At this point in the game it may not be a good idea for automakers to spend such time with this concept. I see commercial and heavy duty trucks as the best option for diesel hybrids. With plug-ins and EV’s coming to market competing with hybrid diesel in passenger cars and small SUV’s, it does not make much sense to invest large amounts of money into this technology.

The only way it works is to sell this in a luxury setting. So far Americans like higher MPG’s but it does not result into a “convenience factor” as I like to call it in reducing annoying trips to gas stations as part of a consumers buying habit. This means you pay a premium for higher mpgs beyond conventional mpgs in the market 40-50mpg now but paying for say 80-90mpgs w/o limit that could come from current limitations in battery range of plugins or EV’s.

An example would be a hybrid diesel Jetta with 80-100mpgs sold for 35k but if the Jetta only would get 60mpgs would that really be enough for consumers to pay the additional 10k in cost? Say if a Ford Fiesta would get 40mpgs at half the cost and for 25k you can get a decent Prius hybrid and get 50mpgs a hybrid diesel Jetta does not stack up. The BMW diesel hybrid is a yawn and I doubt any diesel hybrid would be a “game changer” in offering a decent price with double the mpgs most cars have now. That is why it’s time to move on, past this old concept.

And yet, Diesels and hybrids are still way more cost effective than all electric cars.

It is untrue to suggest that a diesel hybrid will cost double as compared to gas hybrid car because of development costs. If you are a conspiracy enthusiast, it might even be fertile ground to think that somthing elese is at play. First, let’s establish a few facts.

First, no new technology needs to be developed to implement hybrid diesels. The controls needed to control a hybrid diesel are not any different than those needed in the gas engine; most are software changes Therefore, the supposed “cost of research” to bring one to market is not that much more significant; at least in the present group of hybrids. It would be easier in the Toyota system verses the Honda system, in that, Honda uses a motor generator attached to the flywheel and the extra torque requirements for the higher compression ratios of a diesel engine to obtain a thousand rpm, instantaneously, would require a larger motor attached to that flywheel. An incrementally larger capacity battery would help, as well.

Next, the use of a lithium ion battery is something that is adding cost to any hybrid. So, to keep costs down, it would be better to keep the Nickel metal hydride battery, in present use, taking advantage of the market’s “economy of scale advantage”, rather than trying switch to lithium ion.

Additionally, manufacturers need to drop the idea of a plug in option for the first diesel hybrid to, again, reduce costs of initial production. The plug in option can be added later.

What we are seeing is not a situation where the technology cannot be economically implemented, but rather, an attempt to not produce an efficient hybrid diesel in a business climate where sales are down, and any new technology or product that has to include a period of time to recoup investment costs (ie plug ins, all-electric increased mileage, lithium ion, cafe standards changes, carbon footprint reductions, etc) will not be green lighted. In a robust environment, these cost increases are taxing. In this anti-business climate, it is much easier to sell the same old stuff rather than invest in the future. And like the rest of us who are tightening our belts and not spending money, car companies are doing their version of belt tightening by carefull spending on new technology, while claiming that it is increased selling price constraints that make these new offerings untenable. In light of the Obama decrees on plug in hybrids, this tact allows the cover needed to reduce new investment while offering the old group of products. This is the same tact taken during the Carter era of the 1980s when pressure to develop reduced emission vehicles resulted in a myriad of small electrical gadgets and tricks to pass stricter standards. while avoiding investments in R&D due to a slow economy.

So, until the captains of business and industry are able to be released from the grip of a totalitarian business climate, forget about any move towards hybrid diesels or any other innovative technology inside the US, but then; the whole “global warming/invironmental movement” was never designed to help the world (now that we have been lied to and that we now know the earth has cooled every year for the last 10 years).

Although the article mentions the Germans developing the hybrid diesels, their prime markets would be in the US, if its economy recovers anytime soon… and the Chevy Volt continues to be “vaporware”.

VW charges about $1,375 for the Diesel option for the Jetta. I would assume that as the engine size grows, the price difference also grows.

I still do not think Diesel plus hybrid is going to happen. It is just not a great mix. I just do not see the Diesel being much if any more efficient in a hybrid.

Makes perfact sense, whats so hard about replacing the gas engine with 30% more effient diesel engine, its a no brainer people, ask yourself who doesnt want the U.S. to have vehicals getting 80-100 mpg?!

