Diesel vs. Hybrid: A Point Missed

i have believed for a long time that the OPEC contries are heavily involved in terrorism, and buying oil from them helps their campain.

but i don't know if we get anything besides crude oil from them? don't we process here? i thought we did.

which means big oil gets big profit from diesel instead of regular good profit from gasoline.

see ya

Ok. Let's expand the question a little bit. Which is better:

1) Buy a diesel car. In the short term, you would be saving yourself some money (diesel isn't an expensive technology), improving your fuel economy, hurting the environment (just a little bit), and contributing to rising health care costs. In the long term, you'd be funding the research to switch to biodiesel fuel, which is cleaner and possibly more fuel efficient. It might even bring about an improvement in piston engine design that increases horsepower and torque. The engine still needs motor oil though.

2) Buy a hybrid car. In the short term, you'd be spending a couple thousand extra (vs a gasoline or diesel powered car), improving your own fuel economy (comparable to a diesel engine), helping the environment a LOT, helping to reduce health care costs, and reducing not only dependence on foreign oil, but any fossil fuels. In the long term, you'd be helping to fund battery research, electric motor research, and fuel cell research. You're still using gasoline, you're still using motor oil, but half of the engine is using NEITHER motor oil NOR gasoline

Does that just about sum it up lock, stock, and 2 smoking barrels?

Furthermore (if this IS a correct summation) then can we say the REAL question is: Which is better...Fuel cell research, or Biodiesel research?

The car of the future could be both. In Europe, the hybrid cars will probably be diesel first. Already, Volkswagen and Audi sells diesels that use starter motor generators similar to what's in the Insight and Civic Hybrid. They cut off the engine at stoplights, though these cars have no regenerative braking. It's very cheap to make, and leads to a significant increase in fuel economy, about 15 percent.

I do believe that in the US diesel will be the better short term solution, though. The problem is getting diesel fuel clean enough to allow expansion of the diesel market in the US. Gasoline hybrid cars are going to have slow, steady growth, but they do not have the potential to catch on like diesels do. Diesel engines are cheaper to make, that's the main thing going for them, but they are also inherently more efficient because of the lean burn principle and the compression ingnition- too much air relative to fuel and a gas engine will die just like blowing out a candle, but pumping more air into a diesel just makes it more efficient (because diesel fuel self ignites from the pressure, there is no flame or spark). Regenerative braking is cool in concept, but adding on the batteries, the motors, the electronic controls, none of those are free or easy to make. It's cheaper just to work on improving the efficiency of the engine, and diesels have the gas engine beat. The new PD and common rail injection engines made by Volkswagen have efficiencies of around 50 percent, whereas the gas engine in the average Honda is only about 33 percent efficient.

In Europe, though, they are already paying 4 dollars a gallon for diesel (and 5 dollars for gas). So the demand for a hybrid car that gets 85-100 MPG is greater than in the US.

Fascinating concept of having a co-op to produce bio-diesel!

i'm envious!

That might turn out to be the next real grass roots practical technology to spread the country!

see ya

A gallon of diesel produces about 10 percent more carbondioxide than gas does. A point not to forget when comparing different technologies.

I don't buy this whole "biodiesel produces 0 net CO2 because the plants absorb CO2 before they are processed into fuel" thing.

First of all, the processing of the plants into CO2 probably uses some kind of fuel up the line. Unless the processing plant is 100% solar, wind, or nuclear powered, that processing plant is producing a LOT of CO2 somehow.

Second of all, we're not comparing the fuel manufacturing processes. We're comparing fuels.

Third of all, the comparison is not about what FUTURE TECHNOLOGIES will yield as far as CO2 is concerned. Such as it is, you can't even compare a 100% biodiesel car to a hybrid in terms of CO2 emissions because biodiesel technology is a FUTURE evolution of what petrol-based diesel is today. If you REALLY want to compare apples to apples, compare CO2 emissions from a biodiesel engine to a fuel-cell engine (the next logical descendant of hybrid technology).

And lastly, since we're comparing apples to apples, instead of speaking in terms of percentages, let's see some real quantities of CO2 spewed out by TODAY'S diesel engines vs. TODAY'S hybrid engines. And let's see some real numbers on emissions from TOMORROW'S 100% biodiesel engines and TOMORROW'S fuel-cell engines.

Tim , I'm with you on that one.
Gasoline Hybrid is the best stepping stone to the next fuel source.

If one were to do a google search on 2004 Golf TDI average MPG you'd find low 40's, which is only slightly more than a Toyota Corolla, but without the poor quality issues plaguing VW. This is still about 10MPG less than the Civic Hybrid or Prius average.

The VW Polo was mentioned but not many people here would buy a 17 second from 0-60 car (Or want to be behind one)
Imagine being stuck behind a slow 7 year old smokey, worn out Lupo?

Let's do some comparisons.
http://www.environmentaldefense.org/tool_launch.cfm?tool=tailpipe

Computations are based on the 34K miles I drive a year.

Fuel consumption:
VW 1330g / HCH 713g / Pri 612g

Fuel Cost ($1.97/g...added difference of expensive diesel fuel isn't even taken into account):
VW $2567 / HCH $1377 / Pri $1181

Carbon Dioxide:
VW 25,779lb / HCH 13,481 / Pri 11,866

I expect to break my 60MPG tank averages again next sunmer, pay less for gasoline than diesel and pollute less.

Oops I meant comparing gas-diesel, not diesel-hybrid.

Mike G.

The Lupo/Polo is not really going to smoke like a gasser, even if its older. Diesels typically don't have a large increase in emissions like a gasoline car or truck when they get older.

I think the hybrid owners are overlooking a major factor against hybrids right now- the additional cost and the lower availability. If you want a Prius right now, there's a long waiting list and the prices are high. You also typically have to wait longer to get a car with the features you want. If you choose a diesel car, you don't really have to wait to get a car with alot of features- VW does not make stripped down cars like Toyota does. I really looked at a Prius, but I could not justify the cost or waiting times. Now, the Honda Civic Hybrid is not as bad for waiting time or cost, but some people just are not thrilled by owning a sedan (ie, useless trunk) or a Civic.

American diesel fue was low cetane in the past, which means it doesn't burn as clean. Cetane is similar to octane in gasoline, but it measures the ability of the fuel to ignite under pressure. Usually it was anywhere from 37-42 cetane. A diesel car engine really requires at leas 48 cetane to run at its best. Add cetane boosters, like about 10 ounces of Diesel Kleen or Redline Diesel Catalyst to the tank and it will not produce smoke while driving. Biodiesel is also higher in cetane and burns cleaner. Some diesels in the US will produce a little smoke at startup, though, but as the engine warms up this goes away quickly (gasoline engines produce emissions at startup, but you can't see them). Starting in 2006 all diesel fuel will have higher cetane numbers and less sulfur, and it is already being phased in gradually, which is one reason why diesel prices are rising (the other is because refiners are selling diesel to Europe).

Older diesels were less efficient and usually didn't have any emission controls, that's why you see the smoke cloud sometimes. Not because they are old. I drove behind an old Volvo 240 diesel from the 80's today that didn't have any smoke.

Diesel engines do produce more noise than a gasoline engine, under certain conditions. Such as at idle. OTOH, at highway speeds they are quieter than the typical gas car because the engine is not working as hard. Newer diesels (last 2 years) using higher pressure injectors and fuel lines produce less noise.

I'll be honest, my 2003 Jetta is not as quiet as a Prius or Honda Civic Hybrid. It sounds like a bus at idle (not nearly as loud, of course) and the steering wheel transmits more vibration than the typical gasser. OTOH, I don't find it objectionable and at 35-50 mph cruising it doesn't make much noise. The engine is not the newest, though, it's a VE fuel pump, not a common rail or PD (pumpe deuse- unit injectors), which produce somewhat less noise. My car also doesn't produce any smoke at startup- you could stick a white cloth under the exhaust for a minute, pull it out, and the cloth will not have anything on it.

"All in all, you are going to hear stories of somebody, somewhere having a problem with a car, no matter what model it is"

You're right, no cars are problem free but let's look at some trends:

(VW) "are especially risky buys. They have exhibited several years of poor overall reliability"
http://www.roadandtravel.com/consumerreports/best&worstusedcars.htm
(ConsumerReports.org.)

There is a bit of a disconnect in the US about what Volkswagens image is. Americans have this idea that Volkswagens are economical cars. That used to be true- years ago, but VW in recent years has been pushing for pretentions beyond simply being a "peoples car"; Volkswagen hase been trying to move up market, ever since they bought Czech Skoda and Spanish SEAT years ago, despite the fact that they also own Audi, which is already an upmarket brand. That means higher prices. They also spend more money on things like higher laser welding (body panels on new Volkswagens can be as little as 1mm tolerance) and research and developement, and they also register low share holder equity- they simply aren't as short-term profit driven. Labor problems in Germany also cause problems for them, forcing them to move some production to Mexico, Brazil or Poland (most US gasoline Jettas and Beetles are made in Mexico). Some German workers were refusing to work more than 28 hours per week for a while, and demanding 35 dollars per hour pay.

And all the while European sales of Skoda and SEAT are up, because of platform compatabilities (VW uses platforms across brand lines to lower costs), people know that a Skoda is just a cheaper Volkswagen (just like the whole Ford-Lincoln-Mercury, or Chevy, Oldsmobile, with oldsmobile eventually being dropped because people caught on that an Oldsmobile is just an expensive Chevy). The Passat especially is squeezed between cars such as the Camry costing alot less, and true European luxury cars such as BMW or Mercedes, costing only a little more and having a better brand name.

Honda may bring their diesel engine to market next year, or the year after, in the US in the Honda Civic, and Ford might make a diesel Focus next yea- Doge also has plans for a diesel Neon and PT Cruiser. So there will be alot more choices for consumers if they don't want a Volkswagen. But if VW gets its marketting, product image, pricing, and reliability together, they could be set for when diesel cars become popular in the US. I don't think they will ever occupy the space of "econobox" again, that is reserved for cars like the Scions and Focuses, etc. of the world, but they can occupy their own niche. The dealer I talked to said that VW's sales of their diesel cars in the US were up 25 percent over 2003- but in some areas people were more willing to buy them than others.

That's all for long winded rants for now.

Mike you make a good point.

If today's diesel auto is truly revolutionary then that's a real major breakthrough, and it needs to be seen.

If diesel car history continues as it always has, Montreal's new TDI's that don't smoke much today will be blowing toxic fumes tomorrow.

Who knows, after 10 years perhaps I'll be proved wrong and buy a diesel.
But diesel will have alot of catching up to do with hybrid, in both cleanliness and fuel efficiency.

I was stuck in traffic today on my way home from work. It was fairly mild out so I decided to roll down my driver's window and crack the sunroof to get some fresh air. I was stuck next to a late '80s vintage Honda Accord that was clearly not in the best shape. Judging by the fast and uneven idle, not in the best of tune either.

The stink was overpowering and I had to shut the window until I got past him.

Gas cars don't age that gracefully either and that's why many jurisdictions experimented with buy-back policies to get people out of their stinker jalopies.

Of course it all comes down to maintenance and if you maintain the car according the mfg's schedule and specifications, a diesel, or gasser for that matter, should not pollute any more at 300,000 km than when new. That is provided ALL maintenance is done, worn out catalysts replaced, etc.

With regards to diesel timing, of course this was a manual adjustment with the older diesels. With TDIs, there's nothing to advance/retard as it's all controlled through the ECU. And if the ECU dies, the car quits.

Mike G.

We know that all cars can smoke when older but the human experience with diesel fumes is much different than gasoline or oil.

Burning oil to most people stinks and is unpleasant.
Diesel has the added problem of causing stinging, painful eyes and a choking throat.

I've heard from many people that Diesel is cheaper than gasoline in Europe for taxes or other reasons.

