Diesel vs. Hybrid: A Point Missed
Created February 26, 2005, at 2:32 pm by Anonymous
Ok, everybody knows about the big debate between diesel and hybrid technology. Some may argue that diesel technology is better because it's just as fuel efficient and a cheaper technology to implement. Some may argue that hybrid technology is better because its very fuel efficient, and is much better for the environment.
There are a thousand other arguments, for and against, both technologies.
Here's an argument that I feel might have been overlooked against the diesel camp.
Diesel fuel is one of the simplest of the fuels to refine. Simple = cheap. If we think about this from a financial perspective, OPEC is charging us the same amount of money, no matter whether gasoline, or diesel, or kerosene, or jet fuel, or parts cleaner is made out of it. They don't care what it gets turned into. So wouldn't OPEC be making more money off of diesel fuel than from gasoline?
There are political rammifications there, because some have argued that some of the OPEC countries are funding terrorists in some way, shape, or form. (Even Pres. Bush has been accused of funding terrorism in this respect...Bush is a proponent for "Big Oil," Big Oil is in turn buying oil from OPEC countries, etc, etc.)
I could be wrong, and I'm open to being corrected, but if OPEC is making more profit from diesel fuel than from gasoline, and it's even REMOTELY possible that even ONE of the oil-producing and exporting countries is funding terrorism in ANY kind of way, wouldn't that be reason enough to give up diesel fuel?
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
Diesel is 20-40% more efficient than gasoline per gallon. If every car in America were traded in for a diesel-engine version, we'd cut our oil consumption by at least 40%, if not more thanks to the fact that there's a lot of gasoline engines that don't even get half as much mileage as a good turbodiesel.
Fuels have a limited shelf life, thus since oil is transported by slow barge, it's generally transported as raw crude oil and refined in the country it's sold so it can be quickly distributed while it's still freshly refined. The US imports only a very small percentage of it's gasoline pre-refined; mainly from Japan and Europe. Since diesel is so easy to refine and we'd be using so much less of it, the US has way more than enough refining capacity if all vehicles were converted to diesel.
Further, once all vehicles use diesel fuel, that paves the way to convert to using Biodiesel produced from either corn and/or algae grown in waste water. Biodiesel is far more clean than petro-diesel and every gallon of Biodiesel that we produce domestically means another 1.5 gallons of oil that did not have to be imported from another country.
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?
I bought my HCH in Jan.'04.
The last half of '03 I spent researching, including diesels.
I chose against diesel for these reasons:
1. VW's terrible bad reputation for quality. Consumer reports places it in the top 10 worst.
2. My co-worker has owned his Golf for 2 years minus 3 months...time spent in the shop for various problems (See #1 above).
3. The Jetta I test drove made alot of noise on the freeway and excessively vibrated (in my view) when idling. It even puffed smoke already when I started it.
4. I commute 96miles a day. 13 gas stations I pass and zero sell diesel. I'd have to un-neccessarily exit in my freeway segment to refuel.
5. The inherently dirty diesel engine is cleaned up when new, but after 7-10 years typically blow soot or toxic fumes. There is no comparing the human reaction to diesel fumes vs gasoline or oil fumes.
6. Every year diesel enthusiasts and their MFG's claim a "new", "clean", "long lasting" diesel engine and people continue to buy it. (And the cars). Every year these cars get older and it's the same old thing.
7. Cost if diesel fuel has been 20-35 cents per gallon more expensive than regular unleaded.
I've heard alot of rumours glorifying diesel into an end-all solution to our fuel problem. Along with these falsehoods are claims that diesels typically outlast a gasoline car, claims of cleaness, some say biodiesel is easy to find. Some of the diesel owners I've known have expressed concern at night in a low fuel condition.
My friend with the Golf didn't suggest a diesel but also down-played the gas-hybrid technology too.
I didn't listen and bought an '04 HCH.
I've averaged 61MPG last summer, and this winter is around 58. TDI's are rated low 40's MPG, and hear of a few getting around 50.
HCH's general average, as reported by its owners is about 47, Prius is about 49MPG.
