Slashdot Mirror
Diesel Cars - High-Tech Low Tech
jonbrewer writes: "The NYTimes is running a great article talking about the growing trend of Diesel cars in Europe, their fantastic mileage, and the fact that America ignores them. While the article wows us with 78mpg for the Audi A2, I'm happy with the 45mpg my TDI Golf makes." Until diesel pumps are everywhere, I think I'll hold out for my solar/hydrogen-fuel-cell/flywheel hybrid.
Yes & no. Properly made biodiesel contains virtually zero Sulfur emissions (the key component in acid rain & most dangerous pollutant of today's cars). And pollution from biodiesel is recycled by the plants that are used to make biodiesel, all within the timecycle important to keeping our atmosphere clean for our generation. This is not the case with "gasoline". There's a reason we have been weaned away from biodiesel - it means empowerment for the individual and power away from government & corps. - because biodiesel can be made by you and me. And unlike gasoline it is non-toxic.
I heard that a human on a bike is the most energy-efficient creature in the whole of the animal kingdom. I would imagine this is dependent on a flat, hard road surface.
Actually, diesel isn't that common. Sure there's probably a pump within 10 miles of most people, but it depends where you live. Where I am (north of D.C.) only about 1/5 of the pumps here have diesel. I found this out when I had to borrow a diesel car for a month. I had to drive around quite a bit the first day to find a place with diesel pumps. And I don't like to have to drive out of my way to get gas.
I'm still waiting for the matter/anti-matter injection systems to get here.
Crusin' down the highway at 700Mph, leaving the police helicopters in the dust (dust cloud actually).
All's well 'til you enter the DC city limits, three potholes later the anti-matter magnetic confinment beam fails and suddenly you're new ride is a gigantic particle bomb.
The diesel in the US pollutes more because the oil industry 'somehow' managed to 'influence' the law so the regulations on diesel production are lapse, so the diesel in the US has lots of sulphur and various other nasty particulates that contribute to its bad image.
However, in Europe they have "Low Sulphur" and "Ultra-Low Sulphur" diesel, this is available at like pump as 'CityDiesel', which is a highly refined diesel hybrid, it's more like petrol in nature. Combine that with the new diesel engines and catalytic converters/filters and you have a nice efficient system.
In fact, if somebody gave you a VW TDI to drive and ripped off all the 'TDI' badges then I doubt you'd notice you were not driving a standard petrol car, the acceleration on these things are amazing, and the fuel efficiently is out of this world. When I first drove one of these things I expected it to be sluggish and 'truck like', but far from it. I'd say todays modern diesel engines from the likes of VW/Audi, Benz, BMW, Peugeot, far outclass a petrol engine from even five years ago.
I was a sceptic like yourself, however when I saw the new diesel cars over the last 2-3 years I was impressed.
It's true! What's really ridiculous is how much we spend mainly for one, absurd purpose: to arrive at work looking starched and pressed. Isn't that silly? What's really ridiculous is how wimpy Californians are with respect to this. We have beautiful weather year-round, wide roads with bike lanes, and drivers who are bike-wary. And yet, we lag way behind places like rainy, cold Vancouver when it comes to bike commuting. In Holland something like 40% of the population uses a bike for primary transportation, even though the weather is cold, rainy, windy, and generally shitty all year round.
This is all so wrong I hardly know where to begin. Who rated the post above as a 2?
First, please note that the spark is inside the engine as you observed. If you are getting water in there "to prevent the spark from happening", you are already screwed.
What you meant to says is that the electrics of the ignition system are often poorly waterproofed and are therefore prone to problems.
If a diesel is using electronic injectors then it is just as prone to water problems as a gasoline engine.
Of course, the diesel could be using mechanical injectors ine which case it is as immune to moisture problems as a properly waterproofed gasoline engine.
But have you ever smoked soybeans? Blah!
The Chrysler Voyager is produced in Austria (at least for the european market)
I live in SF. 3 gas stations within 3 miles sell deisel. Usually the larger ones, as the most common deisel customers are trucks, and if the station lot isn't large enough for a truck to drive in.. well..
Umm, diesel pumps are everywhere, since trucks in North America typically use diesel. Most service stations (at least everywhere in the United States I've been) have at least one diesel pump. It's generally the stations without diesel pumps that are the rarity, not the other way around.
Now that said, the reason many Americans don't like diesel cars is that diesel is thicker and less volatile, and thus diesel engines don't start as easily, particularly in cold climates. And with the advent of gas/electric hybrid cars that get 70+ mpg with standard unleaded gasoline, it seems unlikely that diesel cars will make inroads in the near future.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
In addition, E^2 = p^2*c^2 + m^2*c^4
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
The worst problem about Diesel engines is the noise. At cruising speed the racket is terrible. They're ideal for agricultural vehicles, but not for the casual road user.