Why buy a gasoline car that gets 20-30MPG, pay more per litre to fuel it when you can buy a diesel that gets 40-50MPG and costs less?

Have you ever been to Asian cities like Manila?
Diesel is used almost exclusively because it's cheaper but many folks wear resperator filter masks it is so bad.

Diesel fuel and engines are the future, even if we have hybrid powertrains. Why? Because shale oil and tar sands can be synthesized into kerosene and diesel fuel relatively easily. Making gasoline from them is much harder. And sour, heavy crude oil is currently trading at 7-15 dollars per barrel. Sour crude makes lousy gasoline, but it makes good diesel fuel and kerosene. Synthesizing fuel from coal using the Fischer Tropsch process is also alot easier if the end product is diesel; in more primitive diesel engines, coal dust slurry can even be burned directly in the engine.

As long as the diesel was CLEAN diesel with the appropriate catalysts and particle traps that you can use with modern clean diesel fuel, then there's no reason not to go with diesel. The big problem with current diesel technology is that the engines have to be set up to permit compatibility with the incredibly high sulpher diesel that's available in the US currently.

Once you get rid of the sulpher, that alone makes nearly all of the stinky smell go away, and without sulpher, you can run a catalytic converter and particle trap that have service lives comparable to those used in gasoline engines. I've even read now that technology is improving for the use of EGR valves in diesels, so that they can (finally) begin to approach the level of cleanliness that gasoline engines have been able to manage.

Ultimately, one solution may not exist for the challange of a vanishing supply of our chief energy resource, and it's effect on our environment.

That many people are interested in many different solutions may be a step in the right direction, and gives me hope.

Perhaps, one day we will live in a world where these diverse solutions are implemented side-by-side: fuel cell, hybrid, diesel, perhaps even a biodiesel hybrid, and the options we have yet to consider. That, my friends, would be an exciting world.

"I've even read now that technology is improving for the use of EGR valves in diesels, so that they can (finally) begin to approach the level of cleanliness that gasoline engines have been able to manage."
----------

Volkswagen is at the forefront in Clean Diesel Technology. Their Pump Duese TDI engine, introduced in the USA for the 2004 and up model years but used in Europe for years earlier, utilizes an advanced electronically controlled EGR system. The PD TDI engine is equipped with an Oxygen Sensor in the exhaust stream before the Catalytic Converter (yes, the TDI has a cat, too). The ECU computer (Engine Control Unit) recieves input from the Oxygen Sensor and based on this constantly updated input (millivolt fluctuations based on exhaust gas content) the ECU varies the amount of EGR (Exhaust Gas Recirculation) to the intake manifold, and when needed will add EGR rather aggressively to keep NOx levels down, etc.

Furthermore, Robert Bosch Corporation has under development a Fine Particulate Filtration System (FPFS) that according to reports mitigates Fine Particulate emissions to levels well below the upcoming air quality standards proposed for 2007 in Europe and USA (Tier II). The service life of the filtration elements in the system is expected to be approximately 120,000 - 150,000 km, and the system is expected to have minimal impact on performance.

Any one know the price of biodiesel relative to regular diesel? I would hope that with the recent increases in fuel costs, the price of biodiesel would be even or cheaper. A diesel hybrid would be the best option.

"Diesel vs Hybrid could be Diesel+Hybrid"
Bongo! We will be getting the ultra low-sulfur Diesel fuel here in the US next year as well as next-generation Diesel engines that conform to the stricter emissions standards shortly after that. Why not combine the two and get the best of both worlds? There would be no reason to pick one over the other. Volkswagen had a Diesel-Electric hybrid prototype that got 70mpg and that was over ten years ago!

Hybrids are a good step, but hydrogen is not. Diesels are also a good step... my powerful chipped and injectored (and bigger turbo) 2001 TDI jetta, gets 30 mpg the lowest, where a civic got 20 mpg.. (nyc driving conditions).

Now hybrids are good too but I'm not too crazy about gasoline technology. Gas engine particulates are SMALLER, which means LESS but are more easily inhaled. A smoky diesel, is more visible because the particles are BIGGER. Now, what is easier to filter out in the nose and lungs? Bigger or smaller? Hmmm.....

Anyhow the torque can't be beat. I get 150 hp, 260 ft lbs out of a 1.9 liter diesel (max 18.5 psi boost). 47 mpg highway out here in Los Angeles. You need a v6 or a v8 to get that kind of torque. Torque is what makes a car feel fast. Horsepower is what makes you actually faster but that requires redline shifts. I shift easily at 3000 or 4000 rpm and can overtake anything.

Another fun fact, I averaged 25 mpg towing a full 2000 lb trailer at 70-80 mpg across the country. No need to downshift either (besides when my clutch woudl slip- its not designed for the power by the chip). Smoke is minimal at even high power. Now can a hybrid gas car do this? If so, cool.. but batteries can't last the long hills cross country IMO.

Diesel fuel need less energy to be refined and less
$ as well. Unfortunately the gas stations get a much
higher profit on diesel fuel vesus gasoline. The same goes for taxes. Diesel is taxed more.
On the other hand hybrids get a tax advantage since the owner can take a deduction from their
income tax (read tax payer subsidized).
Diesel can also safely be stored at home just like heat oil. Six hundred gallons would make a VW TDI
run almost 30000 miles. Its also safe in an accident.
It wont catch fire like a gasoline car.
A barrel of oil gives more diesel than gas.
Diesel can be produced from plants, coal, fish scraps and from abundant natural gas. Some of these fuels are super clean. If we reduced the sulphur level to the same standard as the Europens
we would see a great influx of more diesel cars.
If any of the readers get a chance drive the MB
E class CDI. Its a rocket, quiet and no way of telling
its a diesel.

Paul...I dont think you have experienced the very last
generation of MB diesel. They have been on the market
a couple of years. In the US maybe one year. I have
driven them in Europe and riding in one on a long trip.
I also drove behind a few (taxis). There is no smoke.
You are probably refering to the old MB with old
fashioned manual indirect injection systems.
In Europe all major car companies offer diesel engines
in their cars. With commonrail techology, electronic
injection control and sulphur free diesel there is
no smoke visible from the new diesel cars. Furthermore
a modern diesel engines emits almost half of the
CO2 of a modern gasoline engine. A few of the diesel
engines are using piezo injectors which makes them
even more fuel efficient. We also need sulphur free
gasoline like the japanes and europeans so the direct
injected gasoline engines will be more common. Then
the mpg will increase with 20%. Curreent sulphur
content in our gasoline keep the engine running richer
(this also put more wear on engines) to keep catalyc
converter hot enough to burn off excessive sulphur.
Currently I believe only VW(FSI injection), MB sell
direct injection gasoline engines in the USA.
For a few pennies a gallon cleaning out sulphur we could use cars that burn 20% less gas, runs better, fewer oilchages,engines last much longer and pollutes
much less. One wonder why this has not been
implemented long time ago

"One wonder why this has not been
implemented long time ago"

One big stumbling block for the market are all the promises made year after year about diesel.
I remember back in the 70's my dad bought a new Isuzu diesel auto which promised a good running clean burning efficient car. It wouldn't start worth a darn in the Minnesota winters, noisy and smoked among other things.
Then when his glow plugs went bad he couldn't get replacements very easily.

VW set up shop promising a good running, clean reliable diesel car.
The company along with its autos have proven to be bottom of the barrel in both customer relations and vehicle reliability.

I've heard wild stories by diesel enthusiasts around the net that claim these cars run 400K miles on average and don't stink among other things.

Then we hear that the NEW diesels run better and are clean running cars, and some say that it's safe & easy ...practically nothing to set up a diesel home refinery.
I'm not sure about most but I personally wouldn't care to store and mix sodium hydroxide or potassium hydroxide and methyl alcohol or wood alcohol along with quantities of oil in my home. (Then mess with the waste glycerin) I'm not even sure that would be legal in my subdivision.

You also have a real human interaction regarding burnt diesel fumes vs burnt gasoline fumes.

You mentioned Co2 but how about pariculates?
I personally don't prescribe to this thinking but some believe that one of the global warming contributors.

Promises broken are promises remembered and made yearly by the diesel MFG's and enthusiasts.
Show me a diesel car which I can hope to last 200-300K miles, remains easy to start, has good to great reliability record and doesn't stink...and I'll buy one.

But don't say todays diesel. I don't buy it.
Give it at least 15 years of good service without the empty promises. Let the autos testify for themselves. They always do anyway.

Don wrote:
"I read that in PA there is a company that turn coal waste into diesel fuel."

The Germans engineered this back in the 1940's in their pinch for gasoline, and used it in their tanks, trucks, planes etc. (Germans produced gasoline but diesel is also available)

http://www.fe.doe.gov/aboutus/history/syntheticfuels_history.html

http://www.barndoors.com/CoalMinersStamp/pennsylvania_anthracite_coal_min.htm

This forum reflects some serious thinking! My compliments!

I would like to suggest a few references I have found to be of value:

http://www.40mpg.org/pdfs/120105_CSI_foreign_fuel_efficient_vehicle_chart.xls

www.40mpg.org

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/byMPG.htm

“40MPG.ORG WEEKLY UPDATE December 1, 2005” http://www.40mpg.org/weeklyupdate.cfm

Here is the site of the UK's equivalent to the EPA/DOE for the curious [do not forget the UK uses Imperial Gallon, approximately 1.2 gallons(US)]: http://www.vcacarfueldata.org.uk/search/
This data can be sorted by make/model or fuel economy.

Sorry about this link breaking up but it is too important! You'll have to reconstruct it since I have allowed several characters overlap so that you can see how it goes back together.
It is an Excel database of "non-US vehicles getting 35 mpg(US) or more. It should be noted that 90% of the 33 vehicles getting 50 mpg are diesel.

http://www.40mpg.org/pdfs
/pdfs/120105_CSI_foreign_fuel
foreign_fuel_efficient_vehicle_chart.xls

Must be reconstructed!!!

Err, this one should work...Reconstructed again!

Hello Dom:
"Do you have any links to pages about problems with the TDIs?"

Here's a few:
http://www.carsurvey.org/modelyear_Volkswagen_Jetta_2002.html

http://www.consumeraffairs.com/automotive/vw_jetta.html
Some MINOR problems from the above link:

"I was not comfortable with the fact that my car eventually will break down again and again until all of these coil packs are replaced"

"As soon as we can, we are going to trade this car in and we will never buy another volkswagen in the future"

"I have taken it into service repeatly as the transmission freezes continually, this is dangerous"

"my Volkswagen Jetta locked up, spun out and flipped over several times. There was no speeding and no foul play involved.The car just locked up"

"here is a short list of some of my problems: A/C Valves and components faulty, repaired twice, front seats "click" in and out slightly at acceleration and braking, was told it was "normal", rear doors rattle was "repaired" twice and told nothing further could be done and a tech actually said " you got one that isn't so bad maam, I have seen much noisier in the new models."

"I am sick and tired of my Jetta and all its malfunctioning lights and sensors and its constant thirst for more oil. I can't tell you how many times I have checked the oil stick after only a week and a half of driving and found it almost out. Quite frankly, I am disgusted and throughly disappointed with this car. Volkswagen of America, you should be embarassed"

"After talking this harrowing event over with my wife and thinking about it for a few days, I have come to the conclusion that I do not feel safe in this car. Furthermore, I am afraid to drive this car."

"There is goo oozing from various panels (which Volkswagen recognizes as a problem but is unwilling to solve it), a faulty sunroof "potentiometer", faulty switches. Plus, the driver's door creaks (shoddy hinges), the air conditioning system has been malodorous from day 1, and now I have a $325 repair bill due to a faulty diesel fuel relay which VW is refusing to cover as a goodwill gesture (I have 35K miles on the car)"

I have to log in for work again but that is the short list.
Even if (IF) VW gets their act together with the new TDI engines, you can't separate an engine from the car company that makes it (Or supports it...or not), nor from the body that carries the power source.