I don't think gas-hybrid cars are the end-all solution but are beating the pants off of diesel in both terms of quality, reliability and economy.
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.
Diesel fuel is made in the US and Europe from imported and domestic oil. Arabs don't directly benefit from people buying diesel, not any more than gasoline. In fact, alot of diesel in the US is made from oil from Canada (Alberta).
Diesel fuel in the US is higher priced becaues of taxes. It actually costs less than gasoline to make because there's alot less refining (alot of gasoline is actually made from naptha using hydrogen unification and chemical processes, or from kerosene and diesel using hydrocracking). The Federal government taxes diesel at a rate about 25 percent higher than gas. Many states also charge 50-100 percent more taxes onto diesel, they also charge truckers a couple thousand in some cases just to drive a truck in that state, then they have weight stations and charge truckers some more. Suppossedly, the extra tax is to pay for roads, but diesel trucks already pay alot of taxes- if you got 5 mpg you'ld be paying alot of taxes too. The money is actually going into general revenues as pork, not into roads. So basicly, the diesel tax in the US is resulting in a price that is distorted vs. the true cost. It's subsidizing gasoline, in effect, because gasoline cars aren't paying their share of road wear and the states pork. Either that, or it's a tax on thermal efficiency- penalize the diesels just because they are more efficient?
It's similar to the California proposal of putting mileage trackers on cars because they don't like people "evading" their share of the state's gas tax by having a hybrid that gets 40 miles per gallon or more, thus spending less on gas.
That's why I'm in a co-op that makes its own biodiesel- I effectively avoid the tax in Florida and get the fuel for about 10 cents less than what regular diesel would cost with taxes. Even if I bought regular diesel, it would still be somewhat cheaper than driving something like a Honda Civic (non-hybrid). And alot cheaper than driving a Ford Focus or a Chevy Cobalt. The car's cost has already paid for itself vs. buying a gasser because I bought it for 2000 dollars below the blue book- but even if I hadn't, it probably would have taken about 2 years for vs. a regular Jetta gasoline engine, maybe longer vs. a Corolla or Civic. The Prius I looked at would never pay for itself (not at 28,000 dollars), and the Honda Civic Hybrid would take about 4-5 years.
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
I was wondering, if diesel and hybrid technology are valuable alone why not combine them. If VW introduced hybrid technology into its diesel cars how much better gas mileage would those cars get? I am not a raging environmentalist but it seems to me that to use less fuel and pollute less is just common sense. Is the technology relatively inexpensive and available to create bio-diesel hybrids? It seems to me fuel cells will be most useful in office and residential situations where a large storage facility and weight will not be a problem. I have seen almost nothing written on combining these two solutions to the problem of reducing fuel usage. Any websights or articles would be appreciated.
A gallon of diesel produces about 10 percent more carbondioxide than gas does. A point not to forget when comparing different technologies.
VW's already developing diesel hybrids. They see it as less important because their regular TDi's already get similar gas mileage to hybrids anyway, and their super mileage TDi's (the Polo and Lupo) get Insight-type gas mileage from a 4-seater, again with no need for hybrid tech.
CO2 is produced in accordance with how much fuel you consume. If you're getting 50mpg with a diesel, you're still only putting out 50% as much CO2 as a gasoline car getting 25mpg, and the same as a hybrid getting 50mpg on gas.
Diesels actually have a big advantage on the CO2 front because a lot of places already sell B20 (20% biodiesel) which means you'll only be putting out 80% as much net CO2. On B100 biodiesel, you're putting out zero net CO2 because it was produced as a lifecycle from plants and organisms that removed CO2 from the air. As the cost of petrolium continues to increase, you'll see more and more biodiesel and in higher concentrations, thus reducing CO2. There's no equivilent fuel substitute for gasoline cars since they can't run more than 10% ethanol without being specifically tuned to run higher concentrations.
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.
And yes, fuel-cell technology is VERY MUCH relevant. Fuel-cell technology is THE VERY REASON that GM has decided not to go headstrong into hybrid technology; they decided that fuel-cell research was a much better investment in the long run. Sucks that they're missing the boat, but in all honesty, I see their point.
