-
The Golden Years
March 21, 2013 | 39 comments
-
Diesel Dilemmas
March 8, 2013 | 26 comments
-
Electric Lemon Aid
February 19, 2013 | 113 comments
-
The New Dart, in Light of the Old
January 11, 2013 | 48 comments
-
Speed Limiters, Too?
December 28, 2012 | 70 comments
Car Guy
Diesel Delivers
So why can’t government stand real fuel efficiency?
The just-launched Mini Cooper Countryman can get 63 MPGs highway — just not on our highways.
Like so many other diesel-powered vehicles, it’s not available in the United States. Instead we get gas-electric hybrids like the Toyota Prius — which maxes out at 48 MPGs on the highway.
It’s very strange.
Our government (well, maybe calling it “our” government is a stretch) has been browbeating the car industry to produce more “fuel efficient” cars for decades, yet at the same time, for decades, made it very hard to sell high-efficiency diesel-powered passenger cars. VW, Mercedes, BMW, Audi, Land Rover and other European brands have been selling their cars here for a long time — just not their diesel-powered cars. In Europe, diesel cars constitute about half the new cars sold; over here, less than 5 percent — chiefly because only a handful of diesel-powered passenger cars are even available.
For two reasons, mainly.
First, for years, we had not-so-great (for emissions reasons) diesel fuel that was fine for big rigs (which until recently could pollute to their hearts’ content, legally) but wreaked havoc with the finely tuned pollution control equipment fitted to modern passenger car diesel engines.
This, in turn, set up the potential not just for lots of warranty-related expenses and hassles for potential diesel-car buyers but also for even greater hassles and expenses for the car companies that sold them, when the government went after them for selling “dirty” diesels.
So we don’t get diesels like the Mini Countryman D.
No 63 MPGs, either.
Even though our diesel is now “clean” diesel — and the warranty/pollution control issues have been dealt with.
The European car companies are still super leery of bringing to market vehicles that could lead to problems for them with the EPA politburo. Their diesel-powered cars may be “cleaner” (in terms of tailpipe emissions) than a nun’s conscience but there’s still the endless pedantry of slightly different American vs. European regulatory codes. And not just federal codes, but also the different state codes, notably “California” codes that are both different and stricter than “49 state” codes. Some Northeastern states have also adopted “California” codes — which makes achieving compliance with all the varying codes — essential to being able to profitably sell a given car, nationwide — very difficult and very expensive.
Rather than spend beaucoups bucks on lawyers and other forms of paper-pushing to make the EPA happy, the European car companies cut their losses and (mostly) keep their diesels to themselves, selling a few token models here.
You’d think the government (federal and state) would make it a priority to ease the regulatory chokehold a little, to get these high-mileage diesels into mass circulation. Think what a difference a 10-15 MPG average uptick in the fuel economy of the typical passenger car would mean — not just in terms of reducing the aggregate fuel consumption of the nation but also in terms of placating the great god of global warming. Less fuel burned means fewer greenhouse gasses emitted — and a 10-15 MPG uptick in fuel efficiency spread out across, say, 20-30 percent of the passenger car fleet would mean a huge reduction in “greenhouse gasses.” And it could be done without elaborate technology (hybrids) or another round of government edicts (CAFE) that just make new cars more and more expensive to achieve minimal, incremental upticks in their average “fleet” economy numbers.
Diesels deliver. They make sense. They work. People would love ‘em if only they had a chance to drive ‘em.
But they don’t — because they do (make sense).
Maybe things will change. I don’t expect them to.
Our government is run by lawyers, not engineers. Talkers, not doers. I doubt one out of 100 of them even knows how a diesel engine differs from a gasoline engine (other than the fuel it uses). So I’m not surprised by the government’s inability to see how much it would help — everything from “the environment” to the economy — by knocking down the stupid regulatory roadblocks that are keeping diesel cars on the other side of the pond.
About the Author
Eric Peters is an automotive columnist and author of Automotive Atrocities: The Cars You Love to Hate (Motor Books International) and a new book, Road Hogs.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (84) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Eric Peters
More Articles From Car Guy
http://spectator.org/archives/2011/02/07/diesel-dunces
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- The Great Train Robbery
- Public Nuisances
- Ailes: A Voice for the Silent Majority
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 2.7.11 @ 6:49AM
Yes, government at it's best is always government at it's worse.
Tom Shire| 2.9.11 @ 1:37AM
The author's attempt to blame the market's lack of acceptance of diesel technology on EPA regulations is a bit strained, especially in light of the fact that diesels are available, yet still sell in tiny (though slowly growing) numbers.
It is true that the feds tax diesel 6 cents higher than gas (24.4 cents/gal. versus 18.4). But in the age of $3/gallon fuel, six cents (2% of overall fuel cost) hardly seems like a deal breaker. This is especially true in the light of a diesel engine's 10-20% greater fuel efficiency.
Other factors must be at play, starting with the fact that diesel engines have always been more expensive to manufacture than gas engines. Primarily, this is because diesels have to be built extra stout in order to handle compression ratios that are significantly higher than those found in gasoline engines.