Soot remains the big problem. Sure, this can be reduced by using things like selenium-based filters, but the jury is still out as to whether the cure is worse than what it sets out to fix. (What does widespread selenium dispersal mean to the environment?
Diesel motors were originally a handy method for disposing of all the garbage at the end of the refinery process that is uneconomically viable to deal with. The European motor companies have spent a small fortune over the past couple of decades improving the Diesel engine.
Peugeot is a company that springs to mind. They have invested billions, and have successfully lobbied the French government to keep taxes low on distillate so that they may sell more engines and thus recoup the investments.
They have been so successful in promoting Diesel technology that France currently has a deficit in distillate production and is obliged to import the damned stuff in order to cover domestic demand.
Another problem is that in order to get high performance out of a Diesel engine the engineers have long resorted to adding turbochargers... which adds to the complexity of the engine. Even without a turbo, Diesel engines remain complex, finicky beasts to maintain. Even with subsidised fuel prices, you have to rack up a lot of mileage for it to be economically viable.
A better alternative? Liquid Petroleum Gas (a.k.a. LPG).
Great theory, now make it work.
Oh, I work flexable hours, and while the office is an idustrial area it isn't downtown. last I checked 4 buses a day go by work, and they all go down town. Some people I work with are faced with a 10 minute drive (I think they should walk...), or 2 hours on the bus. Seriously, the fastest the bus could get them to work is 2 hours. Then once in a while I decide to work late and fix a problem, and I've missed the last bus.
The use of vegetable oil guarantees nothing after combustion. Ever notice the smoke coming from an over-hot frying pan? Hippies who equate "natural" with "good" depress me.
Might wanna tie that knee down! vegetable oil DOES burn cleaner than diesel oil. That is measurement, not Hippies equating "natural" with "good". For one thing, cooking oil contains a lot less sulphur than diesel.
Without specifying under what conditions a fuel is burning you cannot make any useful statement as to what the by-products will be.
In this context, I think assuming it would be in a diesel engine would be a good bet. Either that, or I shall feel free to assume that your statements were in a language that looks exactly like English, but with entirely different meanings assigned to the words and phrases. Toast! Under those conditions, it burns cleaner than diesel fuel (american fuel grade).
> the engines arn't reliable...
different values of reliable. The hybrids need an engine that can kick on instantly every time. The backup generators need something that can kick on in a matter of minutes (or even seconds), and not very often.
hawk
hawk
Was the Audi article supposed to come before or after the free software article?
Actually, the US does have about forty cents or so of tax per gallon of gas, so the US government could , by adjusting the level of taxation, also provide a buffer for the price of gas. They apparently choose not to.
(currently testing something about signatures here)
Why should the oil companies be mad at you? You're eventually powering your house with the electricity created by your gas-burning Prius. You have met the corrupt powerplant owners, and they are you!
(currently testing something about signatures here)
$16K is twice the price I paid for my '89 Suburban. Just a data point.
(currently testing something about signatures here)
Moderated down as flamebait; oh well, it's just as well, I need the extra money anyway. Thank you very much for helping save my job from the competition cheap nuclear would have provided.
(Although, just between you and me, your prejudices are ugly and damaging to the environment no matter how much it might marginally help my standard of living.
(currently testing something about signatures here)
Funny how they never came up with a term for the opposite of a karma whore... someone who literally spends it?
(currently testing something about signatures here)
It's a very good vehicle when you occasionally have to haul around a great deal of junk. Like the connections I have to go down to Amelia to pick up tomorrow morning. Among other things.
What I probably need to do is to buy two vehicles, one for when I don't need the carrying capacity, and one for when I do. Do any of the people here who got obscenely rich writing obscenely unreadable perl code feel like making a donation? It'll help the environment!
(currently testing something about signatures here)
If you think the power companies are blacking people out from malicious spite, you've got a seriously distorted view of how things work; the only reason there were so many blackouts last year in CA were because the year before, it was easier to defer maintenance than to have minor blackouts, and it reached the point where the blackouts were unavoidable. The state power board did the equivalent of only changing the oil every 50,000 miles. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.
(currently testing something about signatures here)
But, 100KM is about, what, 65 maybe 70 miles? And 3 litres is slightly more than a gallon. That gives your VW about 60MPG, maybe 65MPG at most.
;)
sorry.. but your maths is a bit out there....
1 gallon is nearer to 4.5l, which would work this out to significantly MORE than 65mpg...
smash (cbf doing the maths, but the 3l=1gallon is definately wrong
I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
is it?
being a european car, I thought they would be using imperial gallons.
either way... it gets better fuel economy than your previous estimate.... by at least 20%
smash
I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
I live in St. Louis in the US. Just about every gas station here sells diesel and its usually cheaper than the regular stuff.