Bosch projects diesel engines will derive more benefit from hybridization than gas engines…

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2009/07/bosch-20090701.html#more

Regarding conventional emissions, DPF reduces PM emissions below that of gas engines on both a particle number and mass basis. NOx emissions are only marginally higher and that’s more than offset by lower HC/VOC emissions.

yes, diesel is more expensive in some countries. but this is very often because of the governmental taxes on fuel. if they would support dieselhybrid and diesel engines, they could lower the taxes. in germany diesel is much cheaper than gasoline and we have about 50% new sold diesel cars every year. it all depends on the price for the fuel.

Diesel is noisy and pollutant.

Please be far from this fuel.

@ Shines…

>At what cost is that 1% difference.<

Assuming the cost of the diesel hybrid system is the same as the cost of the gas hybrid system, nothing. That 1% is on top of the 30%-40% difference between equivalent gas and diesel engines in conventional vehicles.

In a vehicle such as the Volt, my understanding is that the engine is not tied into the drive train. (?)

This sounds like a “diesel” locomotive which is really a diesel/electric vehicle. Locomotives use electric motors to drive the wheels, the diesel engine generates the electricity to power the motors.

I don’t see why any EV can’t carry a small high-torque diesel engine with a couple 100 amp alternators to recharge the battery pack. Say when the pack gets to 75% it kicks in and recharges the battery packs at a 200 or more amp rate. How fast is the plug-in amp charge rate on electricity? Does anyone know?

true samie.. but your thinking of now. over time the car would practically pay for it’s self. and specially with a diesel engine that would easily last you over 300k miles. just to put it out there have you guys heard of bloom box? If not look it up at YouTube. Automakers should start using this technology with hybrid vehicles.

The American market is not the Be all and End all of the automotive world. You do not pay anywhere near the European fuel costs for either Petrol (Gas) or Diesel engines. America goes by the Gallon, we however have to go by the litre as if we went by the gallon we may break down on the forecourt.

The 70′s Called… they want their engines back

there is a saying like this hybrid cars will never make it to the market. simply because the people who are making a fortune selling oil are hindering the proecesss. an alternative can really kill their fortune. but they are failing to realize that oil price now are killing our fortune.
hiphone

If they can charge a battery more efficiently, they are Cheaper to make (just ask VW on the price difference between a V6 GAS Jetta and a V4 TDI Diesel Jetta both producing the same power), have less emmissions, can run off 100% natural products (without petroleum additives) without determinmental problems to fuel lines and at only a 5% power loss, they last 10x longer, and the technology is baked through and through, Again we ask,
WHY NOT??

Additional:
Diesel has been around for a REALLY long time. It was presented at a 1950 Auto Convention invented by Mr. Diesel to run on Peanut Oil. All this “Technology” is the Petroleum’s way to making use of this technology into their mainstream Oil supply forcing these engines to run on Petroleum when they were not designed for it.

Facts:
1. Same field of Corn Can Produce 6x the biodiesel than Ethanol, and you Don’t have any reason to mix it with petroluem products, you can put it right into the tank 100% natural and only lose 5% BTU (power output), with Ethanol you lose 25-30% BTU and you have to mix it with Petroleum products at least 50% mixture, 85/15 is what?
2. 1 Liter Engine Diesel Compared to 1 Liter Engine GAS, the Diesel engine can procude 1.2KWH Battery charge more than the GAS in the same interval. That means you are charging your batteries 3 times as fast or roughly 1/3 the amount of Petroluem if you buy Diesel from a Petroleum pump, if it’s a Biodiesel Pump (fuel with 96% Less Heat) you can reconfigure the diesel (back to its original design) to get 2KWH more than a GAS or 4.6 times the charge off the same liter of fuel.

- Diesel has tremendous Torque and can turn BIG gears really easy, This Charges batteries really fast at 1/3 the RPMs (per drop of fuel)
- Where designed to run on 100% PURE Natrual Grown product with little to no power loss, up to 5% power loss when compared to petroleum low sulfur diesel, but with 96% less heat
- Today we generate over 1billion barrels of Ethanol per year, you can take that same amount of corn and make close to 6billion barels of Biodiesel and you dont need to mix it with Petroleum products and your engine runs cooler and more efficiently than with Petroleum at 96% less heat.
- Is a long term, compression based, prelubricated engine that requires 10X less maintenance, and proven to last 10x Longer.
- Diesel engines are much more simple than GAS, the RPMs typically Red Line at 4K requiring less electronics to coordinate efficiency.
- Produce Less Emmisions than GAS engines (the black Smoke is what you see, but it doesnt mean they have more Emmisions, 20XX Diesel engines product zero smoke as 2007 and newer VWs have proven.