Fuel-cells are ALREADY capable of powering cars, buses, what have you. The only problem is the fuel infrastructure. Diesel technology doesn't have QUITE the problem that fuel-cell technology does, but diesel isn't exactly available everywhere. Once fuel delivery/infrastructure problems are solved, I feel that fuel-cell technology will be far superior to both hybrid technology and diesel technology.
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.
"A gallon of diesel produces about 10 percent more carbondioxide than gas does. A point not to forget when comparing different technologies."
This has to do with the higher energy content of the fuel, which is denser (6.6 lbs/gallon vs 6 lbs/gallon).
The important thing though, is that all things being equal (TDI engine for example replacing the 2.0L gas 4-cyl of approximately the same performance), the diesel will carry you about 30-40% farther on a gallon of fuel. Therefore the net CO2 emissions will be lower (comparing gas-gas here, not diesel-hybrid). And I'm being conservative: the base Jetta gas engine is rated at 7.1 liters/100 km (33 mpg) on the highway and the TDI is rated at 4.6 liters/100 km (51 mpg), a 54% improvement. So assuming the diesel fuel in this case produces 10% higher emissions per gallon, you will still reduce emissions by 40% over a gas engine.
You also have to factor in the energy consumption in the refining process to produce the fuel. Diesel requires less energy to produce than gasoline. You would need to factor this in for a gas-hybrid vs diesel comparison.
I find too many people forget to include the entire energy cycle in their calculations.
There are of course situations where a diesel makes more sense: steady-state interstate crusing is the forte of diesels. On the other hand for mostly city driving, hybrids probably do much better than a diesel. Since 95% of my driving is the former, a diesel makes far more sense, economically, for me.
Mike G.
Oops I meant comparing gas-diesel, not diesel-hybrid.
Mike G.
Tim, why do you keep talking about "fuel cel" technology as if it doesn't take an incredible amount of electricity to produce hydrogen? The manufacture of renewable fuels like ethanol and biodiesel uses very little electricity because the overwhelming majority of the energy storage comes from letting plants and algae grow on their own.
Hydrogen can be produced from natural gas, but that's not sustainable because we're going to run out of natural gas one day, just like we'll run out of oil. The only sustainable method of producing hydrogen is with electricity. Since biofuels use very little electricity per BTU of output and hydrogen needs electricity for 100% of it's BTU of output, it's clear to see that there is much MORE of a negative environmental impact to produce hydrogen.
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.
Magnulus:
"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"
If this is true, then why do most diesels begin to develop problems with blowing soot and/or gasses that are toxic and painful to humans after 7-10 years?
The TDI that I test drove in Jan '04 puffed even though it was new. It was also noisy and rough. I hear many diesel drivers admitting their cars puff smoke at times, especially when starting or idling.
I haven't found any comparable statistics to link to about aged diesel car funes but one only needs to observe what is happening on the roads around them.
The human experience with diesel vs gasoline fumes are vastly different.
"VW does not make stripped down cars like Toyota does. "
Prius, even at its base is not a stripped down car.
Additionally, the features are more likely to keep functioning, unlike VW which has a very poor quality track record.
"Some people just are not thrilled by owning a sedan (ie, useless trunk) or a Civic."
Where did that come from?
Civic has been one of Honda's main sellers from the 1970's up to today. Do you mean the Hybrid version? You're also mistaken as most HCH owners are thrilled with thier car.
All this talk about diesel cars being as clean or cleaner as hybrids are just false.
If I were to buy a TDI vs a Prius, the TDI would have pumped almost 22% more Co2 into the air for us to breathe, see my previous post.
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.
Oh, I should add... I don't like sedans or trunks. My Jetta is a wagon version. That's what I meant by not liking sedans. The only thing a trunk is good for is hiding bodies, and I'm not a mobster. Otherwise, the trunk just takes up space and reduces the utility So I looked for a Golf or a wagon. Just because millions of Americans like trunks is not a good reason to have one- millions of Europeans are the exact opposite and preffer hatchbacks, with good reason.