Ever notice that knock and rattle so characteristic of diesels? That's pre-ignition, an inherent diesel trait. Light-duty components simply can't endure the beating diesels dish out. Diesels, therefore, are heavy-duty and expensive by nature. High-pressure fuel injection systems also add to manufacturing costs.
More details on this topic can be found here...
http://www.trucktrend.com/feat.....index.html
So gas engines are relatively cheap, gas-hybrids more expensive, and diesels the most expensive of all to manufacture. A diesel-hybrid powertrain would be super-efficient, but also super-expensive. That's why we don't see any on the market yet. But as the price of oil continues to climb, we'll see diesel-hybrids make their debut sooner or later.
Something else the author should have noted when discussing Europe's greater acceptance of diesels relative to the U.S., is Europe's significantly higher gasoline taxes; and we're not talking an inconsequential 6 cents. Across Europe, gasoline typically costs $1/gallon more than diesel, a policy which effectively subsidizes diesel technology.
If Eric Peters wants to inform and educate his readers, he'd be better off giving them facts and reasoned analysis rather than weak allegations.
David| 7.8.11 @ 3:55PM
Mr Shire
You are talking about 20th century diesel engines.
Test drive a VW Tdi. You'll be surprised.
Tom Shire| 9.26.11 @ 10:29PM
It is true, David, that modern diesels are quieter than their older brethren, but they are still significantly more expensive to manufacture than their gasoline cousins. Getting their emissions to the point where they are as clean as gasoline engines adds even more expense. This requirement seems to be Eric Peters' primary gripe. Apparently he doesn't mind sacrificing public health for a few more mpg.
Too bad he isn't willing to part with his dollars instead of public health. If people were willing to spend more on electrics or hybrids, and less on their big-screen TVs, we might be in a better position both economically and environmentally.
David| 7.8.11 @ 3:52PM
It's even better when people don't use an apostrophe in possessive pronouns: yours, hers, ours, theirs. So why write "it's?"
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 2.7.11 @ 6:49AM
Yes, government at it's best is always government at it's worse.
Pelligrino| 2.7.11 @ 6:58AM
Good topic. This should be open, vigorous, and loud public discussion throughout the land.
It's the first thing any man notices when spending time anywhere in Europe. I would say that bettter than 65% of the prviately owned vehicles in Germany, France, Italy, and Spain are diesel fueled. Even more in Poland and Czech Republic.
You could add Ford Europe (headquartered in Cologne, Germany) and even GM (until recently) to the list of automakers. GM had owned Opel/Vauxhall and many of their cars (like all German-built cars) are diesel fuel powered.
In all those years with Opel, GM did not see the need to rapdily include diesels into their North American offerings? Ford doesn't get it?
There is something awry with the US big muscle auto industry and its titans in Detroit to let this diesel auto issue silently go untouched.
This is NOT just EPA/big government malfeasance.
There is some weird subplot you are not addressing, Mr. Peters, though it is commendable of you to raise the issue. I just looked at several car makes as I am "in the market" for a vehicle replacement in the next year. Despite all their good Consumer Reports ratings, I viewed every Subaru offering; their city and highway MPGs are PATHETIC.
Hence: Forget Subaru and their inflated sticker prices. (yet somehow Subaru gets away with an "environmentally conscious" label -- as seen by all the Subarus in New England)
Yet it is like that everywhere. We have year 2011 technology now but sticker MPGs have read the exact SAME on most all vehicles for over 2 decades now. They have NOT improved.
Yet 'newcomer' Hyundai/Kia new edition autos DO show impressive MPG increases....
A diesel Ford Focus, Ford Explorer, and Ford Taurus might make the Toyotas, Hondas, and Nissans a bit edgy? Maybe?
Who is going to be the first to make the real game-changer auto? (I believe it would)
If Volkswagen did not get it wrong on a few fine points with its VW Golf/Rabit TDI and Golf Wagon TDI (both diesels), that would be the car I am driving -- right now.
LiveFreeOrDie| 2.7.11 @ 11:57AM
What's your problem with Subaru? Every single one is AWD, which decreases fuel mileage. Please point out which manufacturer makes AWD vehicles with better mileage?
Let's give the great gasoline/diesel conspiracy theory a rest. If anything this is a marketing issue. Diesel cars have never done well in this country. Women don't buy diesels historically because of the smell or whatever the reason. Men, who seem to like acceleration, have found it lacking in diesel engines of the past.
Cars become more fuel efficient every model year, however, that always translates into more POWER and the mileage stays the same.
LiveFreeOrDie| 2.7.11 @ 12:08PM
Now if you want to blame the Government for the price of diesel, you may have something. How has the price of diesel more than doubled in ten years? The demand has steadily increased and more recently taken a downturn in the midst of economic blues so how do we explain the huge increase in price?
