved. |
|
|
An interesting pair of charts I stumbled across at EIA.DOE.gov.. Maybe it's well-known to some but it was new to me. What goes into the price of Gasoline vs the price of Diesel .............................Gas............. Diesel Taxes.................... 11% ............ 11% Dist & Marketing.... 10% ............ 14% Refining................... 6% ............ 11% Crude Oil............... 73% ............ 64%
|
|
|
Replying to: kdhspyder (Sep 24, 2008 1:33 pm)
|
|
|
Replying to: kdhspyder (Sep 24, 2008 1:43 pm) |
|
|
Replying to: kdhspyder (Sep 24, 2008 12:48 pm) Minimizing costs is one important perspective for the buyer (but not the only perspective, as ruking points out). I'll agree with the 5-15% initial cost premium, while noting that the resale value / lease rate resulting from higher resale / longevity of the vehicle more than offset the initial cost. My current diesel powered vehicle is at 240,000 miles and still has considerable resale value. If I had the gasser equivalent, I'd have sold the first one at zero value and 200,000 miles, and be on my second one by now... The worst thing manufacturers of diesels could to would be to diminish the proven durability of the engine. Also in this category, the EPA is rewarding efficient lean-burn technology with a tax credit, which applies to 50-state compliant vehicles, first 60,000 of each model sold from now through CY2010. This helps offset the purchase price. Almost completely for the VW Jetta. Regarding emission controls, I think that 0-5% is a more realistic penalty. Urea/scr does add to initial cost, but the advantage is it does not affect efficiency. NOx converters are hands-off for the customer, but use fuel as a catalyzer. There is no doubt now a 5-20% premium for the fuel, which bothers me to no end, having enjoyed lower than RUG prices for so many years. I can't say if this trend will change because I don't believe all of the explanations of why the price is what it is. I believe enough of the explanations to think that diesel will now sit somewhat higher than gasoline. So, I think 'typical' case, is that the initial investment premium is recovered, and operating costs are 15-20% reduced. When I see the industries that survive by moving product and people from point A to point B switch from diesel (or diesel hybrid) to anything else, I'll know that the cost of ownership of the diesel is no longer superior. Other non-financial benefits of diesels are a reduction in volume of fuel used of 35-40% (energy independence), a less volatile fuel (better well-to-tank emissions, no evap hardware required), a better bio-fuel alternative (biodiesel vs. diesel is superior to ethanol vs. gas), and a fuel that can be synthesized from many sources (algae, fungi, wood gassification, garbage gassification, etc.) Personally, I'm looking ahead to diesel-hydraulic series hybrids. If we go nuclear and beef up and put redundancy in our electrical grid, then I'll get excited about electric vehicles as well. |
|
