You are here:
Forums
Pickups
Diesels
Diesels in the News

8143 messages, Last post on Nov 27, 2009 at 12:10 PM
You are in the Diesels Forum. Your Host is kcram
|
Replying to: kdhspyder (Sep 24, 2008 12:33 pm)
|
|
|
Replying to: kdhspyder (Sep 24, 2008 12:43 pm) |
|
|
Replying to: kdhspyder (Sep 24, 2008 11:48 am) 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. |
|
|
All the people tracking the supposed "conspiracy" to keep diesel prices high right at the moment that carmakers are finally bringing clean diesel sedans here, get your Radar Up !!! Diesel is only 24 cents per gallon more expensive than regular unleaded gas !!!! ( Did the Anti-Diesel Lobby get demolished by Ike? )
|
|
|
Replying to: ruking1 (Sep 24, 2008 12:49 pm) GM, Ford and Toyota have made it clear in this regard. |
|
|
Replying to: kdhspyder (Sep 24, 2008 1:29 pm) |
|
|
Careful about assigning name tags. If you calling GM, Ford and Toyota the 'anti-diesel, pro-hybrid' crowd the rest of the world would be mightily surprised since these are likely three of the largest diesel manufacturers in the world. Now on this continent, I might agree. But it's only because of what their marketing says about sales and profits and what the local market will purchase, nothing more or less. They've determinied that the local market here will not buy diesel vehicles except as a niche product. Not in large volumes. These three are large volume producers.
|
|
|
Replying to: kdhspyder (Sep 24, 2008 1:29 pm) |
|
|
Replying to: kdhspyder (Sep 24, 2008 1:46 pm) |
|
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle


Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats