Hybrid vs. Diesel Debate

Hi,
These posts are very interesting. I drive a Nissan Maxima SE 2003 6sp 255hp and get 22.8Mpg on mostly city driving and shifting gears at 2,000 Rpm except for a few burst of energy where I redline it. I thought that diesels were slow which most are. In June 2005 I went to moroso drag strip in West Palm Beach Florida. My best quarter mile with 28k miles and worn tires to the point of bald was 15.2 93 mph. That same night there was a Ford F250 or F350 diesel truck with lift kit and it looked really big on the drag strip. The truck ran 14.3 now can somebody tell me how that is possible. I personally could not believe what I was seeing. That truck ran faster than the Lighting version of their truck. I don't know where that came from because the stock truck is supposed to be a 0-60 around 10 seconds. My question is can they make the VW Golf, Jetta and Passat diesel run that fast?

"My question is can they make the VW Golf, Jetta and Passat diesel run that fast? "

Yes.

There are European versions of VWs that run sub-10 second 0-60s. A Passat TDI (N. America spec) is about 10 seconds to 60 mph. That may seem "slow" but the real world isn't about 0-60 mph and 1/4 mile runs.

A Passat TDI is 134 hp but pumps out 247 ft-lb of torque, which starts at 1900 rpm and lasts up to about 3000 rpm. Well, isn't that just where most cars run in the real world? Mid-range passing power is where this car really shines. It's a superb highway car. The torque also means it just marches up hills without a downshift.

Even our 100 hp Jetta wagon holds its own. Torque is 177 ft-lb, in the same rpm range as our Passat. It's actually more peak torque than a 1.8T (though the 1.8T holds onto it longer).

These cars do not feel "slow" in real-world driving, if you learn how to drive them (i.e. use shift-points optimized for the torque and not the hp. characteristics of the cars).

You can also chip these things to get close to 300 ft-lb (Passat). Euro versions of the TDI are up to 170 hp for a 2-liter 4-cyl! The V10 TDI is over 300 hp and 500 ft-lb of torque!

Oh, and the Merceds CDI diesel, available in the E320, does sub-7 seconds 0-60. Forget the HP and torque numbers but they're around 200/300, and the thing is allegedly FASTER than the gasoline model. It is available in N. America.

Yet our Passat can deliver a consistent 5.7 l/100 km at "normal" highway speeds. I can get 6.5 l/100 km cruising at 130 km/h. For performance AND economy, modern diesels have a lot going for them.

Metric conversions:

5.7 l/100 km = 42 mpg US/50 mpg imperial
6.5 l/100 km = 36 mpg US/44 mpg imperial

My lifetime average fuel economy in the Passat, in close to 40,000 miles of driving, has been 36 mpg without paying too much attention to maximizing fuel economy.

There sure are alot of choices out there.

Passat TDI 134HP 247ft-lb.
Autobytel tested the 2006 model:
http://www.autobytel.com/content/sha...cle_id_int/758

They measured 0-60 in 7.4 seconds with a MT. They averaged only 23MPG in their mostly highway driving while most people over at Edmunds report an average of the low 30'sMPG.

Accord Hybrid is rated 240hp and 212ft-lb. Most people get about the same MPG as the Passat. 0-60 is about 7.5 seconds with the AT.

HCH is rated 110hp and 123ft-lb. Most people get upper 40's to mid 50's MPG in the AT. 0-60 is about 11 seconds.
Personally I drive more carefully in regards to efficiency and last summer averaged around 65MPG in my '04 HCH. My longest tank was 68.9MPG and 941 miles. The recent cold has dropped it to around 60.

I can lock in cruise control at 70 and get around 47MPG, locked in at 65 around 50 and locked at 60 gets around 55MPG.

How about Prius?
143hp, 377ft lb. Most folks get about 50MPG.
0-60 is about 10 seconds with its AT.

For me, If speed were more important than economy I'd choose the Honda Accord Hybrid. 0-60 is about the same Passat TDI and you get a much nicer car with Honda's well known craftsmanship and reliability and the fuel is cheaper.

>Passat TDI 134HP 247ft-lb.
>Autobytel tested the 2006 model:
>http://www.autobytel.com/content/shared/articles/t...

Um, unless I mis-read that article, they didn't test the TDI version (which isn't avaiable in the US right now), but the 2.0T version, which I believe is a regular gasoline engine. So the mpg rating you're comparing isn't for the TDI deisel engine.

That's correct, the 2006 model is not available with a TDI engine.

My numbers are for a 2005 TDI, and represent real-world driving conditions over 60,000 km of driving, including Canadian winters and summers.

Our Jetta wagon does even better, and can turn sub-5 liters/100 km results if driven at the speed limit (about 48 mpg). However, it has a manual gearbox and I'm lazy, I prefer to drive our automatic Passat in heavy stop-and-go traffic.

"For me, If speed were more important than economy I'd choose the Honda Accord Hybrid. 0-60 is about the same Passat TDI and you get a much nicer car with Honda's well known craftsmanship and reliability and the fuel is cheaper."

I have owned both Honda Accords (previous generation V6 and 4-cyl). I have also extensively test driven the current generation. There is no dispute that it is a fine car. Whether it is a "nicer" car than the Passat is somewhat in the eye of the beholder (the new 2006 Passat is a gorgeous car, BTW, but it isn't available as a TDI over here yet).

Whether it is a *better* car is another matter. The First of all, though average reliability numbers are no doubt better on the Accord, the Passat is VW's most reliable model in N. America. Moreover Hondas are not completely trouble free. They're well known to have serious problems with automatic transmissions for example; my last Accord, a 2002, required two returns to the dealer for minor problems (disc brake backing plate rubbint against wheel; replace seat track, hard starting in very cold weather). My Passat, in 60,000 km of driving has had exactly 0 problems and 0 need for a return to the dealer other than normal service intervals every 16,000 km.

When it comes to driving dynamics though, the Accord simply isn't in the same league. The Accord is very nice in typical N. American, 70 mph driving. The Passat is rock stable and is capable, in true German fashion, of safely sustaining very high cruise speeds, and at 100 mph it feels rock solid and secure. The N. American Accords, while firmer than a Toyota Camry, are too soft for that kind of driving.

According to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, the Passat has the third lowest overall death rate after the Mercedes E-class and Toyota Highlander. It is the safest in its category, with the Honda Accord ranked in 6th place in the same category, just behind the Hyundai Sonata. The death-rate in the Accord is approx. 3 times higher than the Passat.

In terms of features, the Passat has the Accord beat hands-down. They're too numerous to list here.

My own tastes lean towards European driving characteristics; for that I am well-served by the Passat.

The Accord is certainly a fine car. To say it is "nicer" is in the eye of the beholder; the styling of the Accord is more "luxurious", whereas the Passat has typically severe German styling (though the new 2006 is a radical departure from this). It certainly has numerous advantages over an Accord that make it a fine choice as well (and recommended by Consumer Reports), not the least of which was, with the last version, the TDI engine.

While "The eye of the beholder" is true regarding whether someone prefers green over blue, market share is a great indicator of general indicators of value...the Passat is among the bottom while Accord sails along the top.