VW had some problems with reliability, mostly with their gas cars being built in Mexico. Problems like the cars burning "excesive" oil or having electrical problems. An electric window failing is in no way comparable to Ford's Focus having catastrophic suspension failure, it's pretty minor, especially if the car is under warranty. All in all, you are going to hear stories of somebody, somewhere having a problem with a car, no matter what model it is. If you are the type that doesn't ever want to have to worry about repairing a car or changing oil, then throwing away or trading in the car when you get bored with it, maybe the Honda or Toyota is a better choice, but as VW used to have in their pitch "Drivers Wanted". I'd much rather have a quirky but fun-to-drive car than a soleless econobox. Civics and Corollas all look the same to me and the suspension and handling are nice and suqishy for the masses (I guess it could be worse, they could have American suspensions like a Ford Taurus, that would really suck).
And I'm sorry but I don't see how a basic Prius is anything but "stripped down". The sound system in the basic Prius is meager, and the car lacks side airbags, which I believe should not be an option, they should be standard, as they are relatively inexpensive (they only cost about 200 dollars for the carmaker). And the salesmen at the local dealers were mostly all pushy- they were trying to sell me cars I really didn't want, instead of ordering me the car I did want.
"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.)
But did Consumer Reports bother to rank the problems by the cost to consumers to fix? VW might have more short-term reliability problems than other carmakers, but OTOH it could also very well have better long-term reliability. VW is one of the biggest sellers in Europe, and they also own the Audi, Skoda, and Seat brands. If they were so bad, people over there would not buy them at all. They do after all have Hondas and Toyotas in Europe (and they have a reputation for reliability there, although they are more expensive and harder to get parts for).
The only "problem" I had so far was when I had a bad tank of fuel in slightly cool weather (about 55 degrees)- I had bought some "premium" fuel from a station that, in retrospect, didn't have alot of traffic and the fuel may have had some water (I am also a bit suspicious of the fuel filter- it looks like it was changed at 20,000 miles though, but I have been thinking of putting a new one in). The glowplug light and emisions light came on, and the car smoked at startup and stalled with any acceleration until the engine got warm. I had to warm up the engine a bit for a week, then I filled up with the usual brand of diesel (just cheap diesel), and the car has run fine for a month or so. It might be due to a slightly retarded timing- in which case I could take the car to a friend and have him hook it up to his computer and have a look at it, but its been running fine so far and getting 34-42 mpg in urban driving.
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.
One factor on ageing diesels that smoke that is overlooked. The present generation diesels like the TDIs from VW or the common-rail diesels from Mercedes, use electronic controls to precisely meter fuel, and have extremely high injection pressures. The older diesels like older Volvos and VWs, had purely mechanical engine controls and lower injection pressures; they seem to be much more sensitive to poor maintenance and ageing. With the TDI the fuel metering is always right for the conditions.
Here in Montreal there are tons of VW diesels on the road, arguably more here than in any N. American city. The older IDI (indirect-injection diesels) that I see indeed belch smoke. You rarely see TDIs that belch clouds of black smoke unless someone has modified the ECU for more power. I have a diesel Kubota garden tractor (18 hp 3-cyl) that makes way more smoke than either of our TDIs!
Mike G.
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.
The reason an old gas car spews smoke is because the catalytic converter is dying. This happens when the car gets old and starts burning oil. Then catalytic converter gets clogged with the oil and it stops working, and you get lots of emissions and burning oil in the tailpipe.
A diesel is not going to have this happen, it will age more gracefully due to the long life of the engine, it usually uses a synthetic oil that doesn't burn as much, and more of the emission control are within the engine electronics- my 2003 Jetta TDI's cat only reduces the carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons a little, NOx and particulates are controlled by injection timing. These engines are cleaner than any gasoline engine from the 80's, and they don't even have true catalytic converters like gas cars have had for years.
If you see a diesel car smoking heavily, odds are the injection timing is retarded or it is simply running low grade fuel- there are alot of reasons but its usually not due to aging. Only the worst diesels are going to be spewing smoke, and you will probably find as many gas cars doing the same. A big truck will always have some smoke comming out of it becaues its working harder than the average car. You can't make a gas engine, hybrid or otherwise, work as hard as a big diesel truck and have it be low emissions.