"Diesel engines move 94 percent of all freight in the U.S., 95 percent of all transit buses and 95 percent of all heavy construction machinery."
http://articles.chicagotribune.....uel-prices
KTinLA| 2.7.11 @ 1:02PM
The oil refiners - no fools - are selling their diesel production in Europe. That tends to create a tight diesel fuel market in the U.S., which drives prices up. BTW I put 350-thousand miles on a Mercedes turbo diesel, and the engine is still good.
Muleskinner| 2.7.11 @ 3:41PM
Mistuh Jimmuh and his minions saw fit to slap an extra five cents per gallon tax on diesel fuel and most of the states followed the lead. When winter rolls around diesel vehicles are competing for number two oil that youse also put into your heating oil tank.
Intelligent Design| 2.7.11 @ 7:53AM
I have been driving the same diesel Mercedes for 17 years, here in the U.S. It still runs like a new engine.
mjfin| 2.7.11 @ 6:53PM
The gas engine in my a 19 year old (1992) Ford F-150 V8 also runs like new. All new car and truck engines last 300k miles these days.
SC Mike| 2.7.11 @ 8:09AM
GM did offer diesels in its Oldsmobile line for several years; it was a V-8 converted from the 350 CID gasoline model. It had fair economy and the reliability of a Fiat. GM dropped the Olds line earlier this century not because of this engine but because Olds drivers died off for reasons Darwinian in nature.
Few people know that Audi and Peugeot have dominated endurance racing (races 12 to 24 hours in duration) with diesels. Heck, I’d love a diesel in my Fusion.
The big 2 1/2 (wait, that now includes Fiat!) have offered diesels in their pickup truck lines for years, purchased by folks who love machines and have heavy work to do. You can move mountains with a diesel-powered F-250.
BTW, I’d like your opinion of Vaclav Smil’s new book Prime Movers of Globalization: The History and Impact of Diesel Engines and Gas Turbines. I find it hot, the kind of book you read with one hand.
P.Smith| 2.7.11 @ 9:35AM
The Oldsmobile Diesel Engine had a few similarities with the gasoline engine so that the engines could be manufactured with some of the same tooling and go down the same assembly line. Contrary to popular thought, the engine was designed as a diesel, and was very different from the Olds gasoline engine and was actually a decent design. The main failure of this engine occurred because the short-sighted bean-counters at GM decided that a fuel/water separator was not a necessary feature. During the late 1970s into the 1980s there was nationwide problem very poor-quality diesel fuel, that, along with poor or nonexistent dealership training, lead to many problems with this engines.
These engines are very durable and long lived with proper maintenance and the addition of a fuel/water separator.
irish19| 2.7.11 @ 11:23AM
"I find it hot, the kind of book you read with one hand."
You really didn't need to share that. TMI.
On the other hand, I would have loved to get a diesel in my Dakota when I got it. Jeep was supposed to offer a diesel in their Liberty a number of years ago, but it never happened. When the time comes, I'll look for one again.
tjs| 2.7.11 @ 1:17PM
Jeep did have a diesel option starting in 2005, as I ordered a new one. Disappointing mileage (22-24 hwy) due to the lack of a manual transmission, and all the lousy smog equipment they forced them to put on it. It was an Italian diesel made by V.M. Motori.. It had a tremendous amount of power for its' size, and, I believe it would out - accelerate the gas version. I think they discontinued the diesel option after the 2007 model year. If the gov't would get out of the way with regulations, the diesel engined vehicles can easily reach the 50 mpg mark.
WilliamInWien| 2.7.11 @ 8:36AM
The key to the acceptance of the modern diesel powered auto is to DRIVE ONE. My first was an Audi A4 TDI while living in Austria. My second was a MB 270 diesel, my daughter recently purchased a VW Jetta diesel 6 speed here in the USA. A recent visit to the Audi dealer uncovered no diesels and very few manual transmissions. Not surprising! One major disadvantage for the diesel powered car is the high price of diesel fuel...thank the US congress again!
P.Smith| 2.7.11 @ 8:48AM
I sent the following to both my senators and congressman several years ago when I learned that GM decided against releasing their new light duty diesel truck engine. This engine was an interesting new design with some innovative features. The responses that I received from my representatives (all republican by the way) were disappointing:
I have heard that recently GM has decided against building their new diesel engine for light duty trucks. I have also heard that some of the big diesel engine manufacturers are having a difficult time meeting the new EPA regulations for diesel emissions. I believe that the EPA regulations involving diesels have become so onerous that they are limiting product availability. Diesels are generally far more efficient that gasoline engines, but because of low sulfur fuel and new EPA requirements the advantage of this technology is fading. Many Europeans own automobiles that get very good mileage and we have no hope of ever buying these cars here with the current regulatory climate. We as a nation would burn far less fuel if more automobiles used diesel engines. It is time for the EPA to lower its requirements.
Nunya| 2.7.11 @ 2:27PM
Having been in the transportation industry for over 20 years, I can tell you with certainty that the EPA mandates on diesel engines are making the engines FAR less efficient than in the past. It's costing much more money for new engines, and cutting the mpg's that can be had. Eventually it costs us all as our goods become more expensive because it costs more to transport them. All those costs get pushed down to the consumer.