I live in the San Fransisco Bay Area, and I *rarely* see a gas station that offers diesel. If I'm driving to L.A., then all the gas stations along the freeway have them, obviously, but in town - almost never. Of course, there's a gas station on every corner, so even if the percentage that offer diesel is low, the chances of finding one aren't too bad.
Run a pencil-and-paper RPG campaign with your far-off friends: Gametable!
Isn't that a bit short sighted? You'll save the $50 a month on the more efficent car also after the 36 month loan period. If you keep the car for 10 years, that makes a (10*12-36)*$50=$4200 difference! Not even mentioning the benefit to the environment.
things. take. time.
Where are you people living?
I don't know what's going on, but every gas station I've been to in the USA has at least two diesel pumps. Nearly every gas station on an interstate highway is a mini-truckstop meaning they have as many diesel pumps as gasoline pumps.
While the USA is behind on diesel implementation for passenger vehicles, it is very common as tractor-trailers are almost exclusively diesel. Count most busses among them was well. I believe most farm tractors now made are diesel.
Like the man says. Diesel vehicles pollute more. However when your burning 1 gallon in 78 miles I think the lower volume of fuel goes some way to negate that.
Around here (Jamaica) Diesel pumps are literally everywhere. I.e. Every gas station in the country has 3 kinds of fuel. diesel is one of them.
However diesel cars are still not very popular. the main problem here is that auto purchasing is all about tradeoffs between; cost, performance, apearance/image, comfort and availability/price of spare parts.
In other words this is Toyota land. You can get a replacement engine for your Toyota Corolla for the cost of an overhaul kit for an Audi. Nissans are a close second. The structure is that around 90% of the parts dealers stock Nissan and toyota parts. Around 1/2 of those also stock parts for a 3rd or 4th brand.
Yes. This leaves some cars with a single source for all the parts and to top it off we have a customs maze that makes hoping online to order spare parts a scary proposition.
However a lot of people are quite happy with the Toyota LiteAce, HiAce and TownAce. All come in Diesel versions and all are reliable and maintainable.
PS: The land is still grean but the harbor stinks.
--= Isn't it surprising how badly I spell ?
Possibly. But that would require re-regulation of emissions from tractor trailers, industrial equipment, etc. And there are cleaner diesel fuels than the norm used by industry - biodiesel being one of them. And diesel fuel in the future will have further restrictions on sulfate emissions - the trucking industry has been crying loud and long about that.
Hope this helps a bit.
Sorry. I know how to, but it was 3 am when I made my reply so my thought processes were a little random.
I've been working on a project at Georgia Tech called FutureTruck, which is sponsored by the Department of Energy and some major automobile manufacturers. If you're interested, the website is here. GT is one of 15 schools from around the US and Canada that were tasked with taking a GM Suburban, a rather poor MPG performer but popular in today's market, and making it cleaner, more efficient, and (if possible) even more consumer-attractive.
;)
Just a couple things I've noticed over the past 2 years of this project:
1. Fuel cell vehicles are still a ways off. The hydrogen containers are bulky and heavy, and a system still costs around $1 million.
2. Diesel/biodiesel looks promising but a few problems remain - more polluting than normal gasoline, different performance issues, and such. However, they are more efficient overall. Paired with an electric motor, diesel engines could turn out to be cleaner and more effective than gasoline-only vehicles.
3. Electric-only vehicles are very limited in range and scope. Batteries are still heavy, even the 'new' kinds of batteries like Lithium-Ion. Combined with the need for a charging/recharging infrastructure, and the (at least) American desire for power, the electric-only vehicle will likely be relegated to shuttle cars on a set path.
4. Hybrids, like diesel-electric or gasoline-electric, seem to be the wave of the near future. I believe all the schools participating in FutureTruck are using a hybrid system of some sort. The Honda Insight is a good example of a production car that is a hybrid vehicle. It can reach about 70 MPG after a bit of driver training/getting-used-to. There are an array of configurations and methodologies for hybrid systems that I won't get into here, due to space considerations. But I believe, and so do a lot of other schools and even car manufacturers, that hybrids will pave the way in the near future. Beyond that... maybe they'll have fusion power worked out by then.
I hope this helps some of you out with what's going on in the alternative fuels/powertrain area. I am by no means an authority on this subject, so visit the Department of Energy, the Argonne National Laboratories, and the Society for Automotive Engineers websites for much more detailed information. Those websites are here, here, and here respectively.
FYI- Emissions standards aren't regulated at the state level, but at the city level. Houston and Dallas have had emissions standards for years and years. (not that it has done a bloody lot of good for Houston)
You can expect that Austin will pick them up shortly...perhaps within a year's time.