It's unfortunate that your 2002 Accord had a couple of minor problems and your certainly correct that no MFG's are trouble-free....
But anyone can do a google search on reliability and quality to find the scales severely tilted against VW.

Crash rating-
I searched for the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety but couldn't find a link rating specific auto fatalities. Could you post a link to that info?
I found other sites with crash ratings and both cars fared about the same-excellent safe vehicles.

Features-
You mentioned the Passat's features and advantages over the Accord (Hybrid) is "Too numerous to list".
Can you suggest some of those which are most important to you?

You mentioned that Consumer Reports rates the Passat over the Accord.
Can you post a link for that?

Motor trend choose the 2006 Honda Civic, not Passat for car of the year:
http://www.motortrend.com/features/n...r_of_the_year/

They looked for
"Mastery and innovation in engineering, technology, design, safety and packaging, class-leading levels of performance, style and functionality"

It went to Honda, not VW, even though the Passat was included in their tests.

"It's unfortunate that your 2002 Accord had a couple of minor problems and your certainly correct that no MFG's are trouble-free....
But anyone can do a google search on reliability and quality to find the scales severely tilted against VW. "

I agree in general with your assesment of VW overall but the Passat has consitently been their highest performer. And certainly if you rate troubles, although it is anecdotal as evidence, my Passat has had exactly 0, my last Accord 3 or 4 (albeit minor).

"Crash rating-
I searched for the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety but couldn't find a link rating specific auto fatalities. Could you post a link to that info?
I found other sites with crash ratings and both cars fared about the same-excellent safe vehicles. "

Here is the link:

http://www.hwysafety.org/news/2005/iihs_sr_031505.pdf

"Features-
You mentioned the Passat's features and advantages over the Accord (Hybrid) is "Too numerous to list".
Can you suggest some of those which are most important to you?"

Here are a few: one-touch up AND down for both front windows; electronic stability control (not just traction control; the new Accord may have this, but with VW, it is available even on the cheapest Golf sold in Canada, the CL); ability to close sunroof and windows with key; trip computer (I imagine the hybrid would have this though); standard fog lights (a must in my climate); a better suspension for high-speed driving; front, side and side curtain airbags; the last Accord I had required a prop rod to hold the hood open, and the Passat has a gas strut (even our Jetta); the car comes equipped with a full-size spare tire instead of a ridiculous donut spare; firmer steering; air conditioned glove box (great for keeping drinks or your sandwich for lunch cold); split fold down rear seats (my last Accord would only fold down in one piece).

"You mentioned that Consumer Reports rates the Passat over the Accord.
Can you post a link for that? "

That's not exactly what I said: I said it rates the 2005 Passat as "recommended". It gives the same rating to the Accord.

"Motor trend choose the 2006 Honda Civic, not Passat for car of the year:
http://www.motortrend.com/features/news/112_news05... "

I have discontinued reading car magazines, I find they are pointless from a consumer standpoint and instead are basically paper showrooms for car manufacturers. Motor Trend has also picked some real dogs as "car of the year". The Chevrolet Vega comes to mind.

"They looked for
"Mastery and innovation in engineering, technology, design, safety and packaging, class-leading levels of performance, style and functionality" "

I won't buy a car with a digital speedometer. Hate them. But that's just me, I'm old fashioned :-)

The future of automotive probably is in diesel hybrid as best combination of efficiency and power management.
Right now the best design are diesel engine with electric generator and direct electric drive (as some body mention before - no transmission , no differential ..that take up to 50% of required energy). That idea is already implemented in e-traction bus (http://www.e-traction.com/). This bus getting like 18 MPG on highway and 15MPG in city!!!
Passenger car is at list 4-5 time lighter so You can imagine what millage You could get.
It is good to mention that best hybrid buses in US do not making more then 5-6 MPG in city and cost 2x what the e-traction will($300 000 vs. 600 000).
The question is what next:
I think that all cars will have 4 wheel direct electric drive (on each wheel own motor), and instead of bank of batteries... high capacitance capacitor. I see that there are in production some models already. The advantage of using capacitor is weight (much lighter), quick charge & discharge. Disadvantage: relatively short time of energy storage.
I so on the net that there is capacitor that can store like 30kw and it is not bigger then standard car batteries.
What is surprising that that direct electric 4 wheel drive will not use more fuel .. probably less as oppose to conventional car with 4 wheel drive

It sure nice to see all the attention about trying to reduce the usage of fossil fuels. It is my opinion that each gallon of gas or diesel purchased just buys another bullet for a terrorist. The hybrid car is a wonderful idea if proven to be as economically as advertised. It’s been my experience; batteries don’t last forever and have to be replaced. What’s the cost of replacement? What’s the trade-in value of a hybrid car after several years, knowing the batteries have to be replaced? Who will buy a used older hybrid car, once the battery lifetime is known?

Last week the Japanese un-veiled a beauty of an electric car will go over 300 KPH but it has 8 wheels instead of the regular 4 wheels. I guess the extra wheels are to support the weight of the batteries. With no surprise the batteries cost $200,000. Doing some quick math, the $200,000 would buy 40,000 gallons of gas, ($5.00 per gallon Canadian prices). Any car getting 20 MPG would go 800,000 miles for the same money.

For my money the CAFEC (compressed air, fuel, external combustion) Engine running on propane is a far better approach to less fuel cost and reduced emissions. Visit http://www.cafecengine.com for a better opinion.

Hello oldsub!
Please let me answer a few of your questions:
>>>>>Batteries-
Car MFG's have a very nice battery warranty, mine is extended to 150K miles or 10 years. I hope to drive mine in excess of 150K miles and if the battery does need replacing...at say....200K miles I'd probably get a good used one with warranty. If the car is still top-notch shape I might spring for a new one. There was an Insight at Insight Central that had a new one replaced in 2004, Honda charged $2,400.
A different guy had a used one put in from a wrecked vehicle for considerably less.

Another choice of mine is to just simply drive the car with a nearly flat battery, however the performance won't be as good.

>>>>>>Trade in-resale value:
Probably the best comparason apple to apple is the Civic Hybrid vs Civic EX with similar options. I drive an '04 model in excellent shape with 56K miles.
According to Kelly Blue Book my HCH has lost about $1K off MSRP while the Civic EX has lost almost $4K.

I haven't checked the others like Escape Hybrid vs non-hybrid Escape but I assume it is the same.

>>>>>>Other electric models, here's one:
http://www.jalopnik.com/cars/alterna...eek-022699.php

The Fetish has a 200 Mile range, 0-60 in 5 seconds and costs only $660,000.
How much gas could $660,000 buy?
When we talk of these expensive, exotic vehices I don't think gas savings are an issue to their owners.

Most folks are avaraging 47-48 MPG in their HCH or Prius
www.greenhybrid.com has a database with over three million miles logged with these cars.
Regarding Civic, this is 12-15MPG more than what people are reporting from the regular Civics.
I personally stretch it to the limit and averaged over 65MPG last summer, and just over 60 this winter.
I've gotten almost 70MPG and 941 miles to a tank in my Civic Hybrid, which one would never see in the regular version.