Congress needs to reign in this out of control administration.
Muleskinner| 2.7.11 @ 3:55PM
Right in,Nunya. The size of the particulate trap on a truck engine (class 8) draws something like sixty horsepower from the engine when the burn off occurs. Catalytic mufflers tax 50-60 horsepower from a heavy duty truck engine. So now fleet fuel mileages are dropping instead of rising as they were up to 2004. The trucking industry has always been conscious of emissions and fuel economy. The demand for more volumetric efficiency was driving the R&D behind better fuel mileage.When driving a big truck with big power,you run in higher gears and downshift less often , conserving fuel. Those high performance Peugeot and Audi Le Mans racers provided the test bed for European manufacturers to get a huge lead on American technology because our auto manufacturers are still building engines requiring carburetors for NASCAR.
Charles Stevens| 2.7.11 @ 9:00AM
The progressives' addiction to huge government as the panacea to all of life's problems is the driving factor here. It is irrelevant if this zealous devotion actually gets in the way of any of their other schemes such as global warming... what counts most in their fevered brains is the secular-religious worship of the almighty State and its rules, regulations, and mores already in extent. To attempt to modify any one of them would be blasphemy, and so schizophrenia, compartmentalized thinking, and cognitive dissonance rule the day!
Byron| 2.7.11 @ 9:06AM
Diesel also costs less to refine and uses less energy in production than gasoline. But taxes make it cost as much as premium. All of the obvious solutions are forbidden by the finger waggers. It just makes you want to give up.
Pelligrino| 2.7.11 @ 10:12AM
On the contrary, Byron, it makes you want to fight!!! Where's your spirit, man? Come on! I know it is in you!
Byron| 2.7.11 @ 11:07AM
I'm a 54 year old engineer. I live in a "WTF?" world. Oh well, at least I'm keeping busy building petrochemical plants for overseas clients.
Aquanomics| 2.7.11 @ 10:38AM
That's true to a point. When refiners are forced to combine hydrocarbon molecules to form diesel, in response to higher diesel demand or a crude oil source low in diesel hydrocarbons, costs go up.
And taxes are a big reason why diesel cars are so poplular in Europe. Gasoil has long enjoyed a sgnificant tax advantage over petrol. Recently, the EU began reducing those tax advantages and diesel auto sales have taken a hit.
Surfing the UK Ford site one finds not just diesel options, but most cars can have 4 - 6 different engines installed. What happened in this country?
tdiinva| 2.7.11 @ 11:20AM
There are two reasons for inreased diesel prices. Ultra Low sulfur diesel costs more to refine but the real reason is prior to introduction of VLS diesel we couldn't export our fuel because nobody wanted it so it got dumped on the market. Now the refiners can export the surplus.
John Navratil| 2.7.11 @ 3:06PM
Aquanomic, tdiinva,
The typical production of gasoline is 20 gallons per barrel of oil. If refiners tried to maximize diesel production, how much gasoline would inevitably remain as product? I don't know but have read that one of Rockefeller's innovations was to use the "useless" gasoline as fuel in his refineries rather than dumping it in the river. Restated, how far can we go moving personal automobile transportation onto diesel fuel before the price of diesel rises as a response to demand and the price of gasoline falls so that the dollars per gallon equilibrate?
Stan| 7.7.11 @ 2:09PM
You are right, there is only so much diesel per barrel available. I would bet that prices are also high because of the use of diesel for shipping (train & truck) we are twice as big as Europe.
But the numbers usually don't crunch, a VW TDI is about $6k more than the gas one, diesel is more expensive than gas. And then you have to ask, well the engine may last for 20 years but will the car? And do I want a car for 20 years anyhow?
Robert Pinkerton| 2.7.11 @ 9:11AM
Absolutely the very best car I have ever driven, irrespective of whether or not I owned it, was a 1984 diesel VW Rabbit, five speeds plus reverse. I did own it - for its last three years of life. What killed it was only and nothing other than body rust.
jb| 2.7.11 @ 9:14AM
I'd suggest that a more reasonable solution would be to eliminate the EPA.
JamesBill| 2.7.11 @ 9:15AM
I remember reading a few years ago an article about the aging refinery infrastructure in the United States and that without new refineries the United States currently does not have the refinery capacity to absorb a substantial increase in the number of diesel powered passenger cars.
Petronius| 2.7.11 @ 9:29AM
Who wants the driving public buying ethanol??? You know, that lower milage higher tax Bob Dole blend??? Congressman Ryan et al. Get the damned EPA out from under the hoods of our vehicles and keep them out!!!
RAMIII| 2.7.11 @ 10:00AM
Exactly so! I say follow the money!
Let's see -- lower fuel economy sells more gas and more corn (food) for fuel. It is the EPA (to be sure), but it seems to me that it is also alot of "big" business at the government trough.
Thomas| 2.7.11 @ 9:34AM
Mr. Peters hit the nail on the head with this one. The lack of diesel powered passenger cars in the U.S. is not do to the petroleum companies or the manufacturers, it is due, entirely, to governments and their capricious regulations.