That's the one thing environmentalists miss. You can't have a store full of goodies and not have a truck out somewhere hauling the goods to the store that's also spewing out smoke that they won't like. So if you don't like diesel engines, avoid buying anything from a store and grow all your own food. It's the dirty underbelly of society that maybe some people don't want to acknowledge. It's just like trash collectors or janitors- not a pretty job necessarily but somebody has to do it.
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.
How new are we talking for the diesel engine? My 2003 TDI does have a manual adjustment for the timing at idle- the ECU just adjusts the timing from there depending on what the engine is doing (so, I believe advancing the idle also advances everything else relatively). The 2004-2005 PD's are 100 percent electronic control.
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 wonder why the Europeans buy so many of them then ? They have bought so many there is a gasoline glut there. I just spent two weeks in France and did not notice any offensive smells from the traffic other than the two stroke scooters.
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.
In the UK diesel fuel actually costs slightly more than gasoline, yet about 15 percent of all cars in the UK are diesel. That's 15 times higher than in the US, and the numbers are growing quickly. When you are paying 4-5 dollars for a gallon of gas, and all you have as entry level options are anemic gas 50-80 hp engines, you'ld want a diesel too, even if it costs a little more.
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.
Here's a good "What if" for you guys.
What if half of the country decided to jump headlong into the diesel fuel camp. The other half decided to jump headlong into the hybrid camp.
Which side would YOU want to live in?
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.
Hello,
As an American living in Europe, I can tell my fellow Americans, you are really missing some nice motors.
For whatever reason, most Americans won't buy a diesel, too bad for you.
I drive a four year old 530d, powerful, fast, luxurious, quiet and fuel efficient. We completed a nice weekend trip today, covering 350 miles. I averaged 48.7 mpg at 75 mph with the airconditioning on.
In The USA, you will never have the pleasure, instead, rattle around in you Chevy whatever, or cram into you Honda Civic and hope you don't get crushed by the next drunken redneck pickup truck driver.
Also, as Americans, your only real choice over weak hybrids is a VW. The rest of the world can buy performance diesels like the bmw 535d with 0-60 in the 6 second range or extroadinary fuel economy in something like an Audi A2 with a real possibility of 70 mpg in the real world.
Last words: FORGET FUEL CELLS. The are not relevant period. Chevy may not survive this foly.
There are 10-20 good reasons to jail the fools who spend your research tax dollars on this rediculous pie-in-the-sky crap. A few are; The technology is 20 to 50 away from commercial viability and we need a solution NOW. It took 100 years to get the current delivery system in place for Petrol, imagine what it will take to do the same for Hydrogen Fuel cells. Some fuel cell technologies actually use gas to produce electricity, what the hell is the advantage!? The lost goes on and on, believe me.
The short term answer is easy but it will pobably take the Japanese or Germans to get it right (sorry America, youdon't stand a chance).
Build a quality car (not Ford/Chevy) with a small and efficient diesel that drives a generator. The three cylinder Audi A2 is a good candidate as it is teh most fuel efficient internal combustion engine commercially available. Drive the car with a 35 hp (peak 150 hp) electric motor and use Ultra capacitors, not batteries for power storage. Build in a range of 50 miles on batteries alone.
Here's how it would work: The average driver travels less than 30 miles a day. After a day of driving simply pull into your garage/driveway on top of the induction coil in the ground, Your Capacitor pack will recharge in about 30 minutes, but this doesn't matter because you won't need the car until the next morning anyway. Do you understand the ramifications of this so far? You may never have to go to the gas station Again! No gas on your hands, no surly station attendants, no charging your credit card, ever again!?
Well. probably not ever again. On weekends you may take a long journey. How do you do this with a 50 mile capacitor pack range? IN comes the three cylinder Audi diesel to charge the capacitors. After 50 miles or so, you may detect a very, very low humm. that is the Diesel genset running. Now you fill up on diesel every 900 miles or so.
Also, if any of you know anything about electric motors you will know that a car driven by 150 hp motor will perform WAY better than a comparable car with 200 hp gas motor.
This is all "off the shelf" technology, we just need someone with deep enough pockets to get smart and it aint going to be GM.