I'm all for alternative means of transportation and is a big reason I bought my hybrid car.
I'll be in the car market again in about 6 years and if they make a reliable all EV with good battery warrany that gets 200 minimum mile range that plugs into my house.......and at a reasonable price....Surely I'll buy it.

I would like to throw something into this discussion.

According to DOE, http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/byMPG.htm, on 12/22/05 there are only 4 vehicles available in the US that achieve combined average city/highway of 40 mpg or better. And, it has been reported that 2006 may be the last year for the 2 Honda Insights. Note that none of these vehicles are built in the US.



There are 57 vehicles available outside the US that achieve 45mpg(US), or better, combined average city/highway. Of these 57 vehicles, 15 (26%) are by DaimlerChrysler, Ford, GM, and Toyota. VW has 10 (17%). This data is available at http://www.40mpg.org/pdfs/120105_CSI...icle_chart.xls



What is wrong with this picture????!!!



The absence of this class of vehicle is dragging down the Auto Industry, MPG, Consumer, Environment, Economy, and National Security. At the same time, it is driving up all Fuel Prices.



The following questions arises! Are either the Federal Legislative or Executive branches aware? If yes, do they care?



It is my opinion that there is no rational reason these vehicles should not be built (or imported) to be sold in the US.



These top 57 vehicles should already meet safety and emissions standards of either Europe or Japan. EU emissions are currently at Euro step IV.



Proposal



Congress should pass emergency legislation to waive, for only 24 months, import restrictions on gas and diesel light vehicles that meet EU and Japanese emission and safety standards AND get 45 mpg(US), or more, combined average city/highway. These vehicles should be grandfathered upon import.



I estimate that for each of these high mpg vehicle put on the road, there will be about a 2 gallon/day fuel savings.



My intention is to stimulate discussion and hopefully some degree of rational problem solving since the government, industry, and/or the financial communities haven't adequately addressed/resolved these issues.



It is further hoped that you will find the concepts and strategies of sufficient value to share them with your peers, other media, government, and industry contacts.


References:

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

"Over 35 mpg not in US - http://www.40mpg.org/pdfs/120105_CSI...icle_chart.xls

One of the most obvious reasons why the US is so short-sighted when it comes to developing a high fuel-efficient vehicle is simple- the US makes more money on the sale of fossil fuels than the actual oil companies. This is why the government regulations for fuel mileage havent been raised in proportion to the amount being used, so auto makers arent under a time-line to build more efficient vehicles.
And any US consumer who can afford a $60,000 gas-guzzling SUV is not concerned about the jumping cost of fuel, so the demand for high mileage vehicles is not as prevalent as it is in Europe or countries with a history of high gas prices.

READ THIS
BioDiesel is not so good for Cold Climates per article I've read online.

As it was said on the internet the biodiesel can gel "turn to lard" the engine preventing it from starting and causing a rebuild situation or serious clean requirements. Additionally Biodiesel is somewhat a farce. It requires more energy to produce than the energy provided by the fuel. Thus your just using nuclear or such to produce this. Not much benefit for the environment there. There perhaps is an exception here if you use USED cooking greases or such. This could negate the aspect of the additional energy needed to MFG biodiesel. Perhaps there is a solution to the geling and energy expense of Biodiesel I'm not aware of. I've done lots of reading on much of these topics as the subject of alternative fuels has interested me since I was a boy. Please share on these topics if you know more.

In any case if the geling issue is true then perhaps Hybrid/Gas would be better for Cold Climates.

Do you have a Diesel SUV that can get 30 MPG as this would also interest me. One I could fit in at 6'5 inches.. I can barely sit in full size pick-ups..
Now convert my Subura Outback to a hybrid like the escape I'd be a happy camper.

Biodiesel is more env friendly to burn than diesel if you do not include the polution of the energy used in creating biodiesel.

Where the topic of straight Alcohol for Fuel?
It more powerful than gas and diesel..
Far cheaper and cleaner for the env if the infrastucture is put into place.

It was killed in the old day of Henry Ford by the Oil and Alcohol industry. Not to mention the government who wanted to tax the ass off alcohol producers.

I drove through Texas a few months ago and saw miles of cotton fields. The amount of waste cotton was amazing on the side of the road. Yet they must make enough from the cotton they collect. Imagine all the waste plant material in those fields though. All that plant material could be used for Alcohol. Yet it just plowed under.. Imagine the waste of energy everyday. Human are very wasteful.

Heres the scenerio
Deisel is smart and the engine are good and almost if not equivalent to Gas power today.
They also tend to be more efficient. This is true..
Most people think diesel they think work engines not so peepy like in the old day.. However diesel have come along way.

However you want something real smart where is the Diesel-Biodiesel Hybrids or Alcohol Hybrids...

Perhaps the car companies are already on it but are working slow to release it.

Fuel cells are also real smart

Its very easy to have the market forces give us
super efficient cars and utilities. Phase in a tax of
about $50 per barrel of oil (domestic or imported)
while reducing the income tax at the same rate.
Now an average person will pay more for energy
lets say $2000 per year, but at the same time
will pay $2000 less in taxes. Soon we will see more
jobs created (in the USA) in research and building
of efficient autos, appliances, home improvement and alternate energy. Less money will flow out
of the country and there will be less money for
terrorists who benefits from some of this money.

I like the thought of a diesel, hybrid, or combination therof, but two things that have not been mentioned are the quasiturbine engine(sumilar to the rotary) and the VW triwncharger engine. Quasiturbines get 8 times the energy for half of the gas consuption. The previous post was correct in stating that gas has hidden costs, but what about propane? It is a byproduct when gas is produced! Why not manufacture a diesel/qwuasiturbine engine and add the twincharger design? There is an interesting concept behind hybrid cars, but it is of little or no value until it is explored more fully.

The VW Twincharger gas engine is a pretty awesome little piece of engineering. On 1.4 liters displacement, power output is 170 hp; highway fuel economy, in the Golf GT, is rated at 5.9 liters/100 km. My Passat TDI diesel is rated at 5.7 liters/100 km. The twincharger probably requires premium fuel though. Still, that kind of output and economy is pretty impressive; the economy of a small 1.4 liter 4-cylinder, with the power output matching some V6s, and higher than Honda's 160 hp VTEC 4-cyl in the Accord. Personally I think this sort of technological advance has more mass market potential than hybrids.

It will be a lot easier to convince someone to buy a "conventional" car with great mileage than a hybrid, which takes some getting used to. It would be better to sell 10,000 of these than 9000 normal 4 and 6 cyl engines and 1000 hybrids, if the object is to reduce overal dependency on gasoline.

Of course a first step is getting N. Americans out of their SUVs...the most fuel inefficient designs on the road regardless of propulsion system.

Mike G,
I realize that you ignorantly like to put down hybrids but is there something I don't know about that one must do different between driving a hybrid and any other pure ICE powered vehicle. I've got a lot of high-mileage HCH miles and don't do anything different than I would with any of my previous cars except the diesel. With the diesel, I had to look for and keep track of where the stations that sold diesel were. Of course, back then, I also had to let the glow plug heat up before I could start it.
Now if you'd just quit bad-mouthing hybrids and realize that the right answer is a diesel-hybrid but you and the neanderthal trogolodites in the car companies such as VW refuse to come into the 21st century.