Dealing with government regulation is like playing a football game where the rules change in the middle of the quarter, for no apparent good reason. These capricious regulation schemes are why business and products are leaving U.S. markets whilly-nilly. Thank you Big Brother.
Doctor_X| 2.7.11 @ 9:40AM
I'm still waiting for the BMW 120D to come to the USA. I'll be first in line IF they do!
tdiinva| 2.7.11 @ 9:41AM
Do not discount the American infatuation for new technology for the lack of a diesel market. Hybrids and electrics tinkle our fancy for technological novelty. Diesels are seen like the past as compared to the Volt powered future. What people don't understand is that a modern ICE, be it powered by gas or oil, is as high tech as aChevy Volt or Nissan Leaf. The other reason for poor diesel sales is the cost of the vehicle. With the exception of the VW Jetta and Golf all the other Diesels run $50K plus.
I drive a Jetta TDI and have gotten in the mid 50s on the highway and even with a short urban communte in cold weather I get the same mileage that a low rent Yaris or Versa get cruising on the highway.
George True| 2.7.11 @ 5:18PM
Tdiinva: What year is your Jetta TDI? I had read that the late nineties and early 2000's vintages got that kind of mileage, but that the mid-2000's and later do not.
tdiinva| 2.8.11 @ 9:51AM
It's a 2005 PD and if you drive it at 60-65 you wil make the mid 50s. ALH owners will generally dispute this but I and many other PD owners have the records to prove it. The late model (post 2009) 2.0 140hp common rail engines only get in the mid 40s when broken in.
Old Soldier | 2.7.11 @ 9:44AM
Thank for the article. I've been saying this for years. I would love to have a diesel - particularly in our big family car.
Even the Japanese manufacturers - Subaru, Mazda, and Honda make excellent diesels. They keep saying they will bring them the U.S. - then they run into the American bureaucracy and eventually give up. Meanwhile I have nanny-state liberal scolds (Chauffeured around in Chevy Suburbans) telling me I use too much gas.
I can't decide if it's stupidity (believing diesels to still be "dirty"), incompetence, or purposeful protection of the American auto industry. Probably a combination of the three.
Ken in Tyler| 2.7.11 @ 10:20AM
Never ever make the egregious error of ascribing rationality to either the tree-huggers or the EPA.
Having said that, I remember about a year or so ago Beck asked a former CEO of Shell Oil (whose name escapes my addled brain right now) why deisel had become more expensive relative to regular. The exec's response dealt with the fact that only about a third of a typical barrel of crude could be used to make deisel. In other words, the demand for deisel has already grown in relation to regular and the price was being driven by supply vs demand. I wonder then what would happen to the price if the common prole began choosing deisel power.
Citizen Jerry| 2.7.11 @ 10:28AM
The complaints I've heard (whether they're urban legend or not) have been diesel engines are dirty, noisy and they don't start in cold weather.
tdiinva| 2.7.11 @ 11:16AM
Urban legend:
The latest diesels are as quiet as gasoline engines. They don't smoke except when you start them on very cold day (incomplete combustion) and they are equipped with glow plugs and fuel preheaters for easy cold weather starts. My Jetta starts first time every time in the coldest weather.
Paul Clare| 2.7.11 @ 11:28AM
That was true 4o years ago, I have had a diesel Mazda station wagon in Austria and never, even at -30 have had a problem.
RCH | 2.7.11 @ 10:29AM
I've taken to DVRing Top Gear on BBC America lateley,not only is it an extremely entertaining show,(wish I had a job like this),but they get to drive lots of cool stuff. Saw a program recently where they were driving a VW Polo with a 3 cyl diesel,they were getting like 75 MPG. Upwards of 40-50 with a twin turbo Jaguar. How the hell can this be? Why can't I have one in the "tech savvy" US? I can only get 45 mpg with my Yamaha FJR motorcycle! Maybe they use different mileage calculations over there,but it can't be that much different. I have a buddy that drives a dodge sprinter van loaded up with oxygen bottles,it has a,guess what,Mercedes diesel and he can get 20 MPG or better . His previous truck,a Ford F450 with a van body and the 6.0 diesel,was doing really good getting 10 MPG. We have some serious work to do in this country.Ticks me off,how about you?
ChrisC| 2.7.11 @ 1:38PM
The reason that the presenters of Top Gear got such high mileage numbers is that gallons are different in Britain. The U.S. gallon is roughly 80% of the volume of an Imperial gallon. Taking 80% of the British mpg numbers gives a more accurate picture of what the fuel economy would be here. The numbers are still very impressive though.
Kent Lyon| 2.7.11 @ 11:02AM
Talk about limiting product availability. Last year I wanted to buy a Toyota Tacoma with a diesel engine. It had more power and got about twice the mileage of a V6, better towing capacity. Unfortunately, as with passenger cars, even light trucks in the US don't have a diesel option. I researched if I could get one in Mexico and bring it to the US. No! They are the preferred vehicle in Europe (not a region that opposes a green agenda, by any stretch of the imagination), Mexico, etc., but not the US. I got an I-4 for the better mileage (and lower cost) and it meets my limited needs. I would still prefer the diesel version of the Tacoma, however. I would love to have the feds get out of the way on this. (I wouldn't buy a GM because I don't want to subsidize the UAW).