Sorry folks, but forget your Prius and Civic hybrids, they are just weak gas cars boosted by electric motors. We need electric cars with range, as I described above.
Best regards,
David
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.
Some news from across the pond
In the UK Petrol (gas) is on average £0.92 per litre, by my calculation that is about $7.50 per gallon. diesel is about the same price. My french friend tells me that petrol (gas) costs 1.05 Euros per litre, about $6 per gallon.
3 years ago 12% of new car sales in the UK were diesel, in 2004 32% of the market was diesel. In the UK diesel cars are gaining respect as a true petrol alternative, with equivalent performance and much better fuel economy. In france (i am informed) that more than 50% of the market is diesel.
Over here hybrids are a very rare sight, a recent review commented that whilst the economy in town was very good, on the open road cruising at 75mph economy was very poor, and a hybrid would only make sence for people who do not venture outside of the city.
... just as information!
"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.
Diesel vs Hybrid could be Diesel+Hybrid
their is no good reason that diesel hybrids could not be produced! One could reap all of the benefits of both technologies.
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.
On September 13, 2005 Burke Oil of Chelsea, MA sold Biodiesel (B5) for $2.799 vs. Diesel #1 at $2.899 per gallon. Hudson Valley Biodiesel Coop sells Homebrew Biodiesel for $1 to $2 per gallon. See BiodieselStation.ORG
"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!
Even if you don't run a hybrid, and are running a diesel, it will make a collosal difference to your fuel consumption and, by association, your fuel imports. Changing to the SEAT Arosa 1.4 diesel, and driving at 55-60 mph, will allow the fuel consumption to improve to 75-80 mpg (UK), close to 67 mpg (US). If the US did it, you would control the oil price...yes, you would control the oil price, just by using less.
Don't worry too much about imports, use less and you will have to import so little, it will not bother you.
Will it happen? Eventually, I think.
I look forward to it.
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.
I read that in PA there is a company that turn coal waste into diesel fuel. if this true then diesel cars would be way better than hybrid cars. I drive a diesel myself did not want wait for the hybrid. It would have been at least 6 month. my ford had over 100k on it need a new car. love my 2004 vw jetta tdi. I am getting 44mpg!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
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.
Bjorn, a Mercedes-Benz diesel that doesn't leave a trail of smoke and have the bumper and trunk lid all covered with soot? And it's a rocket too? Yow! {grin}
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
...forgot to mention E-class MB
the diesel is almost 1/2 second faster 0-60 (6.3 seconds)
than the gasoline E-class...yes it is a rocket...
"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
E-class MB
the diesel is almost 1/2 second faster 0-60 (6.3 seconds)
than the gasoline E-class
While the Accord Hybrid isn't a Mercedes, Accords do last longer on average and get around 6.5s, and most people seem to be averaging around 30MPG:
http://autos.msn.com/research/vip/jedlicka.aspx?year=2005&make=Honda&model=Accord%20Hybrid
http://www.greenhybrid.com/compare/mileage/honda-accord.html
http://www.autotrader.com
Lexus Hybrid Sedan comes just under 6 seconds and gets about the same MPG as the E-class MB diesel:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7293213/from/RL.5/
Just more choices...
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.
Steve - in regards to VW's quality/reliability problems - in all the research I've done, these problems are mostly related to VW’s gasoline cars, not their diesel TDI cars. And when it is the diesel car, it’s something minor, and not the engine. Do you have any links to pages about problems with the TDIs?
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!!!
Reconstructed link from above post
Err, this one should work...Reconstructed again!
You got it!
Interesting isn't it?
If you do a sort by manufacturer of vehicles getting 45 mpg or better, you' find about 70% are names available in the USA and I think more than 75% are diesels.
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.
Steve,
Thanks for posting the links.
As you know, they're for 2002 Jettas. From what I've read, VW has much improved on their quality since 2002. One blogger noted on how unsafe his car was. I’m not sure how the new Jetta fares against the older models, but the new Passat is rated as one of the safest models currently available (though the TDI version isn't available in the US yet). I'm not saying not to be wary, but I am saying that a lot of the bad stigma against VW isn't necessarily true anymore.