Tim,

Your opinion about "sponsoring terrorists by using diesel" has nothing to do with reality. It's not that you can produce either gasoline or diesel out of crude oil -- oil refinery gives out both gasoline and diesel as well as many other products. The outcome of diesel is usually higher than for gasoline and the process is cheaper (here you are right). Diesel cars also consume less than the gasoline rivals per km(or mile) driven. In the end, you need to buy less oil to drive longer, if you use a diesel car.

And if you really worry about terrorism, then why not also asking your administration, why CIA has supported with arms and sponsered Talibs in Afagnistan (Osama Bin Laden eventually creates Al Caida and trains bustards that later fly into WTC in NY), Saddam in Irak some time ago. The world is not black and white, it's far more complex.

Sorry for possible mistakes in English (I write you from Russia).

To Steve in Georgia
Yes I can show you that diesel car that last.
Take a trip to Norway and visit my brother.
His 94 C-class diesel Benz has 490000km on
the odometer (thats 308000miles). The only big
repair he did was to change clutch. It does not
burn oil, starts in the cold winters at latitude 62.
There was no diesel smoke coming out of the tail
pipe when I last drove the car in the fall of 05.

"The used car listings aren't a valid statistical method to gain data on diesel longevity"

Used car listings are indeed a good indicator of how long cars last.
If gasoline car listings show hundreds of cars from several MFG's for sale with 150-400K mile range, it says one thing.
If diesel car lines have dramatically less vehicles with the same mile range it says another thing.

If diesel cars lasted 500K miles on average or even close, we'd see quite a large number of +30 year old models still on the road.

I've provided links to respected automobile listings and consumer guides in my research to show that diesel autos don't last as long and are problematic.

Its amazing that this debate on longevity takes
place (diesel versus gasoline). There are so few diesels in the US made by a decent diesel manufacturer such as MB,VW,Audi or BMW that
there are no stats available, but any mechanic in
Europe can tell you diesel cars last twice as long
and have very few maintenance issues.

You are again making the mistake of assuming that ultimate failure of the engine is the reason that a car is sent to the junkyard.

In Canada that would be very unlikely; utlimately the bodies and chassis fail due to corrosion. In other parts of the world, other wear-and-tear items will be the cause of the demise, such as the transmission and major suspension components.

Another factor to consider is that engines can be rebuilt. In your survey of gas vs diesel longevity, how many of those gas engines, on older high-mileage cars, have been rebuilt vs the diesels?

Interestingly, Cuba has a number of old jalopies on the road, classics from the 50s. No doubt the engines in those have been rebuilt many times over, for those that drive serious mileage. The climate has been kind to the bodies, and lack of availability of any decent replacement makes it economical to rebuild. In our throw-away society, most will simply toss a car if a major component like a gearbox or engine fails on a 20 y.o. car with over 200,000 miles.

The cars that could probably compete with diesels for longevity, were the older American V8s. Why? Typically these engines, like diesel auto engines, rev at around 2000 rpm or less at 60 mph.

I know a good old country doctor who kept his Mercedes 300d (both he and the car now rest in peace), for 300,000+ miles without an engine rebuild, before body corrosion forced retirement.

Anecdotal? Yes, but so is your "statistical" analysis pulled from an Internet used car site.

What diesel manufacturer is Steve talking about ?
Like I wrote before. Audi, MB, VW and BMW
diesel last forever. Ask a taxi driver in Europe
(99% are diesels) how long their diesel cars last.
They will tell you "forever"!!
Maybe Steve is talking about the converted GM
gasoline engine?

BTW I'm not really anti-diesel even if it comes off that way.

If someone posts false claims regarding hybrid cars I'll challenge that as well.

above should read "cars should NOT be allowed to
warm up by idling"

Bill there must be something wrong with the 96 Passat.
It should start w/o problems once the glow plug light
is out the first time even if the temp is at minus 15 F.
Maybe one of the glowplugs are out?

As far as VW is concerned the diesels they sell in Europe are essentially the same engines they sell here. The exception is that the N. American engines are detuned in order to meet emissions regulations on high sulphur fuel. The same basic 90 hp TDI engine we had here for years until the newer unit injection engines, puts out 110 hp in Europe and 189 (if memory serves) lb-ft of torque vs 90/155 in N. America. Europe also has a 90 hp version but it doesn't have the variable vane turbo that the N. American engine has. The N. American 90 hp is identical to the 110 Euro except for the ECU mapping. The newer unit-injection engine requires less de-tuning to achieve the same results as Europe; it makes 100 hp here, and 105 over there.

Some of the newer technology like the 170 hp engine with piezo injectors has yet to make it to these shores. The 134 hp 2.0 L engine in my Passat is actually a simpler engine than the 2.0 140 hp engine in Europe; the latter has a 16 valve head, the former, an 8 valve head. It should last a very long time. My biggest concern is the auto transmission with the 247 lb-ft of torque.

Much of the bad rap diesels got in N. America was due to GM's misguided attempt to put a diesel head on a gasoline cylinder block. The cylinder block couldn't take the very high cylinder pressures and ended up cracking prematurely, sometimes with less than 40,000 miles on them.

I can assure Steve that 500,000 km diesel automobiles are not unheard of, and 300,000 km is a piece of cake for a VW or Mercedes diesel (or Peugeot or Volvo for that matter, who had them here as well for a time!

Au contraire, I think my 1996 Passat TDI is in greate shape.
Starting at -15 below zzero is phenominal. Many newer gas cars don'ts start at those temps.

I live in MIchigan. Colder than .............................
fill iin for naughty answer)

In regard to the VW Lupo diesel, the car has been sold n Europe for many years. It is a bare bones car.
But it has had the shut off when stopping before hybrids were known.

The Lupo is rated at seventy miles per gallon. I remember reading about an around the world rally for mpg.
The Lupo got an astonishing 90+ mpg.

I really enjoy all this cheering for diesels.

Bjorn lives on Long Island, NY, but is a transplant
from Norway where I grew up working in the
forest and on a farm using diesel tractors and
forestry machines. Everything ran on diesels.
My brother run the farm and forest these days and
his Massey Ferguson tractors, Valmet forest machine, Volvo combine, MB autos and MB truck
are all diesels. In the winter the temperature can be down to minus mid twenty and they all start
w/o heating provided battery and glowplugs are
in good order. The only thing he has operating
on gasoline is a BMW motorcycle, but I dont think
he use it on days like that..lol.
The term " in Europe" is misused here in the US
because many things vary quite a bit from country
to another. In Norway cars sales are now about
50-50 gas/diesel and diesels are not selling so
well because diesel fuel is abou 10% cheaper, but
rather due to the almost double mpg, low maintenance, longer between oil changes and
a low depriciation. In some european countries the diesel is even cheaper and in others higher.
As far as depriciation of a VW TDI it can be useful
to check KBB for prices on a used VW TDI versus
the gasoline version of the same car. The readers
will find that diesel VW reatains a much better
value. Check used car prices for a TDI then try
to ask the seller to reduce the price. They will hang up on you. So I have to stay with my 2002 problem free TDI Jetta.
Any other TDI owners in my area?
I started another discussion as well.
Read my next reply.

Seem like I have more things on my mind.
Another couple of great advantages of owning a
diesel car.
It does not catch fire in an accident since the diesel
fuel does not give off fumes when exposed to normal
outdoor temperatures. Good to know when one is
trapped in a car and smell diesel from a leaking
tank rather than explosive gasoline.
Secondly diesel can be stored safely at home just
like heating oil here in the northeast wher many home
owners use it for heating the homes.
A friend of mine has two 275gls tanks in the garage
filled with diesel. If we all had diesel cars and 500 gls
of diesel fuel stored at home we would not have to
run to the gas stations any more and if Opec boycott
shipments they will starve themselves before we
run out of diesel. 500gls X 40mpg=20000miles of
driving before we empty the tanks. That will be
more than one year of boycott for Opec. By that time
they will be begging us to buy their oil.
Our auto insurance laws should change as well.
Insurance should cover the car being operated rather
than cars owned by a family. This will make it more
affordable to own a fuel frugal car (like an electric
car for commute). Most people commute less than
20miles and we could leave the large car at home
while commuting. With todays chip technology and
sattelite tracking the insured would be able to use
only one car at a time and raher than paying 2
premiums one could cover 2 cars.

Wow! $28K Canadian MSP for a 2003 HCH?
Geeze I think I'd head South for car purchases.

I got my 2004 for MSRP at $18.5K + tax,tag etc.

Note the prices are in Canadian $. To get the US $ equivalent multiply by 0.85. That's $23.8k US for the HCH, still way higher than what you paid.

I think the reason the market hates the HCH in Canada is that you can get a basic Civic LX that still gets good fuel economy for a gas car, for thousands less. There is no way you will make up the price differential for the HCH over the conventional HC, based on fuel economy alone. In fact it is a losing proposition, from an ecnomic standpoint. So the market says "there's no way this car is worth more than a Civic LX at trade in" and the price is in fact close to what an LX gets at trade-in.

The Prius on the other hand is its own unique product occupying its own niche especially the newer style. That helps its resale I think.

Honda got the message and the new '06 HCH is about $2000 cheaper in Canada for a far better car than the previous Civic; that still however makes it about $4000 more than an LX sedan. On the other hand the TDI option on the Jetta is now about $1800 more. So the TDI has a faster payback and it is reasonable to expect a return on your investment on fuel economy alone. Even a 25,000 km/year driver can get his/her money back on the TDI option within the a few years; I get my money back in less than a year because I'm a high mileage driver (55,000 km/year)

I still maintain that the cheapest, most effective way to reduce dependence on fossil fuels and to reduce CO2 emissions is large-scale market penetration by diesels. It's proven highly effective in Europe and the modern diesels are not the lung-chokers that the early ones were. I travel frequently to Europe and find the cities no worse, and in fact in many cases significantly better, than N. American cities, simply because Europeans are more conditioned to use mass transit for trips to the city.

The fuel cell car is thought by many on this site
to be a non polluting solution compared to diesel
or hybrids. What about the energy to produce it?
What about the vapors? Will we end up driving in
fog in heavely traffic areas?

I rented a Nissan Micra in Europe September.
Great car. Small on the outside, but roomy in front.
Even my wife loved it. We averaged 40mpg even
with the gasoline engine. It also comes with a great
diesel engine. Can just imagine what the mpg that one
gets! 60 maybe. Of course its not sold in either version
in the USA. Maybe the goverment does not want it??
http://www.channel4.com/4car/road-tests/N/nissan/micra03-/micra03-.html

Mike wrote:
"you can get a basic Civic LX that still gets good fuel economy for a gas car, for thousands less"

You're comparing a base mid class to the fully loaded class of the vehicle, which leads to your next point:

"There is no way you will make up the price differential for the HCH over the conventional HC, based on fuel economy alone. In fact it is a losing proposition, from an ecnomic standpoint"

Using that logic let's look at Jettas. Base price vs top of the line.
http://www.vw.com/
The base mid-line 2.5 version is $20,000. A loaded TDI cost $30,000

Using that logic the TDI is also a loosing proposition and you will never recoup that $10,000 in fuel savings alone.

Don't get me wrong here...if one is looking for the best dollar for mile vehicle then hybrids aren't it...but neither are TDI's. There's quite a few new vehiles in the $10,000-13,000 range for better dollar value.
http://www.edmunds.com/apps/vdpcontainers/do/ViewTypeModels/category=type/attribute=sedan/category2=pricerange/attribute2=under15k

"The price is in fact close to what an LX gets at trade-in"

Where are your recources or is this just made-up?

http://www.kbb.com/
Trade in for the HCH is $13,800 for my 60K miles which is MSRP for the base LX Civic when new.
The base LX is only worth $9000 so one

could expect about $4000 more for a HCH at trade in.