Dixie Pixie| 2.7.11 @ 11:05AM
Because of diesel efficiency it is the fuel of choice for long distance transportation of goods.
Congress quickly found out a tax on diesel fuel was a indirect tax on all goods sold.
The tax was also widely dispersed making it unnoticeable to the populace.
Thus diesels efficiency lead to greater governmental revenue through taxation.
Congress as usual, blinded by greed, raised the tax on diesel, forcing the unit cost of diesel into the premium fuel category.
Naturally the public seeing the unit cost of diesel as the highest of all available fuels decided to buy cars with the lowest unit cost of fuel.
Manufacturers quickly noted the reason for the drop in sales and dropped the diesel option from most product lines.
It then became impossible to buy the diesel option even if wanted.
In short, the reason diesel fuels are not used in passenger cars is due to the market distortions caused by governmental greed rather than any other single factor.
Paul Clare| 2.7.11 @ 11:25AM
GREAT Article! I have lived in Europe for 10 years - NO one buys non diesel cars there anymore. Diesel averages 30 cents (US) less per gallon AND cars get so much more mileage. We had a Mazda station wagon 6 cyl HUGE power and got 50mpg even at 80mph on the autobahns!
We are being scammed by our gvt! Folks realize that the EPA is a boondoggle to appease the "greens" and employ bureaucrats. Big savings both money and efficiency of the U.S. would be to shut down EPA.
Memo to Paul Ryan --cost efficiency and rate of return of paying EPA staff unemployment would be so immense we could almost balance the budget on that alone!
As for California - they will be bankrupt this year anyway and with no bailout from us taxpayers will have to come back to reality quickly.
George S| 2.7.11 @ 12:06PM
You would think that a fuel that is twice as efficient as gasoline would be the government's dream, but not when that government has an EPA which has to justify its existence. The EPA's life blood is the Clean Air Act which is responsible for, among other things, the high price of gasoline due to regulations enacted for reformulated gasoline. This requires a minimum oxygen content that can only be obtained by MTBE or ethanol. With this oxygen content, the EPA wreaks reglatory havoc: certain blends for this region, certain blends for the time of year, etc. Not only that, but the EPA is very busy regulating state by state mileage and pollution standards, and then oversees the federal implentation of them on refineries across the country (whew!).
Diesel, on the other hand, cannot be monkeyed with -- it either has high or low sulfur content. So all the EPA can do is say pick one and use it. Not much of a workload is it? Then there is the political force of the Corn People, which is a perfect host-parasite existence -- ethanol is useless if not for its ability to hold oxygen and the ability of gasoline to hold oxygen is a useless parameter.
Introduce diesel and you put a wrench in the spokes of the EPA's regulatory state. Any wonder why diesel cars are not everywhere?
MoeBlotz| 2.7.11 @ 3:58PM
EPA is pushing biodiesel that has soybean oil in it. Guess what happens when that crap gets cold.
BobR| 2.7.11 @ 2:49PM
To state that less fuel is burned when using diesel is actually misleading. Yes, there is a smaller quantity (volume) of fuel burned resulting in a perceived higher mileage, but the mass of fuel consumed as measured in weight is actually slightly greater with diesel. Pollutants are measured in mass, while fuel mileage is measured in volume. This leads to major misunderstandings of the relationship between these two figures.
It takes the same amount of energy to drive a vehicle a given distance regardless of the fuel used. So a better comparison is the specific energy of the two fuels: the energy available per given mass. In this regard, gasoline at 46.4 MJ/Kg (megajoules/kilogram) performs better than diesel at 46.2 MJ/Kg. You actually use LESS GASOLINE by mass than diesel to travel the same distance, thus reducing the mass of pollutants. Add to this that gasoline burns cleaner then even today's modern diesel fuels, so reduction of pollutants favors the gasoline engine over diesel. The EPA has their science right.
Jack| 2.7.11 @ 10:41PM
Diesel has more energy per volume and takes less energy to distill. Your argument seems to reflect the same science that keeps global warming around. If your statement was true then diesel cars and trucks would not outperform their gas counterparts. The efficiency rating of a diesel motor is much greater!
Scott| 3.1.11 @ 9:46PM
None of your measurements have anything to do with how people use their cars. What matters is that they buy fuel by the gallon and measure its use in miles per gallon. And pollution is measured in grams per mile, makes no difference how much or how little fuel is consumed.