I suggest you are looking at the means, rather than the end.

The end is to get a massive overall reduction in fossil fuel usage, not promote this or that particular technology.

To achieve the end, the technology must have mass appeal, and also make economic sense to the purchaser. I put forth the hypothesis that we can achieve the end with existing technology at costs consumers can afford and are willing to pay (and for those of us who drive cars rather than SUVs, with no discernable change function in our choice of vehicle).

Just imagine IF:

1) everyone drove at the speed limit; 10-20% reduction;
2) if owners of large SUVs traded them in for a station wagon powered by a 1.4 Liter twincharger: 50% reduction per SUV taken off the road;
3) if every owner of a compact SUV bought an equivalent car instead, about 10-20% reduction;
4) if we switched to diesel, which requires less refining and has a higher BTU content, about 10% overall reduction just from the refining process;
5) if people commuted more by mass transit...

You get the picture. Yes, hybrids can play a role in all this but I suggest that the day we get everyone into a hybrid is far off; I'm being realistic. Look instead at Europe. Hybrids aren't exactly storming the market there. Why? They are already light years ahead of us in fuel efficiency. For example their marketing does not place emphasis on muscle and low 0-60 times. Fuel prices are too high for that except at the very top end of the market. Diesels are up to 50% of sales now. The rail and transit infrastructure is excellent and actually more convenient than driving. I'm sure that per capita fossil fuel reliance for transportation in Europe is a good 30-50% less than here, mind you that's just a guesstimate.

None of this comes from gee-whiz technology. Good basic sound engineering (and BTW, small displacement gas engines can and are sold to ULEV emissions standard) with existing technology can get the job done. And even the existing technology is amenable to zero fossil fuel consumption: 100 auto ethanol fueled cars have been a reality in Brazil for a good 20 years now; 100 biodiesel is a feasible and existing technology with only minor modifications.

The problem in fact is not existing technology.

It's what's between the seat and the steering wheel. N. Americans are looking for a magic bullet to compensate for our bad habits. Hybrid SUVs so we can feel less guilty about waste? 255 hp "hybrid" sedans so we can feel less guilty about our horsepower habit? Give me a break! Or rather (if it must be gasoline), give me a Golf or Jetta Wagon Twincharger! (although I'm perfectly happy with our diesels).

I promote a multiple choice strategy based on smaller more efficient vehicles and better mass transit infrastructure. I have no problems with hybrids such as the HCH or Prius making up part of the equation; I have very serious doubts though about hybrid SUVs and "muscle" cars, and I believe that as conventional vehicles are probably going to be with us for a while yet, why not make them as efficient as possible at an affordable price? Why should I have to pay a price premium for fuel efficiency? Why can't we have conventional vehicles that are efficient as well? It's not as if the technology doesn't exist!

Mike,

Ok, so your intent is good but your understanding of the world is a bit behind. I had the pleasure of driving a sports car for 3 years that would accelerate from 0-60 mph in 7 seconds (that's about 0 - 95 Kph in 7 seconds for you embracers of Gallic imperialism -vs- Anglican imperialism) AND it got much better than 100 mpg (~42 km/l) if you measure consumption from well to wheels (a 30 mpg gasoline car gets about 20 mpg if you look at the whole energy chain from well to wheels - not counting waste during war to defend the oil). It is possible to build an efficient vehicle.

I'll also add that one could use ANY energy source to provide this energy so the assumption of petroleum is simply there to achieve an apples-to-apples comparison.

This performance and economy were possible because of the introduction of an electric motor. Now I don't care how much you tweak, a combustion engine be it diesel, gasoline, turbine, wankel, stirling, etc, you will never get that kind of performance unless you find a way to capture and use the heat lost from the burning in a cheap, moving vehicle. I, of course did assume a stationary co-generation plant for my 100 mpg estimate.

Now that I've briefly brought you into the late 1800's technically, let's look at the economics: Hybrids aren't any more expensive than pure ICE vehicles to manufacture - and they could be made even cheaper than they are today (but that's a different story). There is fundamentally nothing in a Prius that you don't have in your Jetta. It's just that the starter battery is a bit bigger, the starter motor can actually propel the car, and the starter clutch is a bit more sophisticated than would be required just to start an engine. The combustion engine is quite simple and the transmission is much simpler as well.
The reason the Prius is so expensive is that there is so much demand for them in the US that people are willing to wait for 6 months for delivery and pay US$3K over the list price which is already adjusted to recover the R&D costs in a record amount of time. Supply and Demand determine the PRICE of an item (at least in the US).

I can't explain why Europeans are so willing to pay so much for so little when it comes to vehicles and I'll also agree that Americans are equally fickle about paying so much for something so much bigger than they need.

I don't disagree with some of the sentiment's of your wish list but let me take it a bit further:

1) everyone drove at the speed limit; 10-20% reduction;
[(of course, if you drove zero mph, you'd see a 100% reduction but that kind of defeats the purpose of having a vehicle. Slowing down does not improve efficiency. While it reduces consumption, it also reduces output. I'd prefer to find a way to get better efficiency and increase speeds as that will move society along)]
2) if owners of large SUVs traded them in for a station wagon powered by a 1.4 Liter twincharger: 50% reduction per SUV taken off the road;
[(or they could replace their SUV's with strong plugin hybrid wagons -were they available- and achieve better than 500% improvement.)]
3) if every owner of a compact SUV bought an equivalent car instead, about 10-20% reduction;
[(or they could replace their SUV's with strong plugin hybrid cars-were they available- and achieve better than 500% improvement.)]
4) if we switched to diesel, which requires less refining and has a higher BTU content, about 10% overall reduction just from the refining process; [(no argument here between gasoline and diesel but if you added a strong plugin hybrid, you'd see several thousand percent reduction in refining process depending on the energy source, as well as about a 500% increase in the vehicle efficiency)]
5) if people commuted more by mass transit...
[(no argument here but it will take a long time to get the US rebuilt to the point where mass transit works beacuse of so many years of building around the automobile - yep, Europe doesn't hold any monopoly on self-destructive inertia to overcome - we've got problems too)]

Now if you really want to help the planet: Rather than wasting so much effort gushing about how your VW diesel isn't as crappy as everyone elses gasoline car or the minimal hybrids that we've actually been able to squeeze out of a few car companies; instead write letters to your beloved VW to get them out of the 1930's and into the 21st century by selling a plugin hybrid.

Putting down people who have taken a great step towards energy sustainability by purchasing cars that are on the right path, even if they aren't there yet is not helping any of us.

Before diesel can become energy self sufficient, it's economy needs to increase way beyond what traditional engines can do since the planet does not produce enough biomass energy to feed today's consumption. It's going to take some "gee-wiz" technology to seriously reduce our consumption. We need to find a way to implement a 'moores law' for vehicles, similiar to semiconductors. I don't know if you are old enough to remember vacuum tubes but they were not going to get us on a 'moores law' path. Just as we had to replace vacuum tubes with semiconductors, we need to replace combustion engines with electric motors/batteries and then improve the electric motors/batteries. There were die-hards like you who espoused major changes in vacuum technology but they couldn't get on the right improvement curve. There may be other technologies as well that we shouldn't discount but electric is here today and it has been proven to work. The future potential is clear and obvious. We just need to get it into production and on the streets.