"On the other hand the TDI option on the Jetta is now about $1800 more. So the TDI has a faster payback and it is reasonable to expect a return on your investment on fuel economy alone"

See my above notes.
Why are you using a Civic LX for your comparison while the advanced Civic EX is a closer model?
A similarly equipped EX went for around $17,000 with discounts while I paid $18,500 MSRP for my HCH.

The difference was lower than your TDI option.

Diesel fuel in my area is still costs around 10% more than gasoline, so you'll have to drive about 10% further to break even in your TDI.

Eric wrote:
"The government tried to force out the diesel"

Back (especially) in the 1970's diesel autos grew their reputation for low quality, smoking and hard to start vehiles with year-after-year-after-year broken promises by both the manufacturer and many of their enthusiasts.

It was the cars and the market that pushed diesels out.

"So much for the "market forces"

Hey, I'm with you on that one. Not sure why hybrids need a subsidy knowing they can't keep them on the lot as it is.

Hi Steve

Yes the market forced the diesels out of the market in the 1970's, but that was the lousy
built Olds diesel (a coverted gasoline engine job).
Can you just adress the fact that today the diesel
fuel is artificially high due to taxes???
Looking forward to the reply.

"Where are your recources or is this just made-up?" No, I did not make that up.

The Canadian Black Book gives the average used price of a 2003 Honda Civic LX sedan with factory air as $13080. The Canadian black book is what every car dealer in Canada uses when appraising a trade-in.

The same source gives the HCH of the same year an average used value of $13650. You can't go to the Blackbook site directly; you have to link to it through another car site. Use www.toyota.ca, that's where I link from. Do your own research in the Canadian market.

The Canadian Civic LX was in 2003, the top-of-the-sedan, then one you'd buy if you didn't get the HCH; in 2003 Canadians couldn't get the EX/Si trim in a sedan. It has electric windows and doorlocks and ABS brakes, AM/FM/CD, cruise control, etc. What more did the HCH give? If you wanted greater content you could buy an Acura EL Touring, which is the rough equivalent to the US Civic EX/Si. It sold for a couple of thousand more than the Civic LX, but 2003s also sell in the mid-$13000 range. Seems like the market thinks that the Civic is, at best, a $13,000 car regardless of trim level, after three years.

I rest my case: regardless of what options the trim level came with, the $28000 hybrid depreciated to within $600 of the $22,000 conventional version, within 3 years. For some reason, the Canadian market HATES the HCH as a used car.

Another point for diesel Steve...
Look at " GTL Shell" in keyword.
This will give us almost unlimited and clean diesel.

I think Joe is right on the money. The current hybrid
techology is a scam. Unless they find a way to make
it much cheaper, the batteries lasting to 200 k or
real cheap to replace it will continue to need
subsidies and favors (like using HOV lanes) to stay
in business. As far as durability of a diesel engine
ask some boat owners what they prefer.
There is no comparison. I think JD Powers is full of
it too. I believe Audi and VW has a diesel engine
with a six speed DSG transmission. MB has a diesel
mated to a 7speed automatic.
Here is a link for Georgia regarding "durability"
of diesel.
http://www.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/pdfs/basics/jtb_diesel_engine.pdf#search='diesel%20engines%20more%20durable%20than%20gasoline'

"fanatics" ? this blog taking a new turn?
if we are "fanatics" what about some of the
hybrid enthusiasts?

The Lupo TDI 3 liter (for its fuel consumption in L/100 km) in Europe has auto-stop: the engine shuts down as soon as the car stops, and restarts automatically when you press on the accelerator to start moving again, for example in heavy traffic or at stop lights.

Not an expert, but I suspect that the main additional wear-and-tear would be on the starter. The issue with wear-and-tear on the engine itself is more related to cold starts when deficient lubrication increases friction and wear of all bearing surfaces (cylinders, rings, crank and crank bearings, valves and valve guides, etc).

The lack of lubrication is largely due to the oil's increased viscosity when cold, but also might come from dilution by fresh gasoline if the engine runs significantly richer on a cold start. The latter phenomenon wouldn't occur on a diesel (oil, not gasoline).

With cars using auto-stop, be it diesel or gas, you're starting a warm engine. So other than some additional load on the starter and battery, I doubt that there is significant additional wear, but I also doubt that there's significant improvement either as an engine at idle should undergo very little wear if it's in tune. At idle, the RPMs are very low as are the cylinder pressures.

Personally I think auto-stop is a non-issue for wear (either pro or con) as long as the car is well-maintained (fluid levels, oil changes, filter changes). City driving, with auto stop or not, is always going to be harder on the engine than highway driving at steady state (a situation that diesels especially thrive on).

hey ex-EV1 Driver

the "mature" hybrid vehicle you speak of... THAT is what I want to buy. Why is it not being produced?
GM or Ford could produce their trucks and SUV's this way and sell millions of them with MPG 3x higher than it is now.
Think about it, our oil imports cut to 25% of what it is now. The actual price of Oil will decrease because of less demand. The US trade deficit will decrease.
US foreign policy will be less swayed by the thought of the oil being held hostage.

What I will do if elected President, is get the R&D of the big 3 (or 2) geared up to produce this vehicle in 12 short months. At a competitive price.

I know it will take a while to get the old vehicles replaced by the new, but this will give us time to figure out how to replece the tax base.

This discussion has gone on a long time for one of so little value. The best solution is many solutions. diesel electric hybrids are the tickect for highway driving. Total electrics are the short trip commuter soultion. Gasoline or propane electrics are best for longer city commutes. Straight high effiency diesels are best for long trips with few hills. With improvements in battery technology and use of super capacitors you will see more plug in electrics that have a removeable generator for long range use. One solution will not fill all our needs. That is the missed point.

Some comments were posted regarding the "poorly built Olds diesel" engine. Contrary to popular belief, this engine is fine and will run for hundreds of thousands of miles in the hands of an experienced diesel owner. My daily driver is proof of that: A 1983 Buick LeSabre with a 5.7 diesel with 231,000 miles. Even a diesel engine built in 1983 gets better fuel economy than the gas engines of today.

A good solution might be for everyone to drive diesels running on bio-diesel. That would clean up the air and help farmers at the same time.

Looks like a great diesel.

Some of the sailing ships that the old shipyards produced to counter the threat of steam ships were pretty impressive too. It's amazing to watch what the builders of antiquated technology will do when their entire existance is faced with extinction. Too bad the auto manufacturers don't put as much effort at just getting hybrids on the road as they do trying to preserve their obsolete conventional internal combustion engines.

Another example of extreme measures to protect the traditional power train is the Ford Mondeo TDCi diesel I'm driving now (rental of course). It has a 6-speed manual transmission. My foot gets so exhausted shifting at least (assuming I don't down shift - but why waste the effort downshifting since I'm not recovering any of the braking energy anyway) 7 times every time I stop that it would probably be easier to walk. But I guess you need to do desperate things when trying to coax a little extra performance and efficiency from such a limited platform as a conventional diesel drive.

Even with the 6-speed, I still occasionally stall the engine when starting up. After getting used to my HCH (M5), I sometimes forget how much revving is necessary to get these dinosaurs to move.

Why can't these trogolodytes just come out of their caves and add an electric motor to their power train? They could easily put in half the engine, remove the transmission, and get more than twice the hp out of a well designed hybrid.

Hybrids:
Performance up
Efficiency up
cost down (if designed properly)

what's not to like?

Let me shed a little light on the diesel vs biodiesel discussion here.

I am located in a smaller farming community that has several 'home brew' bio coops. I am also just across the border from a state that is pushing hard for alternative fuels (MN). I have many chances to operate my buisness truck, a 14,000lb 2005 Nissan UD, on bio. The results are astounding!

The odors are non-existant (smells like popcorn more than anything). There is NO smoke (only a little white puff when I'm starting it really cold). The engine runs smoother, gets better mileage, and produces much less soot in the exhaust system. My mechanic has also commented that it is much easier on our motor and will dramatically help engine life (ok, so I'll get 650K instead of 450K!).

Here's the kicker: this stuff is made, at least in my own town here, from waste cooking oil and fats from restaraunts and food processing plants! A waste product being used to make a better, cleaner fuel!!!! It also cost about 15% less than taxed petro diesel. The bio that's produced commercially is being made from the crops of local farmers; hmmmm, no foreign oil AND money in our local economy! It's also a much MUCH cleaner fuel to refine with practically no odor or waste discharges. Try driving through Port Authur TX some time and see what the petro plants put out!!!

As to the CO2 question; when burned biodiesel releases the same amount of CO2 that the plants used up when they were growing. That makes it a eco-neutral product (doesn't add to the problem!). It also has basically non-existant levels of contaminents that petro diesel has.

This will be big, soon! It is growing in huge leaps in smaller communities now. You will start to see large scale, commercial systems in place soon (there already are a few now).

Just imagine for a moment a country of clean burning, fuel efficient cars operating on a fuel that channels all ALL of it's cost of production back to the hands of this countries citizens.

It's humorous; the strongest argument that I have heard against biodiesel is that we currently don't have enough capacity to grow the crops needed to fuel the entire country. How lame of an excuse is that? Gee, let's see.....we can't get this program going full swing because we'd have to pay our struggling farmers to actually expand and become more efficient?!?!?!? Instead, lets hand out huge tax breaks along with obscene profits to hugely polluting oil companies and refineries!

There is no money for in bio for the 'decision makers' right now, so it will take some time for it to become a reality...but I personally thing that reality is soon.

In the meantime, if you're sitting on the road in NW Wisconsin and suddenly a truck passes you that smells like fresh popcorn, wave....I'll be happy to wave back!

Eric,

I agree that diesels (which actually obtain their EPA ratings for mpg compared to the false advertising allowed by hybrids) should get tax breaks. The government says no because of emissions. By June 2006 (3 months from now) cleaner diesel with lower emissions will be mandatory at all pumps. Add this with the biodiesel and no more complaining by environmentalists about the emissions of diesels. No one likes to admit that diesel engines stop 25% to 50% less often to fuel up which means lower emissions overall than their gasser counterparts. Anyway, things are looking brighter for diesels in the U.S. It is just taking a long time. When we see biodiesel TDIs with hybrid electric motors getting 70 mpg and costing like $25,000, then we have reached a new plateau. We have the technology today to do this no problem. It comes down to dollars. Bush is still in office and controls much of the oil. He and many others in the government do not want us to bail out all at once on oil and move to biodiesel fuel (little to no oil used in production since it comes from recycled plant oils currently). Also, car companies are hoping to make money and are afraid that sales will not be there if they don't offer more traditional gassers. Anyway, by 2010, we will have diesel hybrids in the U.S. and possibly a lot more biodiesel pumps. Of course, you can always make the biodiesel yourself for less.

Tim ...regarding Opec (or any oil producer) making
more money on diesel is incorrect. The producers
get paid so much per barrell of oil and each barrel
yield so much of gasoline, diesel (heating oil 2)
and heavy heating oil, asphalt.
There is more diesel than gasoline to be produced
from crude oil. It would not make sense to discard
the diesel and heating oil (same stuff).
Its actually cheaper (and less energy consuming) to make diesel than gasoline. The gas stations
reap a much higher profit on diesel than gas plus
the tax is often higher. Suspect its a way to make
it hard for diesel cars to become more widely used.