> over here a Land Rover Discovery literally is a small, economical family car
You are full of it. SUV's are fairly common, but your statement is flat hyperbole. And FYI pickups get considerably better gas mileage than an SUV.
> Texans really, truly do drive pickup trucks instead of cars
You need to take into account that low-end pickups are rather cheap vehicles, and thus economic from that standpoint. Still, their popularity is a bit of a holdover from the days when they were needed "out on the ranch" in Texas. Their actual utility is fairly low if you are in the city.
But again your statement is hyperbole. Virtually no one I know drives a truck, and I have lived in Texas all my life.
--Lenny
I don't know what rock you live under, but here in the US, diesel fuel is plenty widespread at almost any fueling station. Canada is similar.
That's basically what biodiesel is. Using biosdiesel works best with a diesel engine, oddly enough.
Not exactly a radical new concept, as many of you are suggesting. Such systems have been around for the better part of the 20th century - Look at railway locomotives and non-nuclear submarines.
Your comment is outdated by about 20 years. The new diesel engines coming out of europe are at least as clean as their gasoline counterparts.
Hey, pay attention to the market. Small cars have never sold well in the United States. Why? Two reasons, both psychological. One, anything less than 100 bhp is considered woefully inadequate for highway use. Pay no attention to those VW Lupos on the autobahn. Two, Americans aspire to large cars. Always have. The tendency is to buy the largest car for the money. Hence, vast fleets of SUVs, Cadillac and Lincoln building trucks, and the inexplicable success of the big, cheap, ugly Chevy Impala sedan.
A small premium European car is a big risk in the States. They're sold on razor-thin margins in Europe. That would get eaten up by the costs of export. DaimlerChrysler has been agonizing over American Smarts ever since they launched. Same for the Audi A2 and Mercedes-Benz A-Class, although the new long wheelbase version of the latter would do a little better. Again, bigger is better. If given $25,000, the average American would choose a well-equipped Toyota Camry over a base Audi A3.
Besides, regional Dept./Ministry of Transportation regulations do more to interfere with imports than trade policies. Building a car to 30 different sets of regs with one build configuration is, unfortunately, quite expensive. IIRC, only Jaguar builds cars this way. Robert Cumberford had a good article on this in Automobile last year. (Not online.)
BTW, Alfa is coming back, Renault's '80s shitboxes ruined the reputation of all French cars in America, there are no smaller Volvos, and Rover's lucky they're still selling cars in England.
(Score: -1, Feeding the Trolls)
We're not scare-mongering/This is really happening - Radiohead
This sig intentionally left blank.
Why? It's the only kind of vehicle American companies can manufacture that competes favorably globally as well as generates large profit margins reliably. Let's see if they can transition into a more responsible form: this will only happen if consumers demand it. Government intervention can only ever be a bad thing, for individual liberty AND the economy, AND the environment. At least, it would be obvious if you read up on the more stupid things FedGov has done.
Thanks to well-meaning CAFE requirements and bloody insurance companies, I as a 28-year-old can't affordably own a V8-powered Camaro because of insurance issues, but I can (relatively) easily insure a V8-powered Jeep Grand Cherokee. The Camaro is faster, more efficient, more maneuverable, smaller, lighter, etc. But too many teenage punks get into wrecks in them, and that causes my insurance to cost.
Also, thanks to CAFE, fast cars with big engines are expensive to make and certify, and require larger numbers of fleet econoboxes to be sold (at a razor-thin margin or even loss thanks to competition) in order to compensate for their lower economy. Light trucks (SUVs) are not subject to the same CAFE regulations, so you can easily have your high-output V8s in them instead, and do so relatively cheaply.
Several years of gas costing more than $2/gallon will effectively kill the SUV trend without loathsome political meddling. It will also cause older, more polluting, less efficient cars (which are owned by under/noninsured low-income folks, or fixed-income oldies who shouldn't be on the roads to begin with IMAO) to come off the road, thus cleaning up the air and reducing traffic. BTW, modern SUVs have lower emissions than pre-1990s cars of equal engine displacement.
Personally, I believe that we should:
Do I think we'll even achieve step 1 within the next decade? I doubt it. However, you get lots of neat fringe benefits from that, including getting old people off the road, promoting mass transit (and watch out for the storm in the mass transit civil service world when additional millions of Americans wake up to the mass shithole that passes for mass transit in most of our cities), cleaning the air, and reducing dependance on imported oil.
I like plans that kill several birds with one stone, it's just important to keep an eye out for collateral damage.
Your Working Boy,
- Otis (GAIM: OtisWild)
I mean, the Prius looks like an Echo, which is possibly the ugliest car in the history of US motoring.
BZZT! Wrong! Thank you for playing.
The ugliest car on North American roads now is the Pontiac Aztek. It's old-skool 70's butt ugly. It isn't even cuddly-ugly like an A-10 warthog. It just needs to be taken out and shot, along with its designers.