I'll leave you with a few simple numbers to remember when comparing combustion engines with electric:

combustion engine: 20 - 25% efficiency
electric motor: 85 - 95% efficiency

Dude: just do the math!

A couple of points:

"of course, if you drove zero mph, you'd see a 100% reduction but that kind of defeats the purpose of having a vehicle. Slowing down does not improve efficiency. While it reduces consumption, it also reduces output. I'd prefer to find a way to get better efficiency and increase speeds as that will move society along"

Of course going zero will consume zero energy (unless you're one of those people who wastes energy idling). But there is an optimal speed for effiency; aerodynamically, drag increases with the square of speed; above about 50-60 mph, aerodynamic drag becomes the overwhelming consumer of energy; 65 mph works out to a pretty good speed/effiency compromise in most cases and for most 1-2 hour journeys won't slow you down more than 5-15 min overall compared to going, say, 75 mph (especially as average speed is usually much lower in both cases). And drag will drain the battery faster on a plug-in too.

As for plug-ins: what is the fuel source for the electricity (in the US coal no doubt is a large chunk of it); what is the efficiency of converting coal to heat to allow water to become steam and run a turbogenerator set? What is the effiency for nuclear? What are the overall enviromnental effects of nuclear? What about hydroelectricity which floods vast areas with known climatic and environmental effects? What is the distribution efficiency of electricty? (hint, transformers on transmission lines need cooling to dissipate waste heat). How much energy is lost pushing enough energy down to your car's plug to charge its batteries? What effect on the power grid will millions of people charging their cars overnight have? Finally, how much do you pay for electricity in your area?

We need to look at the big picture. It is not a zero-sum game.

Mike,

Now we're getting down to the real issues!!! I appreciate that you've been giving it some thought.

You're right about the drag issue with speed, however, I still contend that we must move around. The magic 55 mph really isn't really that magic of a number but it does represent the knee of the curve for the average car design. I'll remind you that with pure EV's, one does not need as much frontal radiator area for cooling off all the waste heat, therefore one can incorporate slightly (but only slightly) better aero design. My EV1 had a drag coeficient of 0.19 which was pretty awesome (I think the Prius is around 0.26 - someone please correct me if I'm off) but even so, It got a lot further range at 40 mph than 55 or 80.

Clearly trains are the only way to really get around the drag issue and still be able to move efficiently as only the engine has to move the air out of the way.

Now for the rest of your plug-in skepticism:

I used the effective well to wheels efficiency in order to truly compare apples to apples since other fuel sources are very hard to compare with.

Coal is nasty, dirty burning stuff but it can be scrubbed from stationary stacks fairly cleanly. It isn't renewable but isn't being used for much else besides keeping the economy of W. VA going and in stress due to mining accidents. Not really a sutainable source but will work for a long time and no war is required for the US. Efficiency is kind of irrevelant since it isn't good for much else besides electric power generation.

Nukes are clean 'burning' and quite efficient through turbines. It isn't renewable either as there isn't an unlimited supply of fissionable material on the planet - ok may fussion has potential but no one has figured out how to use it.

Natural gas, while non-renewable is currently under-utilized and offers perhaps the most efficiency when used in co-generation powerplants. They can get into the 80% efficiency region. Cogeneration plants burn the gas in an efficient gas turbine to get a lot of energy out, then use the exhaust from the gas turbine to drive a steam turbine to get additional energy out from the waste heat. This can be done in large plants but is not feasible with small, mobile engines such as are in cars.

Hydro-electric is really quite benign as long as one is ok with giving up a little bit (ok, a lot) of mountain valley real estate. It's great stuff, reliable, on-demand, zero pollution, renewable (as long as that huge fusion reaction in the sky keeps burning). It also can be used to store energy from inconsistant energy sources such as wind and solar - although clearly at a loss of efficiency.

Solar and wind are clearly long term winners since they are 100% renewable as long as our favorite fusion reaction remains hot. They have storage problems that pose challenges but they are both showing great progress as far as increasing efficiency.

Bio-mass fuels show great promise and could just as easily, in fact, perhaps more easily be used in efficient stationary generation facilities, then transported as electricity to the points of use than being converted to liquid and pumped or trucked.

The beauty of electric power generation is that one has a huge choice of sources to chose from, each one with different merits depending upon where one is.

You mention the losses during electricity distribution: This is a good point, however, when electricity is transformed up to extremely high voltages, as are used in high-tension transmission lines, the losses are quite small, around 10% across the grid, much less for short hauls. While substation transformers may get warm, compared to the amount of energy that passes through, the energy loss is very small.

You missed the losses in battery charging and discharging. These are not insignificant. Battery discharging and charging are about 90% efficient (which, of course, is only 81% round trip efficient)

The effect on the power grid of night charging will be non-existant for a long time since most power plants waste energy at night. They have to run all the time since it takes so long for them to start up. Plug-in vehicles offer a great opportunity for the power companies to make money off of the wasted night-time energy as well as make money off of their grid at night. Of course, I can assure you, the miserly consumption of my EV1 was such that you can't tell from looking at my electric bill that I even had the car for 3 years. It cost me about $1 to fill my car at home and each fillup would take me nominally 100 miles. I never went to the off-peak electric rates since I knew EV1 would be a short-lived pleasure and wouldn't warrant the cost of a new electric meter or a timer on my charger.

gas cogen 80%
transmission 90%
battery 80%
electric motor 80%
__________________
total 46%

I'll add that I know people in California with solar cells installed on their houses that drive EV's as their primary vehicles and have essentially zero electric bills. Their power meters run backward so they sell electricity when the sun is shining and buy electricity when it isn't but their average is nearly zero. This will be tougher in northern latitudes but it really does provide locally generated (nix a lot of those transmission losses) fully renewable power.

Now that I've done the math for plug-ins, its your turn to reciprocate for diesels: Remember you're starting out with 25% (generous assumption) and it only gets worse as you deduct:

- refining losses
- transportation losses

I'll let you skip all the war costs and hidden health issue costs although they are pretty nasty if you start digging in to them.

I'll help your numbers out a bit: adding a strong non-plug-in hybrid brings your 25% starting value up to maybe 35%. A wimpy hybrid as we have today may bring you to 30%.