Mike...u wrote that a gallon of diesel produces
about 10% more CO2 than a gallon of gas, but you
forgot to mention that a gallon of diesel takes you
50 miles versus 30 miles of gasoline (comparing
VW Jettas with differnt engines)

Eric, "AC valves have
to do with hybrid vesus diesel...same question
about "panels"

What are you referring to?

look at this!!!!!!

http://cars.about.com/od/luxurysedans/fr/mbcdi_tst.htm

I agree with Aaron,

Biodiesel makes the most sense. Actually with very little effort biodiesel can be made out of a number of waste products like Tall Oil from Pulp and Paper. I know there are a lot of people looking into these issues but not much action yet.

Personally I purchase a Prius but like I said in another post ... if I would have been in Canada sooner with the pricing up here (+20% after exchange), I definately would have bought a Volkwagen TDI of some kind.

Just as innovative as a good hybrid and you get more for your money in Canada with a TDI. I'm afraid even the Civic Hybrid if you do the math is priced with a higher premium in Canada.

1. One of the points missed with Biodiesel vs. Gas/Hybrid vs. Diesel/hybrid is the fact that bio diesel IS diesel fuel. ASTM has specs published for the fuel. It can use the same infrastruture as we use today for moving biodiesel. It's not like hydrogen (low energy density/ storage issues/no infrastructure...)or ethanol where you have to retune the engine and find a way to economically transport it (Can't use petro-pipelines, alcohol causes water to precipitate inside the pipeline and cause corrosion issues). Biodioesel is a one for one replacement for petro diesel.

2. As with Gas-To-Liquid fuels, biodiesel is cleaner that petro-diesel. No soot and a low level of fine particulate.

3. Bio-diesel is non-toxic and bio-degradable.

4. Bio-diesel is CO2 neutral.

5. Processing bio-diesel is a faster/safer process that cracking crude oil.

6. Biodiesel can be made for waste vegetable oil and even animal fat. In a well run process the only waste products should be water and glycerin, which has its own market.

7. With the removal of sulfur from petro diesel, the lubricity of the fuel has been severly reduced. The injectors on an engine will coke up. Biodiesel has excellent lubricity and preserves injector performance even in mixes as low as B5.

8. Reduces the trade deficit and provides a new market for American Ag.

As an aside:

If we want to see how to make a good hybrid, look at the BIG earth moving/hauling machines used in the mining business. They are pure electric drivetrain vehicles that use diesel generators. These machines cost millions and have to be reliable. We need to get rid of the mechanical drivetrain. It has too many moving parts and wastes too much energy via friction. The auto companies, including the Japanese, have not used this design. Even a plug-in-hybrid would have been a better first product that what they are selling today.

Sorry, I don't carry water for everybody. If you are on the Web then go to the EPA web site and you will find most of the info. The rest is intuitively obvious to the casual observer, e.g.. all ag derived fuels are pretty much CO2 neutral. They absorb CO2 during growth and resperation and release it when burns....

Re where we buy the oil from.
It does not matter if we buy all the oil imported
to the USA from Canada or the Middle East.
Its a world commodity. What we dont buy from
them will be sold to others.
Its amazing that so many people don understand
that. Even newsmedia dont always get it.
If we want to lower the flow of money to
terrorist supporting countries we need to reduce
consumption and using diesel cars is a reliable
off the shelf and cheap technology to do so.
In addition we can mix biodiesel into the petroleum
diesel. In addition diesel cost much less to produce
and require less energy as well to be made.

Thanks for the reply Bjorn.

http://www.carsurvey.org/viewcomments_review_51364.html
This is a review from a single owner, I'm glad he liked his car.

The other link:
http://money.cnn.com/2005/08/29/Autos/tipsandadvice/diesels/index.htm
"diesel engines typically last longer than gasoline-powered engines"

Interesting they'd print that despite no actual proof what-so-ever other than perpetuating the popular myth.

Bjorn thanks for your links, at least you had provided some instead of suggesting readers endevor a fishing trip to the EPA website.

Really, I'm NOT an anti-diesel person but rather believe truth in claims are important.
You make some very good points in your reduction of foreign reliance but I don't think diesel is the savior. Neither is hybrid cars.
I can't help but think perhaps the next technology will be a good one, hopefully some form of EV.

I don't have time at the moment, I'd be glad to provide some reference if you wish... but the main contributing factor to warm-up wear is the lack of lubrication on rubbing/rolling parts rather than rich fuel.

References?

Look thru this link...lots of info..pay attention to
the article how diesels keep their value.
As for as value goes....take a look at asking
prices for diesels in for example Autotrader.com
VW/MB diesel cars are much more money.
They just have a much lower depriciation than
the gasoline version.

http://www.dieselforecast.com

I got to laugh Steve. You of all people make all
these statements, but no links?
You are the "link" man. Always ask other bloggers
to provide them. Where is the link backing up
your statement "Chicks digs them" referring to
hybrids? LOL thts funny.
About the reason for wear inside a gasoline engine.
The links you provided is from companies that
want to sell something. Did u ever think about the
possibility they are biased?.
Take a look at these links

http://www.dieselforum.org/meet-clean-diesel/what-is-clean-diesel/

MPG? Look at how Prius and VW Jetta TDI

compared in link below

http://www.sflb5.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=11425&sid=020729d3a75203b024980f5bb75b4356

Yes I forgot to put my name in, but I am sure u
knew.

Zero emission from an electric car?
How about pollution producing the electricity?
Most electricty is produced from coal

Delete the 2 last lines above. Somehow they were
accidently entered.
Why should only hybids get a tax write off?
(read subsidy) Why not a conventional car as long
it provides the same mpg?
Hybrid cant stand alone without non hybrid owners
subsidy the hybrid owners?

"Gasoline,kerosene, diesel would not make any
difference" ?

Its hard to believe you wrote that Steve.
Put some gasoline in can and diesel in another can.
Throw a match in both of them and see what happen.

Reasons for gasoline engine wear?

http://www.gulfcoastfilters.com/Quaker%20State.htm

Yes it is very comforting to know that the fuel coming out from a ruptured tank is diesel and not
gasoline. If it is diesel you could be smoking a
cigarette(it might give u lungcancer though) and throw the match into the pool of diesel and it will
extinguish. I think we all know what would happen
if the scenario was leaking gasoline and there was a
flame or spark.
Steve you still refuse to touch the idea of having a years supply of fuel at home.??????
I guess you never will?

ex EV1 driver.

I dont know if you that diesel is exactly the same
as heating oil and it is much safer than propane and much easier to store. Here in the NE most homes use heating oil. Some people have a 275gls
'capacity. Some have 1100m gls legally.
If a propane tank leaks you are in danger. Should a tank of diesel leak there is no danger. If you have a choice of holding a lit match near leaking
propane or leaking diesel I think the choice is clear. yes it is legal to store heating oil and diesel fuel in this community. If your does not permit it, but allow propane then there is something wrong.
PV systems to charge car is fine, but what is the range?. I dont know if you remember the gasoline
line during the 1973 embargo? I do and i would have felt great having a diesel powered car and
have the fuel at home tanking up in my driveway
being number 1 in line while everone else is
lining up the local station.
Doesnt this make sense? Such a simple off the shelf solution until a new technology is readely available.
Still waiting for Steves comment on the storage
at home

http://www.kiplinger.com/personalfinance/columns/car/archive/2005/car1021.html

Bjorn,

Yep, I lived in the northeast in the '70's, drove a diesel Rabbit, lived in a house with oil heat stored in a tank in the ground [and you can't make me admit to running the Rabbit from fuel that hadn't had road tax paid on it ;-) ]. You've never seen a post from me that is negative about diesel (if burned cleanly).

That was the '70's and we got past Nixon, disco, and leisure suits so we need to get past pure diesel ICE as well since that, too has been improved.

I've just seen and driven the future and its primary power source is battery powered electric with ICE only as a potential backup for occasional long trips.

The most range I've ever done on one charge with a battery EV was 140 miles in an NiMH powered EV1 [ RIP 2003 :-( ]. Today, the practical limitation to battery EV's is about 200 miles using Li-ion batteries.

The ease of home charging of a BEV or PHEV is such that the range per charge only affects long road trips, never day-to-day or week-to-week use.

Its a great mileage and clearly better than my 2002
TDI. My trips are all a mix of going to work 15 miles each way and local driving which give me 45mpg average. We usually use my wifes gasoline
Passat when we go on trips since it is roomier, but
on two trips upstate NY I got 54mpg.
The list price for the TDI version is about $900 more than the similar gasoline car. I think that is
an advantage compared to the hybrid.
The advantage of knowing I have my own fuel at
home is very reassuring for me who experienced
the 1973 crises. I dont know why some communities does not allow diesel or heating oil
stored at home, but approve flammable propane!!
Does not make sense and should be changed.
Did anyone ever hear about a tank of diesel explode in a home? I dont think so, but natural gas
or propane explosions we all know happens.
So Georgia lawmakers should encourage the
safe storage of stratigic supplies of diesel at home.
As before mentioned diesel requires less energy to
and cost to produce as well.
If hybrid batteries turn out to be lang lasting and
trouble free it would be nice to see a diesel/electric
hybrid. When car is parked at home it could get
supplemented with solar energy from the house
and/or have a solar panel for charging when car
is in parking lot at work. However the hybrid drivetrain is much more complicated than the
gas or diesel combustion engine so that is a cost
issue.
Another possibility is to have an all electric car
for local driving/work commute and leave the
gas or diesel at home. Most of us commute less than 20 miles and that should be feasable with an
electric car. Maybe insurance companies could base
their rate on only one car used at a time and cover
both for one rate. Should be possible with satellite
tracking system. Besides saved fuel we would
also get cleaner air and less money for certain
terrorist groups.
cost to produce as well.

I can't imagine they'd have an issue with storing fuel in places like farming communities etc but I guess they figure heat pumps and natural gas are enough for the city I live in.
Who knows they probably own shares of those and lining their pockets or political chests.

I apologize for not having any details to post but I've heard Honda has a nice diesel engine and planning to sell here sometime.

With gas prices pushing $3.00 again our Grand Caravan stays parked unless hauling things or taking along more than our five passengers.
We figured the added cost of low 20's MPG does not justify its extra roominess so we all jump in the Honda.
With all five of us on board and using scaled back efficiency methods I get mid, sometimes upper 50's MPG in the Honda.

We'll probably replace the GC in a couple of years. Perhaps with a EV if they make one (And affordable etc)....maybe a Prius.
If Honda sells that diesel then we might end up with one of those.
The future is so uncertain.
I really think the solution for commuters is a EV charged by nuclear on the grid.
Maybe someday.

Not easy to find info in english about the numerous
diesels not sold in the USA, but here is one

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2005/02/toyota_introduc.html

Bjorn,

I don't agree with the laws restricting storage of diesel or heating oil either but I believe the are more related to ground water contamination from leaks than from fire hazard.

..and the leak of fuel into groundwater is caused by
leaking metal tanks put into the ground 40-50 years
ago. They can be replaced with the new type of
fiberglass tanks which are not prone to corrosion
or do like my friend (a diesel owner) has done
for many years. He has two 275gls tanks at the end
of the garage with an electric fuel pump. If they start to leak it is a gradual leak and if someone
says that is not good enough there is an inexpensive plastic spill retainer available for those type of tanks. Arent we running out of reason not to store fuel a home and give us the
advantage of a strategic supply. Isnt it time the
individual motorist can take advantage of this?
If we get a non petroleum way of running our cars
then that will be great, but in the meantime storing
your own fuel at home can be implemented as
soon as one purchase a diesel car.

Most people average about 47MPG in the Civic Hybrid. http://www.greenhybrid.com The biggest rating/actual mileage discrepancy is with the Prius which comes close to the Civic Hybrid but posts low 60’s on the sticker.
EPA overstates almost all vehicle MPG with their 20 year old outdated 55MPH test simulation.
That's why they are moving to an entirely new testing method.
This is not hybrid car specific, although some hybrid vehicles like Prius EPA will likely drop quite a bit.