Your Working Boy,
- Otis (GAIM: OtisWild)
Would you believe that in BC
;) and what the consequences are of doing something the wrong way.
Irony alert: my Jeep was built in Canada, thus providing jobs and income tax for the Ontario economy. Though it is technically still considered a "domestic" American car by the US FedGov..
It's a *fair* system... but because the government is involved, there's been call to dismantle it.
Part of that whole 'Friendlier for business' push I've been hearing about? I certainly hope your civic leaders are keeping a close eye on what happened with privatizing the Calfornian electrical utilities (I'm sure they are, they're certainly making lots of Accounts Receivable selling power to them, which as a New Yorker I say squeeze those envirohippies until they bleed
Your Working Boy,
- Otis (GAIM: OtisWild)
Until diesel pumps are everywhere, I think I'll hold out for my solar/hydrogen-fuel-cell/flywheel hybrid.
And that's exactly why they aren't eveywhere. Because people are 'holding out'. New technology (even sometimes old technology like deisel) takes adoption.
-- Truth goes out the door when rumor comes innuendo. -- Groucho Marx
We are ignoring all "alternative-fuel" cars. Why? LOOK AT THEM! They are the ugliest cars in creation. The Audi A2 looks like a Ford Fungus (Focus). The Honda Prius looks like a turd. It seems that car makers want to make it obvious that the owner is a cheap-ass and doesnt want to pay for high price gas. Maybe make a electric car that looks like a NORMAL vehicle and we will buy it.
-
aphex
I Steal Music!
No, I don't have it the wrong way. Please go hit the 'net and figure it out. Shouldn't take you more than a few seconds, bub.
--
--
Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
Sorry, didn't mean to imply that the government should be involved; I can see how my message could easily be interpreted as such.
What I meant was "lean on your friends and family to not be knobs when they choose their next vehicle"...
Would you believe that in BC, where we have a single-source insurance scheme that's tightly regulated by the government, there's now talk of privatizing the whole shebang?
It's utterly stupid. Here we have a system that *works*: there's no age bias. There's no bias against make or model. There hasn't been a rate increase in ages, and our rates are, for most drivers, lower than in other provinces. The insurance company is involved with redesigning high-incident intersections and roads, further reducing accidents. And the *only* people who get punished are those people who *prove* they can't drive, by getting into accidents.
You can be an 18-year old male driving a Camaro and you will pay *exactly* as much insurance as a forty-year old driving a Honda Accord. *ONLY* if you fuck it up, will you pay through the nose.
It's a *fair* system... but because the government is involved, there's been call to dismantle it.
At which point, many of us will be fucked right over, because we'll end up with plenty o' age/sex/vehicle discrimination. That stupid fucker of a soccer mom running red lights in her SUV will pay bugger all for insurance, but I'll be feckin' broke to pay for my motorcycle insurance... even though I've had less accidents than that bitch.
oooooh, I'm gonn aget sooooo bitter...
--
--
Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
How amusing. Europeans spend more, to get gas that contains less bang! The higher the octane, the less "power" it provides...
--
--
Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
QUIT MAKING SUVS/
If you *really* want to see automobile pollution and gas consumption dramatically reduced, call for an end to the SUV trend.
Alas, despite the soaring price of gas and of new vehicles, all too many stupid North Americans are purchasing pickup trucks and SUVs -- not because they *need* those sorts of vehicles, but for the status symbol.
Unfortunately, they're killing us when they make those choices.
--
--
Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
Oh, hell, no. This is British Columbia we're talking about. Home to continuous political scandal!
We just elected in a "Liberal" government that's actually pretty damn right-wing, to the tune of 76 of 79 seats. In other words, we have *NO* effective opposition to this government.
One of their political platforms: they're gonna look into privatizing BC Hydro.
This would be a company that's charging BCers a whopping $0.0577/kWH. We're not exactly being screwed over by them...
Yup. BC. Always interesting.
--
--
Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
To me, it seems logical to combine this technology with diesel engines.
Go you big red fire engine!
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
Yeah, but they do it for a different reason, IIRC. Diesel locomotives use a hybrid arrangement because a pure diesel locomotive would have trouble moving away from rest smoothly (imagine changing gears on a locomotive . . . ). I don't know whether they use regenerative braking or not, though . . . as diesel locomotives tend to not brake very often it might not be worth it.
Go you big red fire engine!
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
Of course, while petrol is as cheap as water in the US and Australia we'll all keep pouring fuel down our oversized, overpriced and unsafe (both for drivers, passengers and especially for other road users) SUVs. Sigh . . .
Go you big red fire engine!