Happy math

If the math is boggling, here's another thing I took off of a different email list that really hits the point:

"Plugging in your hybrid is like buying gas for 60 cents a gallon"

Hybrid vs. Diesel

Well, for all you people out there toting the advantages of diesel or talking about a diesel hybrid or any engine that burns a diesel derivative need to wake up and smell the exhaust. While the fuel economy is good, the emissions are not. Even the biodiesel option results in some nasty fumes and/or by-products because of the blending and/or manufacturing process.
A hybrid diesel will still have to run the diesel since diesel engines don't like to be turned off and on all the time, resulting in emissions. Most railroad locomotives are (mentioned earlier in the thread) are not really hybrids but electro-motive engines. A large 2 or 4 stroke engine powers a generator that produces electricity for electric motors on the axles, however, most do not have batteries to store the electricity. A few of the newest ones (known as Green Goats) have been built as true hybrids electro-motive engines. These locos have a huge bank of batteries that run the motors on the axles and a small diesel (by railroad standards) that simply runs a generator that keeps the battery bank topped off. They also allow the motors to regenerate to charge the system. The result is a diesel that doesn't have to run for hours at a time. This would be the D-Hybrid everyone is dreaming about, however we don't have small enough, light enough or powerful enough batteries to allow the performance to overcome the weight issues of the batteries and traction motors without requiring the diesel to run. (However, the D-Hybrid is closer for larger vehicles like Buses (GM already built them), trucks, and SUVs. (Yes, a D-hybrid electro-motive system would be more efficient than any of the proposed systems in this thread, but THEY WILL ONLY FIT IN SUVs AND TRUCKS!)

Whether you Americans want to face it or not, your air quality is much better than Europe's. (LA's air would top the quality list with any of Europe's major cities.) There are two major reasons: the catalytic converter requirements in the US that are not possible with diesel, and Europe's excessive use of diesels!

A new cleaner burning diesel from VW or any carmaker is as likely as a zero emission Edison Electric coal plant!

Also, the people who live in California, Washington and on the east coast need to understand that any proposed car or truck has to function anywhere in the country. The people on the Plains who have to drive 50 miles to find a McDonald's don't want a car that needs a block heater and 15 minutes for the glowplugs to warm up before it will start from October to April. And yes, VW and others claim that's not true anymore, however my family in ND will tell you otherwise.

For now, in the immediate future, we should consider ethanol-hybrids. Bush has put this on the front page. GM and Ford have surprised many with the fact they have been selling clean burning cars for years without telling anyone. E85 vehicles outnumber hybrids 3 to 1. All we have to do is get them fuel. Imagine, almost 5 million trucks, large cars and SUVs could cut their emissions in half by the end of the year without a single penny in cost to their owners!

Oh, yeah, Hybrid vs. Diesel? Hybrid (with E85, not diesel.)

I tend to disagree on the emissions issue. First, I'd like to know upon what the "LA's air would top the quality list with any of Europe's major cities" assertion is based. That's not my understanding (Europe has more strict ambient air quality standards). Furthermore, PM emissions from all those diesel cars in Europe only make up 2.5%-3% of the total ambient PM (http://www.dieselforecast.com/Articl...?articleID=235).

Second, saying that diesels have higher emissions is misleading at best. There are myriads of emissions from combustion processes. Diesels do tend to have higher NOx and PM emissions, but lower emissions of NMHCs and CO, catalytic converter or not. And certainly no one can argue that diesels have lower CO2 emissions. On top of that, gasoline is an extremely volatile substance (7-10 psi compared to 0.007 psi for diesel - biodiesel even lower based on a higher flash point; ethanol won't help this disparity). Does anyone realize how much VOCs are generated from gasoline distribution and refueling? I would argue that NMHCs (VOCs) are a much more important factor in air pollution than NOx (e.g., weekend ozone effect). Plus gasoline vapors decompose into such nasty components as formaldehyde and organic PM.

No question that diesel emissions need to be reduced (which they are with PM filters), but to imply that they're somehow much worse for air quality than gasoline engines is simply missing the total picture.

This afternoon walking across my Publix supermarket parking lot I found a noisy, new Ford F-350 diesel parked and idling next to my Hybrid.

I had to hold my breath within 30 feet of it, right up to unlocking my door.
As I climbed inside I noticed my eyes beginning to sting.

Yes, the stigma perpetuates.
I'm sure the driver believes his diesel is a wonderful vehile. Other folks around it likely have a different view.

First of all, I can say that I love diesels. I have owned five diesel autos, the last being a diesel VW Jetta 2004. Now, I own a 2005 Prius and am waiting on my 2006 to arrive. The reason that I have abandoned my diesels are as follows: Cost, at least 20 cents more per gallon of fuel. Maintenance, diesels require MUCH more care to keep them running. Trade in value for diesels is always much lower unless trading for another diesel. In order to get decent mileage in a diesel, you must have a standard transmission. All automatics do very poor with mileage. I just got plain tired of shifting all the time, especially in traffic. My automatic Prius averages 50 miles per gallon driving normally and thats with a/c on most of the time here in Florida. Diesel fuel is very, very dirty both in refueling and all the crap that goes into the air from the tailpipe. I think the diesel engine will probably not survive in our future auto industry in the United States.

Trade-in value for diesels is very high in Canada. Just yesterday I ran some numbers through the Canadian Black Book site for a friend with an '03 Camry (LE, 4-cyl) he's thinking of trading. He paid $26k for it (all figures Canadian $) and the blackbook site came up with $13.5k-$14.5k The dealer had offered him $12k-$13k. I ran the numbers on a base Jetta GLS TDI for fun and it spit out $17k-$18.5k for the Jetta.

I had an early Jetta TDI on the A4 platform (the previous generation model) and indeed that car had many maintenance issues. Our '04 Jetta and '05 Passat have required very little maintenance. Timing belt replacement intervals have gone up from 90k km to 160k km (100,000 miles) since the 2003 m.y. and the new high life belt can be retrofitted to the previous model. Oil changes are every 10,000 miles. We have had no issues outside routine maintenance except for suspension damage on the Jetta after hitting a broken chunk of metal broken off a snow plow.

As for the pollution issue it's correct to state that there are many issues involved. For example, diesels tend to produce more particulate matter but the particle size is larger than for gas engines and thus the particulates are less likely to be inhaled, are heavier, don't disperse as easily and tend to deposit on the ground (notice the downward curving exhaust pipes on a modern diesel, it's for a good reason!).

Also, if you consider diesels from the wellhead to the road, they come out even better.

(ps for those comparing a Ford truck to a VW diesel: the truck does not have to adhere to the same emission standards as the car...)

Scott,

Why don't you believe that "we don't have small enough, light enough or powerful enough batteries to allow the performance to overcome the weight issues of the batteries and traction motors without requiring the diesel to run"? The fastest street legal dragsters are electric powered(http://www.nedra.com/). Torque is no problem for electric motors and battery technology has shown huge capacity increases in the past decade, mainly driven by the laptop computer and cellphone industries.
Many here probably tire of hearing my support of plug-in capability added to hybrids, however, if a large amount of one's driving were powered from the electric grid, the amount of time the internal combustion engine runs will diminish a lot. This makes a diesel hybrid a lot more attractive since the diesel would only fire up occassionally on longer trips or when grid charging wasn't convenient. When the diesel does fire up, it would fire up for a long time and run at a fairly constant speed/load. Thus:
- diesel emissions would be reduced since they are worst while a diesel is running hard. The electric would handle those tough times
- glow plug time wouldn't matter since the vehicle would be running on electric (whether or not it's really an issue).
- your relatives in ND would charge every time they plug into an engine block heater plug commonly found in ND parking lots.
- while somewhat less clean than gasoline engines, the fact that they would run less often will offset the average emissions
- diesels are much more flexible as to the fuel they burn (bio-diesel, dino-diesel, gasoline blends, ethanol blends, etc)

ex EV1,

The reason I believe what I do about battery size and efficiency is based on personal experience with all sorts of cutting edge battery technology over the last 5 years in the US Military.