Bill K from VA| 2.7.11 @ 2:51PM
I wholeheartedly agree with Eric - in addition to being more efficient on the combustion end of the cycle, diesel is more efficient to produce as a lower order distillate than gasoline. A barrel of oil can produce more diesel fuel than gasoline which stretches oil supplies. I owned, and greatly enjoyed my 1987 BMW 524TD. After 250,000 miles, the engine showed little signs of wear. The regulations that keep us from efficient diesels is the same kind of lunacy that the left applies to "Global Warming". Even if it were a provable man made phenomenon, the proposed "solutions" would actually solve NOTHING - just redistribute wealth, not actually reduce warming.... Everything today is political - it just is not clear who benefits from keeping clean diesels from us.
Harrison | 2.7.11 @ 3:16PM
You fail to mention several things. #1 is AdBlue or some variant is needed to clean up the emissions. This adds between $200 to $400 per annual service. You also fail to mention diesel cars are $2,000 to $3,000 more expensive. You omit the fact that these diesels that come with AdBlue don't have spare tires and the run flats are 50% more than conventional tires. Finally, you don't say that in Europe diesel is taxed less than gasoline.
I work in the car industry and diesels are a slow seller. Added cost, less convenient, and wary consumers.
Cheers!
tdiinva| 2.8.11 @ 9:55AM
Small diesel engines don't require adblue. They are sufficently clean to use a filter. Adblue is also a ripoff. It's urea and should cost about $30 to add.
Tex Expatriate| 2.7.11 @ 3:27PM
The solution is for a single courageous U.S. President to abolish the EPA and its silly regulations.
old progmr| 2.7.11 @ 3:29PM
While the green idiots prance about screaming for more electric vehicles, the solutions to our auto related energy problems sit there for anybody with any technical sense at all to see. First of all Diesels, then selective use of natural gas power! With Cummins, Caterpillar, John Deere, Bosch, Siemens, and a host of others, this country has some of the most advanced, clean diesel engine technology in the world. Here is the Carolinas alone we have a cluster of diesel engine and diesel engine component (engines, smart injectors, advanced turbos, exhaust cleaners, etc.) manufacturers servicing the truck market, but quite capable of developments for passenger cars. But, no, the Epidemic of Stupidity continues apace as the Greenies and our Politicians drive millions of dollars into wasted development of hybrid and electric vehicles. My God, GM is now boasting that the technological joke, the Chevy Volt as having "extended range", boy does that give me a feeling of confidence - what if I buy an electric car without that extended range feature, trouble!
WE are also seeing the explosion of natural gas exploration making North America the Saudia Arabia of natural gas reserves. while we sit on near boundless supplies of energy resources, our supposed best and brightest chase scientific hob-goblins. Electric cars, food based fuels, windmills, solar power, compact mercury lamps, non-flushing toilets, oil drilling bans - a virtual cornucopia of impending technologial disasters.
I sit here in awe of the incomprehensible ignorance that is now driving our society. WE are indeed all aboard a Ship of Fools.
Tom Conway | 2.7.11 @ 3:31PM
Food for thought; and the distribution function is already in place: most gas stations have diesel pumps in place now. Lets hope for some clear, problem solving thinking for future energy independence.
Stuart in VA| 2.7.11 @ 4:16PM
Re: several posts above:
1) The Olds diesel was breaking crankshafts in the early models (metallurgy problems, but everyone assumed they were using the gas engine crank).
2) My dad and I paid for my college by repairing the fuel injection system (usually a $500-1k repair bill) then adding water separators.
3) The new diesel is "cooked" with excess hydrogen to remove the sulfur – an additional step and a concentrated waste product (elemental sulfur), both costing more.
4) The EPA’s anti-particulate rules are the source of its anti-diesel stance.
5) The truckers HATE the new diesel – lower MPGs than the original diesel.
Quickly| 2.7.11 @ 5:07PM
2005 VW Jetta TDI (turbo diesel injection) - 126,000 miles at 40 miles per gallon and cruise with power at 70+. Love it.
tdiinva| 2.8.11 @ 9:53AM
You must have an automatic because at 70 I get uppers 40s. Simple rule of thumb: MPG =120-speed so if you are getting 40 then you are going 80.
Pcp smoker| 2.7.11 @ 5:40PM
The Cooper? No. Let's keep America beautiful, let's impose high tariffs on the Coop'up.
Walking Horse| 2.7.11 @ 5:51PM
We own cattle, so have need for the real thing, late model Dodges with Cummins diesels (pre-gummint). Unloaded, economy is 17-20mpg overall. Towing a fully-loaded trailer yields around 15mpg. Durability is superior to gasoline engines by a big margin. No contest.
Bruce Dwayne| 2.7.11 @ 8:15PM
I think you've seen one too many episodes of the British Top Gear -- "torques," "MPGs," WTF? It's miles per gallon, not miles per gallons.
Kathy| 2.7.11 @ 9:12PM
I drove a Ford Escort diesel 20 years ago until it died. Frequently got 50 mpg. Later drove a Suburban diesel until it died. Lots better mileage than the one I'm driving today. Even with the cold climate here in SD, it was worth the effort to drive a diesel, but they're hard to find these days. I guess they just make too much sense.
