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
Automotive News & Views Hybrids & Diesels - Deals or Duds? 
5196 messages, Last post on Oct 16, 2006 at 6:55 AM
You are in the Automotive News & Views Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & claires
|
|
|---|---|
|
Well I honestly have no idea what the current use for corn stalks would be, but if they're just "trash" right now after the corn is pulled, then that would be a win-win. It is a byproduct of another process, so no additional energy is being expended in its growth. That said, they could be currently grinding them up and making body shells for Saturns at this point and I wouldn't know. |
|
|
Replying to: Mr_Shiftright (Jun 08, 2005 6:04 pm) Simply planting corn or other grains for ethanol production does not appear to make environmental (or economical sense - the feds subsidize ethanol). What is exciting about the new process I mentioned is that the focus on using agricultural byproducts rather than the whole plant. We only eat part of the plants. This process has promise to allow us to use what we currently throw away. |
|
Ethanol has no where close the btu power that bio diesel (from say soy beans) has. (farm products to farm products) In fact, the hit is usually about 20% less mpg. The math is pretty simple. However, ethanol weakens both the power output and is more costly and paradoxically burns MORE fuel.Also burned ethanol is not cleaned by the catalytic converters and if fact has been shown to cause equipment damage and also a lot of folks get headaches from being around burnt ethanol. In fact for industrial use, the EPA as banned the use of ethanol!!???? Oymoronic eh? So oxygenated unleaded fuel of 100 gals and oygenated portion is 10%, then really there is only a 90 gal demand ( as implementatio of the policy to try to decrease foreign oil dependency) . Also if you are used to say 35 mpg (which most cars do not get ) then 20% less mileage can be as low as 28 mpg or minus -7mpg. Ethanol is not as effective and efficient as #2 or bio diesel. Essentially home grown bio diesel has NO BTU loss. So as a consequence, the bio diesel would yield a min of 48/50mpg vs the 28/35 mpg scenario. So the implementation of oxygenated gas compared to say an implementation of bio diesel shows a loss of 44% fuel efficiency. Or the environmentalists would have you believe that 28 mpg is better than 48/50 mpg.  
|
|
|
Replying to: ruking1 (Jun 09, 2005 7:13 am) Shifty I will agree about finding diesel in Orange county yesterday. I drove up and down Beach Blvd looking for an ARCO that sells diesel. I even stopped at one and inquired. The Indian lady did not know what diesel was. I made it home with fuel to spare. I thought of running some Chevron or Shell diesel that was available. I have only run the ULSD from ARCO so don't want to change. If you are picky about your diesel it is harder to find. Again with the 600+ mile range of the Passat it is not real critical. My overall average is still 32 MPG combined. Right on EPA ratings. And I always have the air on, and keep up with the 75MPH + traffic. Would not sell this unless I found a diesel I liked better, like the E320 CDI. For those wanting to use ULSD, this is a current list of all the CA stations that sell the ECD-1. It will say ULSD right on the pump. Much higher cetane than most truck stop diesel. http://www.ecdiesel.com/documents/ecd-1_retail_list.pdf |
|
| See, that is exactly why I will stick with plain old gasoline for the time being. I don't like the idea of having to search for my next fill up. | |
|
|
|
Replying to: gagrice (Jun 09, 2005 7:32 am) 1. economy per pound of car -- I was able to operate a large 4 door car for the price of a smaller coffee can type car. 2. range -- I was able to extend time between fill ups noticeably, and also had a great reserve (fuel light on) range. I felt more at ease in this sense. In my opinion, these are two things that would appeal to American drivers, and if I were selling diesel cars, I would market those advantages. You notice I didn't include "lower maintenance costs". The reason I didn't was because my records showed that while each maintenance visit WAS cheaper, I had to do more maintenance on the diesel, so it basically averaged out. On the plus side, the maintenance costs for the large 4-door were about the same as for a smaller car. But I didn't "save" money on maintenance, just got a bigger car for the same buck-bang. Hope this is useful experience for someone contemplating a diesel car. BIODIESEL -- my experience with BD was generally positive, though limited. I just bought B100 from the pump, as I didn't really have the time to pick up, haul and process 55 gallon drums of used peanut oil from Chinese restaurants. I think you have to be 23 years old, stoned and living in Berkeley to really get into this kind of thing. ("time on my hands" as the song used to go). Actually sounds like fun, but I'm too far down the road to be an urban farmer. I did have to do two filter changes when switching to B100, and the main reason I gave it up is that I found I had to switch back and forth from B100 to regular diesel, because B100 pump is really hard to find. Once the local B100 source in my area gave up selling it, I gave up buying it. Also price was $3 a gallon.