The people who continue to ramble on about European air quality and all sorts of studies about their "clean" air, I have one thing to say.

UNTIL YOU'VE LIVED THERE, AS I DO, YOU NEED TO ALLOW THE TRUTH TO BE HEARD!

Those studies and websites everyone always refers to are based on data from the EU's environmental spin control agencies. When you go to the official studies done by independent groups in Europe who are not trying to push the "US is the death of the world" mantra, you find the truth is the United States has done a much better job cleaning up and taking care of our environment than the Europeans.
The Black Forest of Germany has been devastated by the so-called higher European environmental regs. 40% of the forest has been "damaged" by pollution from "clean" European autos and industry. Source: "Pollution means dark future for Germany's Black Forest" AFP - 12/23/04.
Just paste the following for a google search of Europe's air quality: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...=Google+Search

Here is another open question. How many people do you know are purposefully bypassing the emissions equipment on their car? In the US the vast majority don't diconnect the factory equipment. I have been living in Italy for 3 years and can tell you that that is not the case here.

Why is it so hard to accept that the US is actually doing better than Europe at cleaning up the environment? Or that our air is better than is was 10 years ago and as we continue to replace those old cars from the 70s, 80s and 90s with new vehicles (even the new SUVs) that our air quality will get even better?

I know we want to focus on oil consumption when we debate Hybrid vs. Diesel, BUT that's not the most important issue. Economics and politics would eventually push technology to find a replacement without any help from anyone on this website. I mean, come on. George "Oilman" Bush talking about switchgrass and cellulosic ethanol? The United States IS coming around. The REAL issue that we need to push is the environmental impact. Diesels pollute and always will be dirtier than their gasoline and E85 fuel counterparts.

Also, everyone should really consider sending an encouraging note to GM (also Ford) for their support of alternative fuels. Imagine, almost 5 million of those SUVs out there could in fact cut their consumption of oil by 60% and emissions by 50% if we would just give them a pump!

We also should send some hate mail to the oil companies for the news in USA Today today. The oil companies have been buying up ethanol in bulk and storing it while at the same time, flooding the markets with gasoline. The result, gas is down 6% in one week, while E85 is up 15%. 30 cents in one week! Of course their blaming enivronmental rules saying its because of MTBE!

Give us a break!

First, ex EV-1, I noticed my last post looked like the whole rant was directed at you which is not what I intended. Only the first paragragh about my experience with electric propulsion systems was meant as an answer to your question. I happen to know that there is some exciting electric tech coming online in the next 10 years, however we have an opportunity now with current technology (some 5 million already on the road) to make a big differnce right now. The rest was directed to others further up the thread. So, if I offended I am sorry.
Now to response to another post about air quality LA compared to European cities?

http://atlas.aaas.org/index.php?part...sub=atmosintro

http://www.portfolio.mvm.ed.ac.uk/st...7/citydiff.htm

You can also check the 2006 World Almanac that lists these same numbers from the World Health Organization. An important thing to note is the particulate matter which is extremely high in Milan, Rome, Madrid, Netherlands, all of Eastern Europe and Industrial Germany. Diesel particulate is made up of sulfur compounds and contains benzene and is much more dangerous than NOx or CO2.
And anyone who believes that the particles are too big to get in your lungs, have you ever asked a coal miner about "Black Lung?" Coal dust falls in the PM 10-20 range (10-20 micrometers diameter) and diesel particulate is PM 2.5 (2.5 micrometers diameter.) That means in a 3 dimensional world that diesel particulate anywhere from 64 to 512 times smaller by volume than coal dust. Anyone want to try again and tell everyone that diesel soot isn't as much of a health risk? I guess second-hand smoke must also be safe since it is just particulate matter as well?

Scott – with all due respect (and I do have great respect for anyone in the U.S. military – my son is an Officer in the USAF), I still strongly disagree with your assertion that “Diesels pollute and always will be dirtier than their gasoline and E85 fuel counterparts”. I agree the U.S. has made great strides in improving air quality, but I disagree that diesels will somehow reverse these advances we’ve made in air quality. And I remain unconvinced that my Jetta TDI has any greater impact on air quality than any equivalent non-hybrid gas vehicle, especially since I run B20 biodiesel.

I’m an air quality meteorologist and have been working in the field of air quality for almost 25 years, so I have more than just passing interest in this topic. First of all, this is where I got the idea that the EU has more stringent ambient air quality standards for PM:

“…the Swiss and EU 24-hour PM10 limit is 50 µg/m3, compared to 150 µg/m3 in the USA…” (http://www.dieselnet.com/news/2006/01swiss.php). Is this not correct?

Again, diesels tend to be higher in some emissions, and gasoline vehicles higher in other emissions. As stated, diesels tend to be higher in NOx and PM. However, as another poster stated, PM emissions are regulated by mass, so extremely small particles (nanoparticles) have virtually no mass. Gassers actually equal or exceed particle numbers of uncontrolled diesel trucks under some common driving conditions (Gasoline Vehicle Exhaust Particle Sampling Study, David Kittelson, et al, http://www.osti.gov/fcvt/deer2003/ki...esentation.pdf), it’s just that they tend to be very tiny and have trivial mass. Gasser PM is more toxic than diesel PM per unit mass (In Vitro Genotoxicity of Gasoline and Diesel Engine Vehicle Exhaust Particulate and Semi-Volatile Organic Compound Materials, L Liu, et al; National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention), and that’s currently being supported by field tests (Lovelace Respiratory Research Institute) the preliminary results of which are showing that locations impacted primary by light-duty emissions (mostly gassers in the U.S.) are more toxic than locations primarily impacted by heavy-duty emissions (mostly diesel vehicles). Plus, gasoline engine PM emissions are “enriched” in PAHs (poly-aromatic hydrocarbons - DOE’s Gasoline/Diesel PM Split Study, http://www.osti.gov/fcvt/deer2003/fu...esentation.pdf). Many PAHs are considered carcinogenic.

Benzene, formaldehyde, and 1,3-butadiene emissions are actually higher from cat-equipped gas vehicles than diesel engine-out (Environmental and Health Impact From Modern Cars, Ecotraffic; The Diesel Paradox: Why Dieselization Will Lead to Cleaner Air, James J. Eberhardt, U.S. Department of Energy; http://www.osti.gov/fcvt/deer2000/eberharpa.pdf). Furthermore, as I stated in my previous post, evaporative gasoline vapors decompose into more formaldehyde, a stable intermediate in the decomposition process.

Gassers have higher emissions of acutely toxic carbon monoxide (CO), and one study show extremely high CO emissions in more aggressive driving cycles while diesel CO emissions were essentially zero (Environmental and Health Impact From Modern Cars, Ecotraffic). CO is also an ozone precursor (http://www.ethanol-gec.org/sum99/easum9902.htm, http://egov.oregon.gov/ENERGY/RENEW/...hitten2004.pdf). The Ecotraffic study also shows that NMHC emissions from diesels are about an order of magnitude lower than an equivalent gasser, and that doesn’t include evaporative emissions from refueling and distribution of highly volatile gasoline.