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
They are everywhere in north america, you just have to know where to look (truckstops) along major throughways. In several parts of the country (farming areas) diesel is available at many normal gas stations. My father is a truck driver, truckers can run from Alaska to the panama canal, LA to Hudson bay... all on diesel, granted they have 100+ gallon fuel tanks, but that's usually because they don't want to stop as often, and because a rig uses a hell of a lot more "go juice" than a car does. (fully loaded up Baker Grade in the California desert headed to Las Vegas we figured something like 5 miles per gallon as I recall....)
:(
Even if it is available though, it's not the right solution for a lot of us... diesel sucks in stop and go city driving for example, CNG (compressed matural gas) combined with regenerative breaking absolutely rules in that regard (think city busses, this is perfect for them). And the soot it produces (while cleaner than gasoline exhaust) is not exactly healthy, but unlike gasoline's by products soot can be dealt with efficiently in the car, either by traditional filters, or by washable static grids. Personally, I'll take hydrogen fuel cells and efficient electric motors my self, possibly with solar panels to supliment them, if I were still living in Arizona, not sure I want them up here in Minnesota.
Once again the US auto industry is getting the ars kicked by the Japanese. Oh, I own a Toyota Prius and after 9400 miles, I'm averaging 48.1 MPG. When the rolling blackouts hit I power a home circuit with a 12V to 110V Inverter and a 100' extension cord in the trunk of the Prius.
eat THAT oil companies and crocked Texas powerplant owners!
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
sorry, I guess I should have explained how what I said effected the oil companies and how what I said effected the electricity generators....
I don't think the oil companies like that I'm getting ~50 MPG without giving up a thing. IMHO
I don't think the electricity generators like it when their rolling blackouts don't blackout everyone.
By the way, I don't think the Hybrid technology is the save-all end-all technology but it is currently the only technology getting us to a cleaner environment. IMHO
LoB
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
Methanol? Better check your research. Methanol is produced from natural gas, a non-renewable resource.
I don;t understand why every slashdot post needs to have some dismissive comment appended to the end of it.
I have a Diesel Chevette with 400,000 miles on it, and Diesel pumps ARE everywhere. I've driven to every part of the USA, and trust me: truck stops are EVERYWHERE. (In case you don't know, trucks have Diesel engines.)
And although I haven't travelled much in the world outside of the US, the few places I did travel to had MORE Diesel facilities than the US.
So stop with the uneducated comments.
Is it just me, or don't diesel engines produce a rather nasty amount of emissions? I thought I heard something about Golf TDIs not even being legal here in California because of emissions. That said, my hope for the future would be some kind of ethanol-based alternative - I really don't think electric or biodiesel can come close to the horsepower and acceleration of modern gas-powered cars, and I love to drive.
-=lx=-
I've heard that the Insight actually gets much higher than the advertised mpg. As high as 90mpg highway. My personal theory on this (note this is based on no actual facts) is that honda tested the MPG at "standard" driving speeds, ie 60mph, but in reality people drive much faster and this car just happens to do better at higher speeeds.
-matt
Fuel companies do sell so-called 'winter diesel' that will run at much lower temps than -20C. I live on a farm in western Canada where winter temps get as low as -40C or lower. During those months I have to feed cows every day and do it with a diesel-powered tractor. And of course the truckers keep going in that weather, too. Getting those engines started in that kind of weather is a bit trickier (plugging in block heaters at warmer temps than gas engines, as well as using starting fluid) but once they're running they're fine.
being a european car, I thought they would be using imperial gallons.
Nope, we use liters, kilo's and meters
The only country in Europe where they use gallons and miles is Great-Britain and Ireland.
And this means that a liter of petrol is around 1,16 euro a liter for euro unleaded.
Diesel is around 0,73 euro a liter.
And biodiesel around 0,59 euro a liter.
Compare this with the fuel prices in the USA.
There's a deisel pump at every station I go to. It used to be more expensive: now its fifty cents cheaper at least. I wouldn't mind me having a deisel engine (when I was a kid my parents had one until it got totalled)
If you think you know what the hell is going on you're probably full of shit. -- Robert Anton Wilson
If you think you know what the hell is going on you're probably full of shit. -- Robert Anton Wilson
jdube is who
Desiel engines also have the added advantage that, as long as the exhaust is above water level, it can drive straight through flooded roads. Petrol cars can't do this because the water would prevent the spark from happening in the engine. Jeeps and land-rovers designed for off-road use in areas like Africa and Australia are fitted wih snorkels so that then can drive straight through rivers. Given that most SUVs are running petrol, even with a snorkel, they wouldn't make it even half way.
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
Erm... don't forget that the population density of most European countries means that it makes more sense to have small cars and/or inner city rail lines like trams.
Now that you ARE in Texas, think about how spread out everything is.