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.
Yes, you're right there are diesel cars that last and last. But the numbers of Gasoline cars that last much longer are drastically higher.
What I'm talking here are averages...not single car instances. I once worked with someone with a Corolla with +450K miles on it.
I think used car listings are a good source and indication of automobile life expectancy and here is a popular publication of all models across the board:
www.autotrader.com
What I like about that paticular site is that you can filter the used car section for highest miles vehicles first.
The numbers speak for themselves.
The used car listings aren't a valid statistical method to gain data on diesel longevity. First of all, VW diesels weren't sold in the US from 1992-1996; that limits the sample size of diesels that have really high mileage: to have 500k miles, a '96 Passat TDI (the only VW diesel available in the US that year) would have to have been driven 50k miles per year since new. I would be prepared to venture an educated guess that very few cars have done that. The earlier diesels would probably not figure highly either, simply due to old age. Especially in the northeast rust belt, a pre-90 car no matter the mileage is likely to be a rustbucket.
Secondly the statistical sample sizes for diesel vs. gasoline are hugely different (at least for cars); in the US, diesels are an insignificant part of the market: approx. 5% of VW's sales. In Canada the market is slightly larger; 40-50% of VW sales, but that's still very small compared to the gas market.
Thirdly, because of their longevity, many people actually keep their diesels until they're junk, rather than trade them in. Their excellent fuel economy also makes them quite scarce on the used market. In Canada it's not unusual for a used TDI to scoot off the lot the same day it's put up for sale.
To be valid you would have to look at what percentage of diesels, vs. gas, make it past 100k, 200k, 300k, 400k, etc.
It might be helpful to look at Canadian used vehicle sites. Unlike the US, VW sold diesels continuously in Canada since the first Rabbit diesel. It's not unusual for a mid-90's diesel with 300,000 km to sell for about $5000 CDN up here, if the body is still solid.
"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.
Have you normalized your statistics as a percentage of diesel vs. gas market share for the model year of the cars you're considering?
You can't rely on raw numbers if you're comparing a product that has, at best, a 5% market share with one that has a 95% market share. Another flaw in your study is that you are assuming that the engine is the reason for the car's ultimate failure; in Canada it's usually the body/chassis, due to corrosion damage (salt on the roads) and in the US there could be other reasons.
I looked at the Canadian Autrader site and limited my search to Quebec, the diesel car capital of Canada; I filtered out Hondas and VW diesels asking for those with 200,000 km or more, and then I looked to see how many in that batch had 300,000 or more. I found that 7% of the Hondas (all models) I pulled up had more than 300k (6 of 82 listings), but 14% of the VW diesels with the same filter criteria had 300k or more (3 of 21 listings). Roughly speaking, 82 listings for Honda and 21 for VW (diesels only) would be representative of their respective market shares. But I admit the sample size is very small.
Overall, for Hondas of all makes I pulled up 82 listings with over 200k, for VW, 60 listings of all models (gas and diesel) of which only 1 gas model made it over 300k. One can say that the longevity rate of VW vs Honda is about the same (7% of my sample being over 300k), but that the VW longevity is significantly boosted by the diesels (3 of the 4 listings with over 300k were diesels).
Nationwide, 17.6% of the diesels with over 200,000 had over 300,000.
One should probably look into the European situation where the greater sample size would be helpful. You will find very few non-diesel taxis in Europe, which is telling.
Finally, much of the US sample would probably distorted by the notorious GM diesels of the late 70s/early 80s, where GM attempted to stick a diesel head on a gasoline block with disastrous results (and in fact largely contributed to the loss of diesel's appeal in the US).
I would say that the Canadian results, in spite of rust tending to be the limiting factor in car life, indeed points to the diesels being better for longevity, at least from the small sampling I took.
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.
The U.S. Census shows the average miles/year driven for U.S. drivers are about 10-11K miles.
http://www.census.gov/statab/www/
Here is a link a print of the statistics:
http://www.greenhybrid.com/share/files/2/2/2/1/annualmilesdriven_721949.png
How long should the average car last for these statistics?