As far as NOx emissions are concerned, the “weekend ozone effect” studies have shown that dramatic decreases (as much as 80%) in diesel truck traffic (and thus NOx emissions) on weekends not only do not reduce ambient ozone levels, but often INCREASE them (http://www.osti.gov/fcvt/deer2002/lawson.pdf, http://www.osti.gov/fcvt/deer2005/lawson.pdf). LA’s actually having more “bad” ozone days now (ozone is by far the biggest problem in LA – something that’s not addressed in those links you provided), and a disproportionate number is occurring on weekends (http://climateark.org/articles/reader.asp?linkid=32049, http://www.aei.org/publications/pubI...pub_detail.asp). Since no areas in the U.S. are in nonattainment with the NO2 NAAQS (http://www.epa.gov/oar/oaqps/greenbk/nindex.html), the current regulatory emphasis on NOx is unwarranted, especially in light of the weekend ozone effect studies. However, there are areas in the Southwestern CONUS that are still in serious nonattainment with the CO NAAQS (http://www.epa.gov/oar/oaqps/greenbk/mapco.html), something that an increase in light-duty diesels could help.

I’m not here to bash hybrids. As a matter of fact, I think that diesel hybrids (using bio-based fuels) are the best option for the foreseeable future (better than fuel cells).

wxman,
You know, Europe has had strict environmental standards for longer than the US has, but the problem is they aren't meeting them. The countries with the worst air quality also just so happen to have a higher percentage of diesel vehicles. Italy has extremely poor air quality. Many days, I can't see to the end of the block. I don't for sure that it comes from all the diesel taxis
or transit buses, but then again, no one does. Italy does very little testing and even less enforcement. As far as the content of gas vs diesel exhaust, you should point out the following,

Partial List of Chemicals Associated with Diesel Exhaust
The following list identifies chemicals commonly associated with exhaust emitted by diesel engines. Each chemical name links to the corresponding entry in the OSHA Chemical Sampling Guide. For more specific information on sampling and analysis see the Sampling and Analysis Safety and Health Topics Page or refer to the appropriate OSHA Analytical Method.

Major Components.
Carbon dioxide, ID-172
Carbon monoxide, ID-210
Nitrogen dioxide, ID-182, NIOSH 6014
Nitric oxide, ID-190, NIOSH 6014
Particulates, NIOSH 5040 (new method for Diesel Exhaust Particulates), NIOSH 0500 (*.zip file in WordPerfect format)
Sulfur dioxide, ID-200
Minor Components
Acrolein, OSHA 52, NIOSH 2539
o-Anisaldehyde
Benzene, OSHA 12, NIOSH
2,3-Benzofuran
Coumarin
Formaldehyde, OSHA 52, NIOSH 2541 (*.zip file in WordPerfect format), NIOSH 2539
4-Hydroxycoumarin
m-Hydroxyacetophenone
2-Hydroxy-4-methoxyacetophenone
Menadione
6-Methoxytetralone
6-Methylcoumarin
3-Methyl-2-cyclopentene-2-ol-one
Trimethylbenzene
Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons, OSHA 58, NIOSH 5506, NIOSH 5515
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Benz[a]anthracene
Benzo[b]fluoranthene
Benzo[k]fluoranthene
Benzo[ghi]perylene
Benzo[a]pyrene
Benzo[e]pyrene
Crysene
Dibenz[a,h]anthracene
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene
Naphthalene, OSHA 35
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/dieselexhaust/chemical.html
Yes, gasoline also has some bad components, but the list of scientists in the world (and those of us with advanced nuclear engineering degrees) who would rather breathe the fumes from a diesel (even if it only runs part of the time) over a gasoline / E85 flex-fuel vehicle is extremely small.
I'll put the tailpipe of my 1.3 liter i-VTEC Tier 2 Bin 2 up against any diesel and we'll see who starts choking first.

Of course, this would be all in good fun. ;-)

http://www1.umn.edu/eoh/hazards/haza...theffects.html

Scott,

I spent the majority of last year in Europe as well and agree that they've turned cheating into an art form. Italy is the most blatant where so many have modified their cars to optimize gas mileage to the detriment of emissions but even the "pure, ethical" Germans have taken greenwashing to a new level.

I suspect, however, that the majority of the pollution problems in Italy (which are much worse than Germany) are due not only to the diesels but also to the 2-stroke scooters, most of which have been modified at back alley 'garages'.

As a former Electronic Materials officer in the Navy and current electrical engineer, I also can assure you that the latest battery technology is not in the military. The active duty military is about 30 years behind the commercial world.

Unfortunately, the "exciting electric tech" actually came out 10 years ago but was successfully squashed by the auto manufacturers. That is why I'm an *EX* EV1 driver, not a *CURRENT* EV1 driver since my exciting pure electric sports car was taken from me my GM and crushed. THAT was exciting technology (0-60 mph in 7 sec, over 100 mpg effective, 130 miles between charging, ~US$1 per charge, . . . I could go on all day).

Now, we've got to try to pick up where that left off. While diesels have their problems (I won't argue with any of you on emissions), in a hybrid configuration, they have a whole lot to offer so I don't like to see either hybrids or diesels get bashed until their technology is fully fleshed out.

You also have to keep in mind that diesels have been around Europe in large quantities for quite some times; they've never been more than a niche market here. That means, particularly in a lot of less wealthy areas, many older diesels with mechanical injection pumps will still be on the road. There's no question these don't stack up. My first trip to Europe was in '85, my last in '05. I can say there was a big improvement in air quality between those two trips, yet the percentage of diesel cars has gone up.

You really need to compare the emissions of a modern diesel with a modern gasser, to be fair; saying that the air quality is bad because of diesels is one thing but if there are still many 10+ y.o. diesels on the road in Italy (and I know there are, I was in Rome last Sept.), that will have a bias on the results especially since in N. America, 10+ y.o. diesels represents a very tiny percentage of the traffic on the roads.

Modern direct-injection diesels with computer control of the engine/injection process, plus emission controls, are really not that bad emissions-wise.

It's amazing how long the Hybrid concept has been around and only now it's really beginning to take off. Technology Review published an article about European manufactuer Peugeot-Citroen unveiling two new cars debuting in 2010 that combine efficent diesel engines with hybrid technologies. Could this make it in the US with tighter standards and pollution control? It could be a tough call.

http://technologyreview.com/NanoTech...3,p2.html?=dig

well it is excellent that everyone thinks that a hybrid is good well there not. they suck the money out of your poket. they may say that they are energy afficiant but they actully are the same as any other car. all they do is suck gas and not use the battery. they say that when you stop they recharge when infact it is a little battery that refills but it dosent do any thing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! this just personal oppinon but what if another blizzard comes in the future than you have a hybrid truck you wont get enogh energy to the tires so you will need to stick with the old fashoned trucks.!!!.!!! it will be afficant so the hybrids water will freaze so look in the long run.

ryan turner

Ryan what are you talking about? Can you provide references to whatever you are saying?