It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
My Golf is chipped and makes 115 hp and nearly 200 lb. ft. I can break my 225/50 Yokos loose through second gear in the dry. And I get 45 mpg min. And the motor should last 600-700k miles (quoted from VW). And in nearly 52,000 miles I have never had a single problem with it. None . Nada. It blows no smoke unless I floor it under heavy load. It makes hardly any noise and does not smell. Diesels have come a very, very long way. http://www.geocities.com/abtgolftdi
Although diesels may be much more efficient, if you start putting strict environmental controls on them, they'll start to decline in efficiency. Gasoline engines could be marginally more efficient if they didn't have catalytic convertors and other emission controls. The main reason for this is less constricted airflow going out of the tailpipe. I do not advocate reducing pollution controls to increase efficiency however. There have to be better ways.
I drive a gasoline 4-cyl. Jetta. I've pined for a TDI VW (Jetta, Golf, New Beetle, etc.) for sometime. I've not had the chance to drive one, but I've followed behind a few, and it's really surprising not to smell the exhaust. It's amazing what VW's done with those engines. I'd recommend that anybody should read this article about VW's 25th anniversary of the TDI: http://www.vwvortex.com/news/index_25tdi.html.
--Bernie
uuhm yeah, suffer that's it. how about considering the results of your actions? as an american we use more energy than india and china combined (feel free to compare the numbers). grow the fuck up, you don't want to be comfortable. compare you're life to any other era in in history and tell me that you're suffering. even if you used half the energy you use, you're still wastefull by any other standard.
My major objection to the current crop of hybrid vehicles is pretty shallow...they are phenomenally ugly cars. Not just poorly styled (like most of Honda's stuff), but aggressively ugly. Like "We're going to make you work real hard to get past how ugly this car is" ugly. I mean, the Prius looks like an Echo, which is possibly the ugliest car in the history of US motoring. Shallow objection? Maybe. But styling sells cars. Anybody who tells you different is trying to sell ugly cars.
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
I stand corrected. You're right and I'm wrong. I'd managed to block that rolling abortion from my memory. What an awful awful car...
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
There has been alot of work using computer genetic algorithyms modeling of diesel engines. Engines with these later designs have 50% reduced emissions and 15% increased fuel efficiency over todays best engines. See genetic diesel algorithym
..........FULL STOP.
Actually, in the whole EU (and that's going to be mandatory to those who ask membership too), you have to pass emission tests, every other year (the states don't have the power to override that, it's a directive).
Basically, if you don't pass, you either fix the problem (in France, you have 2 months), or you quit using that car. Simple enough, isn't it ? Only more than thirty or fourty year old cars are exempt; and you really don't see many of these outside collections.
(These new diesels are known as Clean Diesels, and are a favourite of my local bus company, which is how I know about them.)
Actually, your bus company's diesels lack the latest advancements -- a Peugeot 607 FAP (or Citroen C5 and Xsara, or -- again -- the newest Peugeot 307 FAP), are equipped with a self-regenerating particle re-burner. Basically, the thing makes the particles go through a catalyser, which eliminates them. Once every roughly 20000km, the engine's cycle is automatically tweaked, so the exhaust gases are a bit hotter for a while, which cleans the filter. You don't even notice anything.
While this new filter is currently fitted only on a single carmaker's higher level cars, you can bet that in 2 years, they'll be almost everywhere (just like the HDi/TDI/dCi/JTD engines rule the market today. Only the cheapest cars still have atmospheric [diesel] engines, and some carmakers like Fiat (owner of a famous fast expensive red car producer) seem to just sell common rail stuff these days.
My car is technically quite old ; it burns 4L/100km (of diesel), which is quite good. The next generation Peugeot/Ford[europe] low-end diesels have a target of 2.5L/100, which is quite excellent...
There are other "advances" (hmmm. Let's call that, re-advances). First is Aquazole (an emulsion of water in the diesel oil); most city bus companies use them nowadays (when they're not already burning natural gas). Aquazole is quite cool, in that the combustion is only necessary to heat the gases ; most of the mechanical energy comes from the (more or less) adiabatic relaxation of gases. It makes a lot of sense to have the strict minimum of petroleum-derived gases, and have the majority of relaxation gases being simply water vapour. When the proportion's right, the exhaust temperature is just a little above 100C, and the efficiency's at its best [*]. As Aquazole is a bit (energetically) expensive to produce, another way (which has been quite used in the aeronautic industry of the piston era) is to inject a suspension of water droplets in the cylinders just after the combustion began. Now these subsystems get a lot of attention too...
Anyway, reducing the overall fossil stuff consumed is a Good Thing. Whether the byproducts are soot, CO2, SO2, Pu, Th and whatnot, it's always dirt.