Richard Baker| 2.8.11 @ 12:08AM
Sell Fords here in Florida. Have had many of my retired and business customers tell me that they've rented diesel cars in Europe and were getting in the 60 mpg range. They would ask me why they aren't available in the US and my response is simply that the Federal government doesn't want them here. That's the only reason that I can come up with. I guess it's because of environmental unconsciousness.
Harrison | 2.8.11 @ 12:34AM
The diesel there are dirty. Ever wonder why the buildings are black with soot?
JayDick| 2.8.11 @ 12:02PM
They are not longer dirty and no longer produce soot. There apparently some very small quantities of pollutants EPA is worried about, but the diesels in Europe appear to be as clean as gasoline powered vehicles.
Harrison | 2.8.11 @ 8:03PM
It is the NO2 and particulates I believe. The Urea removes the NO2. It's not a huge deal to do that, but it does add yearly costs to the car and normally prevents having a spare tire.
Richard Baker| 2.8.11 @ 1:03AM
Harrison:
Please tell me how a 60 mpg car generates soot?
Harrison | 2.8.11 @ 11:43PM
Diesel engines work differently than gasoline. They use compression instead of combustion. Diesel also contains high levels of sulfur, even though recently the sulfur content was lowered for the U.S. market. The compression method diesel engines use do not completely burn everything the way gasoline does. It's on Google look it up!
GavInTucson| 2.8.11 @ 2:14AM
The author makes a great many true and wonderful points, but seems to miss the real reason our government limits the sale of diesels in this country...
TAX REVENUE!!! If we woke up tomorrow and the country was collectively using 20% less fuel, the government (federal and state) would be collecting 20% less revenue in gasoline/diesel taxes. They can't have that, can they??? Oh no no no.
And they realize that if they tried to raise fuel taxes to compensate, they'd probably wind up with their political heads on a spike.
At the end of the day, our Federal and State governments only care about one thing. The amount of taxes paid unto them.
For example, if everyone in the United States quit smoking tomorrow, the Federal and State governments would be tripping over themselves in a panic, and not because they care about your health.
Taxes = government crack, and no amount of methadone can ween them off of it.
Pelligrino| 2.8.11 @ 10:38AM
Would someone please post here an informative, factual, statistical web site link that:
Tells us just exactly what we are paying at the filling station pumps per gallon of regular unleaded, super, and for diesel?
AND a breakdown of fuel sales tax differences in the 50 US states would be terrific.
I can see sales tax percentages and real dollars when I ask for a recipt when purchasing groceries, books, furniture, clothes, or repair equipment.
Why don't I see sales taxation on receipts at the gas station? (One just sees total gallons pumped, price per gallon, and total sales charge on the receipt.)
Please help. Thank you.
Pelligrino| 2.8.11 @ 10:46AM
Sorry, folks, I was not specific/clear enough. My apologies.
My questions: I DON'T presently ever see a taxation line (sales tax) on any fueling station receipt I obtain after paying for the gas.
This bothers me; I want to know the costs breakdown.
My suspicion is that there is a local sales tax and state tax like on all sales. But probably also some kinds of environmental or EPA 'taxes' as well, right?
This is how it is in Europe. About 3/4 of what you pay at the pump in a price per liter comprises anywhere from 5 - 7 different subset sales taxes depending on the country where you are fueling up. (It's expensive no matter whether diesel or unleaded....but that is because of the 'on top' 3/4 bevvy of taxes.)
What are these fuel sales taxes in the USA? Who has concrete percentages and numbers? Thank you.
Ralph Novy| 2.8.11 @ 11:52PM
Holy cow.
I finally agree with someone here.
Big 2cv fan here.
It CAN be done.
duh
Kudos, Eric.
Bulgaricus| 2.9.11 @ 1:46AM
The 1st post is not necessarily true. We live in Europe & virtually EVERY country here has more expensive diesel fuel than gas. Hands down. No subsidy by gas at all. But, we have always bought diesels here & love 'em. They start up in freezing winters in less than 7 seconds & immediately at all other times. We also save a lot of $ in no tune ups & get great mileage. I'd take a diesel anyday over a toy battery operated car or a gas guzzler. And, their pollution is very little different than gas cars.
economics| 2.17.11 @ 4:41PM
No conspiracy here. It's economics. Fuel is much more expensive in Europe & it makes more sense to pay the higher initial cost of diesel engine. Diesel engines would be more available in US if consumers bought them. In light truck market, for torque/pulling/mileage reasons consumers want diesels and will pay for them. Raise gas/diesel taxes & diesel volumes will increase.
John| 6.8.11 @ 8:27PM
Diesels stink. So do articles by Eric Peters.
ChuckL| 7.7.11 @ 6:10PM
And if we could get the fuel control from a completely mechanical fuel injection system we could forget about loss of transportation from an electro-magnetic pulse detonation weapon and still maintain the emissions cleanliness.
Reebok | 8.11.11 @ 4:11AM
is good
العاب | 4.11.12 @ 4:42PM
Mr. Peters hit the nail on the head with this one. The lack of diesel powered passenger cars in the U.S. is not do to the petroleum companies or the manufacturers, it is due, entirely, to governments and their capricious regulations.