Personally with the multitude of issues to consider in my life carrying gasoline in my car is the least of my worries, along with storing quantity of fuel on my property.
It's a non-issue for me.
Obviously it is important to you.

I don't think either of these technologies are perfect transportation solution but diesel and hybrid are the best stepping stones for what is coming.
Nuclear charging EV commuters is the best I can think of.
Let the trains and heavy trucks (Etc) burn the diesel.

http://www.auto-law.com/CM/PracticeAreaDescriptions/PracticeAreaDescriptions17.asp

Steve...you probably would change your mind
about carrying gasoline in your tank rather than
diesel if you are trapped while waiting for
the firemen.

http://www.kotv.com/main/home/stories.asp?whichpage=1&id=91888

Steve
Now it is bordering nonsense. The articles you refer
to is fumes inside an empty diesel tank.
Another article is about gasoline VWs.
Then about trucks on fire. Not all trucks run on diesel and some fires start in the cargo and if it
is hot enough it will eventually burn the diesel in the tank, but not for a while unlike gasoline.
One of the articles describes the safety of E-diesel
which is caused by the ethanol.
Did you ever read the the links about the chemistry
of gas versus diesel talking about flashpoints of
those fuels?
Are there cases when the diesel fuel can ignite and
burn from a ruptured tank or fuel line? Yes, but
highly unlikely and if so the fire will have to originate from another fire source.
A ruptured gasoline tank fire can be set off with a tiny spark.
When someone holds up a book and someone
says that is not a book, but a set of keys then
it might be time to quit and just walk away.

Bjorn I guess somehow you've missed several of my comments that I agree gasoline is more dangerous than diesel fuel or kerosene.

Fact.:
Exploding gasoline fueled autos are not epidemic.
Yes, it can happen.
It is not something to loose sleep over.
At least not me and 95% of other drivers.

http://www.geology.wisc.edu/~johnf/hybrid.html

So can we all start pushing for Diesel Hybrid SULEVs running on B100 and end this debate yet?

Yes Diesel emissions can be bad but biodiesel eliminates most of that:

http://www.biodiesel.org/pdf_files/fuelfactsheets/emissions.pdf

Its not necessarily a good thing to have all of these large batteries either though:

http://www.electrochem.org/dl/ma/202/pdfs/0068.PDF

So lets start pushing for hyrdaulic hybrids:

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/technology/#hydraulic

Lets add heat recapturing in there for good measure also:

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/technology/#hydraulic

Isn't this really what we should all be after instead of arguing over whether diesel or hybrids are better?

Hello again!

The EPA actually developed the hydraulic hybrid and last I heard they were working with Ford. What really excited me about hydraulic hybrids is that the unit had a cost of $1,000 USD to create. Add some more to intigrate it and it is still going to cost less than the electric hybrids. What's more, the developers estimate that it will increase your fuel efficiency further than the electric one:

http://www.detnews.com/2005/autosinsider/0506/29/B08-231001.htm

I love the idea of Hydraulic Hybrid diesels. The longevity of the diesel engine, the low cost of the hydraulic hybrid system, and the ability to use domestically created bio fuels is very appealing.

I apologize about the battery, I didn't know what was in a Prius as I quickly realized when I went shopping for my first car some three years ago that I couldn't afford one :( NiMh does indeed look much better than Li-Ion on the waste side.

Anyways I hope we can get diesel and hybrid drivers together on this one. If we have any chance of ever seeing a car like this it will be because common folks like us have shown enough interest in these cars that automakers can sell them and make some money.

- Tn

The big problem with hybrid or electric cars is battery life and disposal. The Prius has a whole bank of batteries behind the back seat. They last for X amount of time then must be disposed of and new ones purchased wiping out all savings on fuel and zeroing any environmental savings. Fuel economy on these is misleading. They are measured without heat and air conditioning which require the engine to be running and takes a lot of fuel. A larger engine vehicle can run the air conditioner essentially free, but a small engine must work to pump that air.

"realist",

I think you are missing something. Please read this:

The big problem with %pure gas% cars is battery life and disposal. The %pure gas car% has a %huge battery at the front of the hood%. They last for %Y% amount of time then must be disposed of and new ones purchased wiping out %the fact that they don't provide any savings% on fuel and zeroing any environmental savings.

Do you note the difference between my statement and yours? hint: look between the % % signs. Think about it a bit. We've been dealing for over 60 years with batteries in the automotive industry that don't last nearly as long (Y is about 50,000 miles) as the hybrid traction batteries do. Hybrid batteries will last for over 150,000 (what you call X) miles and they are warranteed as such. They can also be recycled, just like the lead acid ones in today's cars so they will have minimal environmental impact. See, I justified this without even having to mention how much worse lead is for our environment than NiMH batteries (which aren't even classified as a hazardous material)

Regarding fuel economy:
A larger engine vehicle runs so inefficiently that you hardly notice how much the air conditioner is using.

If an engine is so efficient that it uses zero energy to make it move, ALL the gasoline would be used to run the air conditioner so you're really going to notice it.

What we need is air conditioners to increase their efficiency as much as hybrids increase our propulsion efficiency.

As a European, I'm still voting for diesel engines (running on renewable fuel in the future). In my view the advantages are:

Simpler than hybrids.
Lighter than hybrids.
No recycling / chemical disposal issue for the batteries.
Will run happily on various renewable oil based fuels (the prototype diesel engine was actually designed to run on peanut oil)

The modern turbodiesel engine is unrecognisable next to those of even a decade ago. They match most petrol (sorry, gas) engines on power output, and the latest developments in common rail injection, staged injection cycles (the fuel for each engine cycle is injected in carefully timed stages rather than all at once) and noise insulation mean the "death rattle" of a diesel is no longer the problem it was.

A typical 2 litre turbo diesel now makes 130-150 horsepower, and in a Focus-sized car will combine 50 mpg, 0-60 in under 9 seconds, and 130 mph. It will knock out around 200 lb/ft of torque from a little past tickover and pull hard right round to 4,500-5,000 RPM. It will need servicing only every 10,000-20,000 miles and if properly looked after, will do 200,000+ miles without major mechanical problems.

Hybrids have a real advantage in urban environments where they can sit in queues without any emissions, but I personally can't see how to justify the extra wiring, control systems, battery chemicals, weight and cost for this small advantage. My personal opinion of course.

all,
I appologize for the long response.

Dan,

I'm not sure why being a European should affect whether diesels or hybrids are better. The last time I checked, the laws of physics worked the same in both places. I'll be in Cambridge, UK all next week and will re-verify ;-)

Seriously though I do recognize that there are some infrastructure and technology differences between the two continents that may affect decisions.

For one:

The US has far less protected manufacturing interests, Asia has even less, hence they are much better able to take advantage of truly better technology without as much backlash from politically strong incumbents. Of course, it seems that the US car manufacturers aren't going to roll over without a fight either
(see www.whokilledtheelectriccar.com).

It isn't clear to me that the planet has enough bio-fuel raising capability to feed it's 'need' unless we get MUCH more efficient vehicles. Clearly Europe doesn't have the bio-fuel capacity and the US is questionable. South America probably can but it will require clearing all traces of rain forest. Adding an electric drive train is the only real way that I see to make huge breakthroughs here.

Your other fundamental comments aren't totally correct either:

1. Simpler than hybrids: There really isn't anything much simpler than a simple constant-speed diesel, electric motor, batteries, and a solid-state electronic controller. There isn't anything much more complex than a transmission (arguably the most complex mechanical consumer product ever), a variable valve timing ICE (Internal Combustion Engines), Emissions controls (sensitive sensors in a horrible environment), Diesel or Petrol (we can speak English if we really try hard :-) refining, or turbochargers.

2. Lighter than hybrids: It is true that battery/electric propulsion is heavier than ICE, however, this is partially offset by the regenerative braking that recovers some of the energy lost in acceleration of a heavier vehicle. I'll grant that the additional weight does cause more rolling resistance and the regeneration is not 100% efficient (30 - 50% roundtrip are more realistic). The electric efficiency in acceleration, however makes a huge difference.

Simpler than hybrids.

3. No recycling / chemical disposal issue for the batteries: The PbA starter batteries in ICE vehicles is a huge problem already but it has been solved. NiMH or Li-Ion batteries look like they are just as easy to dispose of and they will last for at least 150,000 miles (~200,000 km) before they need recycling. PbA starter batteries need replacing around 50,000 miles (although I concede that we don't need as many of them)

and let me rewrite your statement:

" typical 2 litre turbo diesel now makes 130-150 horsepower, and in a Focus-sized car will combine 50 mpg, 0-60 in under 9 seconds, and 130 mph. It will knock out around 200 lb/ft of torque from a little past tickover and pull hard right round to 4,500-5,000 RPM. It will need servicing only every 10,000-20,000 miles and if properly looked after, will do 200,000+ miles without major mechanical problems. "

to it's direct electric equivalent:

Modern electric motors can generate 200-250 horsepower and in Scion-sized cars will combine 100+ mpg, 0-60 in under 7 seconds (under 4 sec in some documented cases), and 130 mph (although most electronically limit much lower), It will knock out around 182 ft lbs torque from zero to 6000 rpm (the torque is most needed closer to zero than 6000 rpms). It will need servicing every 50,000 miles (lube), and if properly looked after, after a battery change at around 150,000 to 200,000 miles, will last ... oops! we don't know how long they will last but the only moving parts are rotary bearings (really reliable and easily replaceable) and low temperatures (less than 120 degrees F). Sources: (www.wrightspeed.com and www.acpropulsion.com)

Overall, diesels and ICE in general are totally outclassed by modern electric drive trains. The main thing that the ICE provides is the ability to run off of transportable (yet expensive) liquid fuel and carry more energy onboard.

I feel that you are looking at today's infant production hybrids as representative of what can be done. This is sort of like comparing a model T with a modern Honda Accord. There's really no comparison. If you insist on only looking at what exists on the road today, take a look at the websites I mentioned above and look at what is possible. Also, remember that all the technologies in these vehicles are as mass-producable or more so than ICE's and transmissions.

the biomass quantities look encouraging. They seem similiar to some estimates for how much area would be required for PV to cover humanity's energy needs. There are also possibilities for biomass cultivation from the sea.
A hybrid drive-train need not be very complex. It can be done with very few moving parts if people try but all attempts to date have been polluted by special interests within the car company to incorporate their pet projects.

Hybrid cars are really ugly and driving them makes you look gay. I would rather ride my bike in the rain then be seen in one of those hideous futuristic pieces of crap.I would love to by a car that gets more than 19 mpg city like my curent car but those hybrids are just too ugly.

Jesse I guess everyone has their own tastes.

Are you refering to Prius?
You know there are other hybrids out there as well.

Civic for example made Motor Trend car of the year:
http://www.motortrend.com/features/auto_news/112_news051112_car_of_the_year/

How bout the Accord? Civic, Accord or Camry? Those are all top selling models.

Also is a Ford Escape, Hylander, Mariner, RX 400h and others by the year end.

Hybrid is only a power train.

Tngaijin:
Sign me up!
Personally I'd like to see the use of Ethanol explode. (No punn)

you guys forget to realize that diesel expells particulants that DO cause cancer. "

You do realize of course that gasoline emits carcinogenic VOCs, and also particulates? And that the finer particle size of gasoline particulates makes them more susceptible to deep inhalation than diesel particulates?

I had to check the dates of these posts because you guys are talking about biodiesel as a FUTURE technology. Huh? I have an unmodified Mercedes 300 Turbo Diesel that I run unmodified on biodiesel right now. I live in the Denver area and there are several places to get B100 (100% biodiesel) in Denver, several in Boulder and a few more scattered around the state. And it's growing, fast.