Its a given what the choice here is, the hold up can only be one of politics. Its obvious we have the technology to create a Hybrid Diesel that runs on 100% natrual product and it is easy to supply, and easier to make than Ethanol.

Thanks, Mike

I agree and don’t forget the lower maintenance costs for diesel and the longer…much longer…life spans. If you add in the savings from maintenance alone, you probably come out even after 5 years. diesel engines hardly ever die and when they do, they have stupid hours on them…half a million miles +. PLUS, enough torque to pull a wide variety of heavy loads…like the kind being towed by suv’s now.

some guy earlier said here that the concept was old and we should move on. Yeah the concept is old but so is solar power and wind. so what? Its how you USE the concept that is fresh. I can’t wait to see somebody rig something together that makes sense. Someone will because the idea is too good to throw away.

If you consider in-line (as opposed to parallel ) drive trains, Diesel engines can be used simply to recharge the battery, operating at optimal revs. Thus one can suppress clutches, gearboxes differencials and drive shafts.
Those cost money,and add to overall fuel inneficiency, don’t they?
This way I don’t see why a diesel hybrid should be too costly.

Shines, 40% vs 39% is relative, so the diesels consume 1/3 less fuel than gasoline in the example and will burn essentially one third less fuel as a hybrid. So a prius that gets 50 mpgs would get 75mpgs as a diesel

THE DIESEL HYDBRID CAR IS ALLREADY LAUNCHED AND CAN BE BOUGHT (IN 11 EUROPEAN COUNTRIES SO FAR):
http://www.peugeot.com/en/products/cars/3008hybrid4.aspx

Really diesels are not a good hybrid idea??? Why then have trains been diesel electric since WWII???

Some of these nay-saying comments are hilarious. So much expert sounding opinion judiciously pointing out the infeasabilities of combining diesel and electric. Flash forward a couple of years and Volvo and VW both have diesel electrics in the works which will get 130-150 mpg for only few thousand dollars more–the diesel motor can run solo, charge the battery and still get 55mpg. I especially like how one of the comments makes this out to be a Obama (or Carter) problem–he’s so anti-business. Like there was so much innovation under Reagan and the Bushes. Funny how regular gasonline engine efficiency has almost doubled in some cars in the last three or four years. Clinton provided 80mpg offers, but they didn’t come to market. What a surprise. As someone briefly pointed out above: if you look at who stands to lose with the large scale production of highly efficient autos, then its pretty obvious who is standing in the way of improvements. Does one have to buy into conspiracy? Isn’t it obvious that big oil and big auto are heavily interconnected/inter-invested. It would be more surprising if they weren’t, wouldn’t it? To not do so would be foolish on their part. Would you be surprised that movie theater companies are invested in 3d glasses? If auto makers give you a longer lasting engine, who loses? If they give you cars that run on 1/6 the fuel, who loses? How many years have we had to read about the technology Europe uses–that “sadly” won’t make it to our shores. Americans will buy the hell out of Accords and Civics but just won’t buy diesels because they are “too dirty, smelly and noisy” (all factors which had been resolved with clean diesel before any of the above comments had been made) so we have to sit by and read about the Accord wagons in Europe getting 55 mpg with no technical innovation required. Funny how you don’t ever hear about any of this in the mainstream media (or actual numbers on how much oil the mysterious lands of China and India are using–actual charts show that world demand and US demand for petroleum are just about parrallel). I guess with gas at $4.50+ a few years ago and $4+ now the average American wouldn’t have been interested in such facts. I wonder if it has anything to do with the fact that automakers take up a huge proportion of the major networks’ primetime advertising? Why is the dream and many others elusive? Most of the people with the capital to develop these ideas and market infrastructure would be shooting themselves in the foot. Robbing themselves of an easily monopolized resource and source of capital. Wouldn’t it be smarter for them to just sandbag themselves under the guise of American tastes (which they have nothing to do with cultivating, of course) and cost ratios (which never entail details). Quick quiz: if you could go from a 2008 SUV to a 2013 Crossover Diesel/Electric that would save you about $30,000 in the first 10 years would you be willing to pay a $1500 to $4000 more at the outset. Do you really think that people are that stupid? Why do they not want these cars? Because they are being constantly told not to want them. They are being constanly bombarded with misinformation to confuse them, to scare them, to make them doubt, to see it as unmasculine or unpatriotic to have it as good as the European “socialists”. Wake up, or, wake someone else up. It all starts with information.