|
|
|
Replying to: Mr_Shiftright (Jun 09, 2005 7:45 am) That is a common complaint. I talked to the manager of the biodiesel plant in Bakersfield. He cannot keep up with the demand in the Bay Area. He even has to supplement his own TDI with #2 diesel from time to time. There is only one source in San Diego city area. They only sell B20. If I go out to the El Centro valley it is readily available. Seems the farm communities have it available. Many run it in their tractors. The buck a gallon subsidy has made it close to competitive. In So Dakota a friend runs B20 in his new F250 and never paid more than $2.19 per gallon at the Co-op. The price we pay for this sunshine. Well some days it is sunshine, not today...
|
|
|
Replying to: Mr_Shiftright (Jun 09, 2005 7:45 am) Because of the premium of the diesel motor to the 1.8T and the 2.0 one just does the math to see the break even points. Against the 2.0 the BE point is 60k. Against the 1.8T essentially it IS B/E at purchase. Also the 1.8T requires premium so the savings can be almost from the get go. Also for me, I would not buy a 2.0 motor in a VW and the 1.8T is suspect. So at times, one is forced to do an apples to oranges comparison. In my case 2004 Honda Civic vs 2003 VW Jetta TDI. The range is truly amazing in the Jetta because the tanks hold the same quantities, it is dramatic. (14.5 gals) 32 mpg vs 49 mpg is 464 to 710 miles. A diesel can go 53% more miles than a gasser. |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: gagrice (Jun 09, 2005 8:01 am) The problem with economic incentives is that people keep wanting to butt in with their VALUE judgements rather than just look at the payoff in dollars and sense. An extreme example would be that you could probably send a jobless teenager to Harvard for far less than keeping him in prison, but no one will do that because value judgments suggest he didn't deserve it. Leaving that aside as purely an example--hell, if it could be shown that health costs would plummet in my community (I mean, my tax supported health costs to others), I'd vote to GIVE people B100 for free, whether they deserved it or not. I know economists would love me talking like this, because it is hard "value-free" dollars and cents talk, but I don't expect most people to think like this in solving energy problems. I guess what I'm driving at is that we need a real BIG PICTURE view of how alternative vehicles fit into the scheme of things. How can we realize pay-offs from them, even non-drivers, and how can we make that happen? But first, THE SCIENCE has to be good and the numbers have to be good before I'm going to back any incentive scheme to increase the market share of BD or high mileage hybrids. |
|
|
Your post brings up pretty complex issues. The science is already good. But to distill it, it gets down to the chicken and the egg. Not many folks will invest in passenger diesel, so there is little to slow growth. This of course disincentivizes EVERYTHING diesel, from research to get going on the state of the art pollution control systems. etc etc. As a matter of fact diesel sales in Europe are fully 45% of the passenger vehicle fleet and GROWING. So those pollution control devices EXIST and are on the market in Europe. They do not USE it here because the LOW SULFUR FUEL is not in or the STANDARD. In fact use with higher sulfur fuel will negate the benefits and kill the systems. So a way to look at this is would our current gasser cars pass the current emissions test on LEADED FUEL!? DAH!!? But then you have to acknowledge that if this 2005 unleaded gas resultsare the "standard" from 1979 to now, it has taken 26 years to get here with it!? Diesels from a regulatory view (among others) is at the same crossroads. However it is gettind done on diesels with a far far faster product to market cycle. As a foot note my 2003 TDI can burn the new 2006.5 low sulfur fuel with no modifications. In fact it was made to burn it 2 years ago when bought new.
|
|
You are here:
Forums
Automotive News & Views Hybrids & Diesels - Deals or Duds?
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