So in all this discussion, the hybrid people keep acting like biodiesel is somehow non-existant, or at the same stage as fuel cells. This is just totally innaccurate. My emissions are significantly reduced (no black smoke with B100). My exhaust smells like vegetable oil (no offensive diesel smell.) Biodiesel is real, it's fueling my car as we speak. Wake up folks. I know that if you just bought a hybrid, psychologically it will be near impossible for you to admit that biodiesel is the most environmentally responsible decision, but my car uses no petroleum at all. (I use synthetic motor oil, not that it matters with such tiny amounts.) You guys are really scratching at anything that will justify the fact that you bought a so-called environmentally friendly car that still runs on conventional petroleum (the very resource we are running out of.) So, biodiesel is cleaner than gasoline, and it's not made from petroleum. Plus it helps farmers in the United States rather than the Saudi and Bush royal families.

When making your arguments, you continue to ignore the fact that many diesels (all the school buses in Denver and all the public busses in Boulder) run on a fuel that uses no petroleum. None. None beats less anyday.

I find some of the comments rather offensive as if there is no way that several technologies could compete. It is true that Diesel technology, or internal combustion engines (ICEs) in general have a 120 years old history, but that is exactly their advantage, we know how reliable they are, we know their strengths and their weaknesses, and we also know that their technical development potential is far from being achieved. Electric motors incidentally are just about as old, but here we are still struggling with the same problem of 100 years ago, how to efficiently store electric energy. I am sure you know that firt speed record holders in the late 1800s early 1900s were electric driven. Today we have a variety of technologies, we have hybrid, which convert fossil fuel to internal combustion, to electricity, to motor power), we have ICEs which connected to transmissions do the same thing, convert fossil fuel to internal combustion into mobile power.

Arguably the efficiency of the conversion mode to motor power of both technologies is about the same. A multi valve turbo-diesel engine with a 5-6 or more speeds gets in mixed traffic comparable fuel consumption to a hybrid. At very high speed with very high loads, the diesel might even have a slight advantage since power demand increases exponentially with speed. The big advantage of the hybrid is that it can use the energy from braking that is lost in a conventional vehicle to store up motor energy. That makes the hybrid an ideal transport in town, with stop and go, which constitutes much of our traffic pattern. Without this ability to regenerate energy, the actual efficiency of the hybrid vs a conventional vehicle with a direct transmission (manual or "powershift") is about similar. The net efficiency of a gearbox where all forces flow in a linear fashion to transmit energy is around 95%. The big draw back is the engine that in a gasoline version does at best maybe 30% fuel conversion to motor power, and in case of a modern diesel maybe, 35 to 40%. The hybrid is really facing the same reality, it has an ICE that runs at around 30% efficiency which power is converted to electric power/motors that have around 90% to 95% efficiency, however, it has to drag along a certain amount of battery storage.

Expensive materials and designs then have to be used to try to reduce vehicle weight back to a competitive level. I find it astonishing that the Prius or Honda do weigh relatively the same than vehicles of similar size and equipment. To me it suggests that quite a bit of the extra money that is paid for these two particular hybrids also goes into lightweight body design.

The hybrid is without a doubt a great development, but it is a compromise and consequently not an optimal solution. At the same time, the hybrid’s ability to reuse some of the power lost at braking is something that has huge potential. But there could be many methods to do that, mechanical/hydraulic accumulators, electric regeneration as hybrids do, but also compressed air, maybe even a spring as in toy cars, etc.. Without a doubt the hybrid has changed the automotive landscape. Healthy competition among varying systems (that includes driver/user preferences) is most likely to provide a viable solution.

Still, however, it is not a reason to call disbelievers “grease monkeys” as electric cars too, at least in the close future still have tires, drive shafts, and tie rods that need periodical replacement, and foreseeably that won’t be done with a soldering iron.

DD,
Sorry if you were offended. I tried to offend both the geeks and grease monkeys equally so you'd see I really have respect for both stereotypes.
I must admit, I really appreciate your comments so please don't take additional offense when I try to address them.

Electric motors: While nearly as old as the ICE, modern semiconductors have increased their efficiency and reliability, something that increases their viability today.

Energy Storage: We've seen at least a 400% increase in energy storage capacity over the past 2 decades as well as a reduction of toxic materials and increase in charging speeds and charging efficiency. These were clearly limitations in the past, however, the battery research of the past 2 decades driven by EV money and the laptop/cellphone industry has been quite successful.

ICE efficiency: today's hybrids have been held back by the ICE industry (at least they weren't killed as the pure EV was) so they haven't exploited the fact that an electric-primary or strong (such as but not limited to serial hybrids) enable the ICE to be optimized for constant speed, constant load operation. This should enable a good diesel to approach 50% efficiency.

Dragging around battery storage and regen braking: You are right that a limitation of any battery powered vehicle is the weight of the battery. This is similiar to the Energy Storage problem above but it is true. Pound per pound gasoline + ICE is a lot (I don't have the numbers with me now) lighter than the best battery + electric motor. Fortunately, the regenerative braking offsets the weight as the biggest weight penalty is in startup and climbing which are offset somewhat by braking and descending with a hybrid.

The hybrid benefits you've missed: the missing benefit of a hybrid is that the power of the ICE can be reduced to slightly more than the average horsepower needed to propel the vehicle while the electric portion can easily handle the surges.

A plug for plug-ins: The benefits of plug-in vehicles, even beyond gas-only hybrids is that the total efficiency of the battery electric drive train + electrical grid + stationary power station is much better than any form of pure ICE if you measure the well-to-wheels losses. Additionally, the plug-in can run off of any form of energy that can be converted to electricity, nearly anywhere on the content. Therefore, windfarms in Wyoming can help, as can solar in CA, NV, and AZ, while hydro in the northwest, natural gas, sewage gas, etc, can all power any plug-in car. ICE's can only run off of a portable, fluid fuel.

A comment on maintenance: I have never had to change a drive shaft. Never a tie rod (when I was behaving nicely on a road :-), Sure, tires need changing as might shocks. But hybrids/EV's rarely need new brakes, never need oil changes or transmission fluid. I did have to replace motor mounts several times on my EV1 but that was an infant mortality problem since on their first try, the glorious GM engineers clearly underestimated the torque that an electric motor could produce when 'educating' Porche's. One beauty about things done with a soldering iron is that they have far fewer failure modes than mechanical things with moving parts and are very efficient. Modern power supplies can do voltage and frequency conversion with 90 to 95% efficiency.

Alternative hybrids:
You've named several alternatives and missed a few as well. I'm not going to rain on any of them since I'd like to see all given a level playing field. You did, however, miss the flywheel which is probably more likely then the ones you did mention. I'd even like a little of the $1.2 billion that was given to hydrogen fuel cell research spread among them all since they seem as likely as HFC's to solve problems. I also did not appreciate the HFC being used by GM as an excuse to kill the EV1 and the battery EV. Unfortunately, the driver today has only one real choice of energy with which to drive - petroleum+ICE directly coupled to the wheels.

Sorry if you were offended by the "Grease Monkey" label. Maybe I'm a bit sensitive to GM killing the best car I ever drove so I don't realize how harsh I sound towards those who cannot change their views and, instead, kill anything new that comes around.

EV-Driver, thanks for the thoughtful reply. It is not so much that I took offense myself. I work in development, in poor countries on issues which generate even much further differing opinions than the ones I find on this site. I follow these dicussions and sometimes jump in just because of my initial background in engineering, and my personal interest in the topic (sadly and ironically, many developing countries are hugely innefficient in energy use). Today my work is much closer to economic and financial management and completely unrelated.

I really am not up to date about the latest technological advantages in regards of power storage/battery/accumulator designs. I do appreciate your insight and dedication to the comments on this site, I think this is very healthy and this forum might indeed be quite a good source of ideas, even if some are rather out there.

Dear Hot Gerogia - thanks for your comment. I would like to correct you on the point I made concerning electricity storage. I did not say that there has been no progress in battery storage, I just said that the struggle to store electricity efficiently remains one of the main challenges of electric vehicles. I cannot say with any sense of accuracy how much progress has been made in that field, but storage does in fact remain a problem.

I am also willing to challenge your point about "clean nuclear" technology, and you are probably aware that I would not be the only one to do so. While production of electricity is indeed relatively clean (although not cheap) with nucelar power plants, you will have to admitt that this mode does generate a rather nasty waste no one really wants to have to close to their back yard. And we have not really yet found a safe way to dispose of it. The methods we use today can at best be called "let us all hope for the best" no one really wants to hear about the worst possible option. And I am not even thinking of theft and terrorism, and the process of extraction of uranium, and the political economy of some of the countries where this stuff comes from. Conversion of the waste as fuel in plutonium reactors as the French (and Japanese) have been doing it with limited success (and fairly high failure rates) is also only moderately promising. Real progress will only be expected with fusion technology, which is something considered at least 4 decades away. So, sustainably generating clean, and cheap electricity does remain a challenge with the grid as well. Maybe that is where the problem is, generation might be better (more reliable, and cheaper, although not necessarily more effiecient), if it were more decentralized, many small plants throughout the country, with wind, sun, thermal power (ground water), gas, etc.. The problem is that many large energy companies would radically oppose that since they would not be able to control the taps anymore. Anyway, it is a never ending subject.

http://www.greencarcongress.com/gastoliquids_gtl/

aurimas

This is great news!!! Can you please tell us what is the model number of the Renault diesel-hybrid vehicle? Where can we get more info? Is it in production or just a concept? Where is it available? Is it available in the US?

Except that I like the design/style of a lot of Citroens, all the French cars (including Renault) I've driven were POS's but if they actually have a diesel hybrid, I'll happily give them another chance.

Now, in case you think I missed your unwelcome and unnecessarily editorial comment: I'll address the insult you made to the people who probably saved your @$#%$% back in the 1940's and created the internet with which we are now communicating:

Maybe now that we've wiped their buddy from power in Iraq, the French are going to start developing technology to help conserve OUR planet's oil. It sucks when they can't buy oil in exchange for their crappy chemical and nuclear weapon technology or UN votes anymore. We Americans aren't perfect and we're willing to admit it. Unless you are perfect, your comment isn't helping anything.

Moveon,

I agree with your political comment - see my last line.

Here are a few links that will help you to understand some of the "well-to-wheels" comparisons between Electric and Gasoline motors:
http://www.teslamotors.com/learn_more/white_papers.php
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/byfuel/byfueltypeNF.shtml
http://www.pluginamerica.com/images/EmissionsSummary.pdf

there has been a lot of other stuff about this and I'll try to dig out some more references. Personally, I've generally just done quick back-of-the-envelope computations and everything always comes up unquestionably in favor of the battery-electric with a lot of margin for error.

Alot of the anti-diesel folks are talking about the health and environmental impacts of diesel vs hybrids, but I'd like to see some research into what impact all those used hybrid batteries will have when they go to the junkyard or are replaced. Can the batteries be recycled, and does the recycling process consume more energy than the batteries produce?

Goodbye hybrids........

http://www.dieselforum.org/newsarticle/article/351/56/

moveon,

There is no reason an electric car should be reduced to 60 mph or less. GM, Honda, Toyota, Nissan, Ford, and Chrysler had to use a huge crusher to do it. See the movie "Who Killed the Electric Car" for details. The killed cars all did over 100 miles on a charge and were electronically limited to around 80 mph.
The slow electric golf carts that were substituted for real EV's are smokescreens.
Fortunately, aftermarket plug-in hybrids as Hot Georgia mentions as well as a few new startups are working to get real EV's back on the market again.
There is nothing technological preventing electric vehicles from going over 300 miles on a charge and going as fast as you might like. Unfortunately, it's just politics and business now.
I wouldn't count on anything available to the general public for another 6 or 7 years though unfortunately so Steve in Hot George and the rest of us may have to compromise with a diesel or gas-only hybrid in the mean time.