500,000 miles= 50 years
400,000 miles= 40 years
300,000 miles= 30 years
200,000 miles= 20 years
It makes no difference how many cars are sold regarding one vs another in this equasion.
If a car lasts 200K miles on average, there would be a majority of 1986 models out on the road today.
If diesels last 500K on average then most of them produced back to 1956 would still be driven.
(I guess thee diesels are all coveted artifacts preserved in private garages?)
No links?
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.
Body wear, tear & corrosion-
If the engines were still good & strong at +100K miles there should be a market for those hundreds of thousands of un-rebuilt engines after the bodies have fallen away.
There is no such market for an unrebuilt high mileage diesel engine.
Why? People don't want to buy a worn out engine.
Here in the Southern U.S. very little salt is seldom used, and bodies do indeed last +50 years. But the engines and drive trains do not.
Diesel is no exception.
Can anyone provide a link to a business that sells unrebuilt high mileage used diesel engines?
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?
"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?"
Links?
Without any research it is all hearsay.
All my research points otherwise and I provide links.
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.
The main reason why diesel engines last twice as
long on average as the average gasoline engine
is the fact that diesels does not pollute the engine
oil with unburned fuel while warming up. It does
not run "rich" until reaching operating temperature
and no unburned fuel pass between the piston and
cylinder wall.
However on a gasoline engine the ECU adds extra
gas so the engine does not stall while warming up.
Some of the gasoline condenses on the colder than
normal cylinder wall and ends up in the oil causing
wear and tear. The quicker the engine warms up the less wear. This is a reason why cars should
be allowed to warm up idling. It takes longer to
reach operating temperature than when driving
(engine at higher rpm). A few cars on the market
has direct injection gasoline engines and that
alliviate most of the problem with cold starts.
On these cars and on diesels one can drive much further between oil changes due to much less unburned fuel getting into the oil.
above should read "cars should NOT be allowed to
warm up by idling"
I bought a 1996 Passat diesel new. It has 260,000 miles on it. I think that's around 400,000 kilometers. I must say that when the car had a little over 100,000, I switched all my cars from regular to synthetic oil, 5-30w, year round.
The engine has had two major (at least I call them major) repairs; the intake manifold had to be removed and cleaned.
Once for $150, and a second time for $250.
How does the car run? It gets 45 mpg at 80 mph. It burns about a quart of oil in 5,000 miles. I change oil at seven to ten thousand miles or when I get around to it.
Starting the car. At thanksgiviing, I told my sons I was going to try an experiment. The temp was to drop well below freezing. I'd park the car outdoors with no block heater or any type of heater. In the morning, I'd see if it would start.
Well, I turned the key and waited for the glow plug light to go out. It took 25-30 secs. I turned the key and it gave
an angry groan for a second or so. I turned the key for a second shot. This time it took about 15 seconds for the glow plug light to go out. A second try and it was turning over but ever so painfully. A third try and the engine issued
the familiar sound, BANGIDDY! GIDDDYBANGIDDY KABOOMBIDDY, kaboom, bing, RRRRRRRRrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.
Ran like a charm.
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?
Bjorn and Bill, where do you guys live?
If you're in Europe that might explain the taxicab comment and perhaps the diesels there are very different from the States.
I have some friends in Asia and they prefer diesels there also. But it isn't for the vehicles, it's because gasoline is allot more expensive.
Here in the States hybrid cars hold their appreciation better.
Refer to Kelly BlueBook, http://www.kbb.com/ (the leading car price reference here in the States and is used by banks and automotive dealers:
It shows my 2004 HCH in excellent condition and driven 60K miles has lost $2,000 since new:
18,500
16,000
2,000
I also researched the Jetta GL 9.1 TDI Sedan 4D under identical criteria and it lost more than twice the amount at $4,500:
19,000
14,500
4,500
>>>> I wonder why I am the only one posting reference links? <<<<
It seems verifiable references aren't necessary when discussing diesel autos.
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!
Steve,
Have you seen these references?
http://www.dieselforecast.com/ArticleDetails.php?articleID=245
http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/basics/2004-10-08-mym-autos_x.htm