BTW exEV1 Driver, the EV1 at hybrid fest was a frankenstien rebuild by the University of Wisconsin, but at least it is still around and is drivable.

One thing many people don't realize except us few is that some REAL savings can be had by an all EV drivetrain.
No engine oil to change/dispose of, no injectors to clean/clog, no timing belts/chains/plugs and only light maintenance required.
I would imagine brake regeneration would be employed so brakes could last multiple times longer reducing owners cost.

If I were to take my car to the dealer for everything it would be $150 to $350 every 10,000 miles and much of that is engine/transmission maintenance which would be eliminated with an EV which makes it much more attractive.

I'm really very excited about the automotive future.
:-)

"One thing many people don't realize except us few is that some REAL savings can be had by an all EV drivetrain"

Hopefully, we can get some plug-in vehicles on the road in production so that even the most stubbornly unenlightened can see and drive the reality for themselves.

Ok Bloggers...what do you think about this one: Make a clean burn diesel, plug in electric hybrid drive train and run it on as much bio diesel as you can get. Build the car body from ultra strong, ultra light, graphite composition, foam reinforced panels. This provides the multiple benefits of strength, passenger protection, light weight, less air conditioning load due to insulation and a quieter interior.

Use ultra capacitors for short term operation electric motors and solenoids for windows and locks or build a spartan version with manual locks and crank windows.

Make all the lamps LED including the head lamps. How hard is this?

Here is a link to the very impressive specifications to that wonderful car:

http://www.cleanmpg.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1642

ACCELERATION 0-50 mph: 6.3 sec
At 50% SOC: 6.5 sec

Range: 160.6 miles

Withing two years they reduced battery weight by almost 2/3 and increased range.
This was 7 years ago and battery technology is constantly evolving.

At 6hrs to charge and ~150 mile range would have been my perfect commuter car (Even though I have a 100 mile/day comute)

exEV1:
Check out this link:
http://townhall-talk.edmunds.com/WebX?14@@.f0ca82a/173

-Steve

Ex_ev driver...I dont think you understood my write
up...I said most people need an electric car for
commutes of less than 50 miles. I NEVER wrote
that they cannot or should not be able to go further.
An electric car with a short range would likely be
cheaper than a 300mile range car.
Beside a PV sunroof there should be a small generator available to take along

LOL...no in this case a gasoline generator just to
be used when out of range or where there are no
outlets available. But I would want my other car to
be a diesel...like this one except I would prefer
the steering wheel on the left side

http://irishcar.com/opelvectra22dtrbb.htm

"LOL...no in this case a gasoline generator just to
be used when out of range or where there are no
outlets available"

Something similar to a plug-in hybrid?
:-)

Hot Georgia,

Keep spreading the word. The more truth (good and bad) that gets out there, the better!

Thanks for cross posting.

BTW, I just test drove an awesome new pure EV today. Stay tuned for a new topic with details soon.

Completely different than a hybrid. Car will run on
batteries only. Something like an EV...lol, but can
be charged from an outlet or generator. Leave the
generator at home during regular trips. Bring it along
for the few longer trips. Got the picture?

Thanks Moveon, that was a good read and good write up about his vehicle although too bad he made some typical stereotype hybrid remarks such as their usefullness city vs highway.

Thanks for the link!
-Steve

Diesels are noisy.

I live in France and Paris is the noisest city in the world. If the 60% diesel trucks and cars here were replaced with quiet hybrids, imagine !

MOST people do not want the stuff on their hands... When you get it on you you can't get it off. People, including me, will gravitate to the cleaner, easier, and less smelly way of driving cars...

The matter to me hangs on one simple question, "Am I able and willing to run on a high blend (50% or better) of biodiesel?" I've run my Jetta TDI on 100% Biodiesel for 45k miles now. Yes, I had to go out of my way to fuel up every week and a half until a station was installed near my home. Yes I've been paying $3 a gallon the entire time. But it was worth it to me to help support an emerging alternative fuel. So I ask all you politically-aware hybrid owners...how much petroleum do you use? How much (net)* CO2 do you pump into the air? For me the answer is nearly zero. And that's why I drive a diesel.

Hybrids are cool, but the actual mileage gain from the hybrid tech itself isn't worth the cost, to me. The best hybrids now get their mileage from other techs that any car could adopt, such as auto-shutoff, lighter materials and the mileage display.

I get 42mpg and I don't put one (net)* ounce of CO2 in the air. I drive 50 miles a day which means for the last three years I've personnally prevented a whole lot of CO2 from going in the air and a whole lot of money from going overseas. Yes I'm a smug, self-satisfied bastard! And you can be one too with a diesel! But check out the new crop of cars coming from Europe since they improved diesel standards in the US. In the next year or so the diesel market should get really interesting.

* All CO2 produced by burning biodiesel was extracted from the air by the plants used to make it.

The matter to me hangs on one simple question, "Am I able and willing to run on a high blend (50% or better) of biodiesel?" I've run my Jetta TDI on 100% Biodiesel for 45k miles now. Yes, I had to go out of my way to fuel up every week and a half until a station was installed near my home. Yes I've been paying $3 a gallon the entire time. But it was worth it to me to help support an emerging alternative fuel.

That's great for you. And I applaud you for supporting alternative fuel. However, the biodiesel that is available for most people is at best B20 even if when one goes out of the way. What do you do when you take a long trip where 100% biodiesel isn't available?

So I ask all you politically-aware hybrid owners...how much petroleum do you use? How much (net)* CO2 do you pump into the air? For me the answer is nearly zero. And that's why I drive a diesel.

I use about 360 gallons of gasoline a year carrying at least 2 people at all times. I think that's about 4-5 tons or so of CO2, not counting the small amount of CO2 saved from the 10% ethanol mixed with my gasoline. I've read that 100% biodiesel is about 78% carbon-neutral. In the city, I figure I'd get about 35-40 mpg in a Golf TDI (more likely I'd need a Passat though to match my Prius' carry capacity, so the mpg would be lower.) So I probably would put out less CO2 with a Golf TDI, but I'd be putting out more of other pollutants, like NOx. And your Golf's CO2 output isn't nearly zero. I think the hybrid is a better choice for the city, and it does pretty good on the highway. So overall, it is a much better choice for me.

Hybrids are cool, but the actual mileage gain from the hybrid tech itself isn't worth the cost, to me. The best hybrids now get their mileage from other techs that any car could adopt, such as auto-shutoff, lighter materials and the mileage display.

I don't agree with this. I do believe that regenerative breaking significantly improves gas mileage; especially in the city. And the Prius was less expensive than the Golf TDI; in my city anyway. And that doesn't even include the tax credit I'll receive.

I get 42mpg and I don't put one (net)* ounce of CO2 in the air. I drive 50 miles a day which means for the last three years I've personnally prevented a whole lot of CO2 from going in the air and a whole lot of money from going overseas.

You have prevented a lot of CO2 emissions. I think this is awesome, but I get 49-54 mpg in the city (even in the winter) and 45 on the highway burning E10. You have prevented a lot of CO2 from going into the air, but consider the oil used to harvest the crops for your biodiesel. And the fertilizer used to grow the feedstock (and the pesticides, etc.) You do put net CO2 into the air; just not as much as other vehicles.

Yes I'm a smug, self-satisfied bastard! And you can be one too with a diesel! But check out the new crop of cars coming from Europe since they improved diesel standards in the US. In the next year or so the diesel market should get really interesting.

I can't wait for the new crop of diesel cars. I'll be checking them out. But until diesel emission controls are a reality, there isn't even a discussion about pollution to be had comparing hybrids and diesels unless you're burning 100% biodiesel; unless perhaps you live out in the sticks.
Bottom line though, I'll confess, is that even though I prefer to drive a diesel (I used to drive a 300TD), there are no vehicles available that come even close to the reliability of a hybrid car from Toyota or Honda. I tried to convince myself to buy a VW TDI, but I just couldn't get past the 'beautiful loser' status of these cars. If you aren't in the shop all the time with a Golf or Jetta, you're one of the lucky ones.

* All CO2 produced by burning biodiesel was extracted from the air by the plants used to make it.

If only this was so. You should convert your TDI to a Greasecar!

The original article fails to mention EPA's new standards for Ultra Low Sulphur Diesel. My impression was that this new diesel fuel standard will allow for diesel vehicles to be cleaner burning, eliminating all of the cons associated with Diesel vehicle's dirty reputation, which would make them more efficient then gas and cleaner. Does anyone have a feel for how ULSD will effect diesel vehicles in the US? I would think diesels would again be back in the limelight as they are in Europe. Now, couple that with the potential of homegrown biodiesel and we have a revolution on our hands...thoughts??

Consider how much more energy is required to manufacture a hybrid vs diesel. My understanding is it is considerable. #2 how long will the batteries last and the gas engine last vs the diesel. Diesels can go 300-500,000 miles. Where's the gasser that will last that long? Replacing a car every 200,000 vs 400,00? Well you do the energy math.

I don't think it's a zero sum game...the CO2 you put out burning biodiesel is vastly more than what the plants used to create it took in.

bio-diesel hybrid... music to my ears. your a genuis and i think you found the solution

The more I look at bio-diesel, the less I like it. It seems that with bio-diesel, we have a choice:
Feed our population or let the rich be able to drive around.
Hmm, I'm kind of a harsh Darwinian kind guy who really doesn't mind the latter but I'll bet a lot of other, more sensitive souls will be a bit squeamish driving past starving people all the time.

Wow jnf,
You've really done your reading. I don't think you missed a single piece of anti-hybrid nonesense that has been distributed.
Where'd you get the 75K mile replacement need for hybrid batteries? They are warranteed to over 100K miles and because of their lack of use in today's hybrids, they are lasting very long times (see: http://www.hybridcars.com/fleets/taxis-show-hybrid-battery-durability-25...).
Regarding all that dangerous electricity, sure to kill every kid or well-meaning emergency worker: I'm not sure why you're ok with them dealing with the bomb that is a gasoline tank but a battery with less than 1% of the energy is a problem.
I don't know where you get the emissions info on bio fuel. Of course, it depends on the bio fuel, ethanol definitely creates a lot more emissions than a hybrid burning dino-fuel.
Unfortunately, there really isn't enough arid land in our country to replace our driving miles with bio fuel.
I agree with your complaints about mpg. We're demanding perfectly safe, powerful, low emissions cars which, if you assume an Internal Combustion Engine, can only be acccomplished by increasing the weight and decreasing engine efficiency. Hybrids and electrics have the ability to handle the power and emissions without decreasing the efficiency - not that anyone except Tesla is actually taking advantage of this capability. The battery-electric drivetrain also decreases the penalty for vehicle weight. A Diesel-hybrid, of course, would seem to be nearly ideal to me if one must burn liquid fuel.
Congrats on your bike riding. I wish I had the time and geography to enable riding a bike every day.

Dean,
I suspect you've been influenced by a bogus study titled "'Dust to Dust' Automotive Energy Report" by CNW President Art Spinella almost 2 years ago. It has been discussed here and I've pointed out a few glaring 'issues' here at Hybridcars.com at:
http://www.hybridcars.com/forums/dust-dust-automotive-t1266.html
http://www.hybridcars.com/environment-stories/dust-to-dust-energy-costs....
The main errors in Art's assumptions are
- He assumes very short vehicle life for hybrids compared with his favorite Hummers
- He penalizes Hybrids for their R&D 'costs' and applies them to a small quantity of vehicles delivered. By this alone, hybrids today are twice as 'green' as they were in in 2006 when he collected his data.
- He assumes that hybrids are imported from Japan

You, too are unfairly penalizing hybrid technology for transportation costs when, if our own stupid auto manufacturers ever come out of their caves, should be solved by onshore manufacturing.

Note also that today's batteries do not use toxic materials like the old lead acid and Nickle Cadmium. Also, battery recycling is very good so consumption is reduced.