[*] unfortunately, lower temperature exhausts is diametrically opposite to the way particle filters work ; those need higher temperature exhaust gases to work efficiently. That'll certainly get worked out pretty soon, though.
(finally, the gasoline engines aren't sitting either. Common rail ("EDI/GDI/HPi"), Altivar [alternator is also an auxiliary electric engine. When you're sitting in a jam, or at a red light, you just don't burn anything] (1 or two years from Renault to market now), and electro-magnetically driven valves (dump the camshaft, and gain features like dynamically adjusting the valve cycle to better burn the combustible, or dynamically disable a few cylinders when they're not necessary, etc. Costs some electric power at high RPM, unfortunately, but counts as extremely cool in my book).
[electric engines will be cool when the batteries are able to last 200000km (not on a single charge, of course), and be produced, recharched, and recycled (ecologically) efficiently. As long as these batteries represent more polluent (concentrated in a small volume but still potentially extremely harmful) than what my Saxo will exhaust in its whole life cycle, then no thanks] [and I'm an all-out nuke fan]
However, it's better to transport a lot of things in one truck than a lot of things in a lot of cars! That's why busses, even though older ones (newer ones often don't use petrol or diesel) stink, are far preferable to individual cars.
As for flying things being efficient, I have read that a 747 is currently the most efficient way to move large payloads over long distances. Take that information with a grain of salt, however, since I read it at boeing.com! :)
--
You're a suburbanite.
Did you factor in purchase value at the end of the lease?
I think the price diff between the TDi and the GL model (on the Jetta) is pretty much compensated by the superior resale value of the car.
But there is no question that the more you drive with a diesel, the more you save.
A VW used just for a short commute might not save you much money, but you're not spending much on fuel anyways.
So just enjoy the quieter ride and the low end torque of the TDi for the time being!
I had an 1100cc Kawasaki motorcycle (ZZ-R1100) which would eaily return about 50mpg in daily use or long motorway cruising. Not bad for 174mph worth of bike.
Mind you, if you thrashed it around, that would drop a lot
dave
What kind of driving do you do? Mostly long distances? Short trips? Just curious. What year is you Passat?
Yeah, but the difference is that Candada also has almost universally available block heater electrical outlets at all public/private parking lots, which are pretty much essential for diesel engines in severe cold (of course in Canada you need them even for gas engines). The winters in England don't get as cold as in the US, so although many people with diesel engines may have their own heaters at home, it's not the requirement that it would be in the Northern US.
Try the Brabus-tuned Mercedes-Benz S400 CDI.
330 HP, 0-60 in about 6.2 seconds.
The Mercedes-Benz S-Class starts at about $60000,
the Brabus kit costs about $10000.
But you don't really want to compare a Corvette with a Mercedes-Benz S-Class. The S400 CDI is a top-of-the-line luxury sedan with an engine that shows sportscar-like performance. But it's by
no means a sports car.
In the end it boils down to a simple question which you have yet to answer: would you like nuclear waste buried in your county?
Yes. In fact, nuclear waste is already buried in my country, along with your country, and every other fucking country in the world. It's called naturally-occuring uranium. Natural decay products from naturally-occuring radioactive elements account for about half your yearly exposure to radiation (and more if you live in certain parts of the world, like France, with high natural radon levels). Nuclear power accounts for much less than 1% of your yearly exposure.
The reason diesel supporters claim they produce less soot is because the soot particles are smaller now--too small to be detected by current tests, so it seems like there's less soot, even though total soot output hasn't really changed. Unfortunately, these smaller soot particles are harder for your lungs to clear out, because they can more easily embed in the lung walls, instead of getting swept out by the natural mucous flow. Because of this, they're likely worse for you. (These new diesels are known as Clean Diesels, and are a favourite of my local bus company, which is how I know about them.)
If you Americans really want to save the environment, switch to nuclear power. Build the freaking Yucca Mountain repository, and stop worrying. You're all getting more than 50 times as much radiation from naturally-occuring radon as you are from the nuclear industry. Even if you happened to be living at the outer fence of Three Mile Island during the accident, you still only would have taken a dose equivalent to the normal naturally-occuring yearly dose (~1 milisievert). It's just not a big deal. If you still feel concerned about radiation, get your house tested for radon, and don't fly to France (flying exposes you to higher levels of cosmic radiation, and France has high levels of naturally-occuring radon).
Once you have clean electricity, electric cars actually make sense. As it is, you're mostly just moving the pollution around. (Yes, yes, I know you can produce electricity more cleanly on a large scale than you can produce power in a car, but, when you factor in transmission losses and other inefficiencies involved in electric cars, it's all about the same, so screw off).
However, there is only one concern: price. If this biodiesel became the norm, how would its price compare to an equivalent amount of gasoline
A considerable amount of the price of current fuels is tax. Effectivly biodiesel can be like "homebrew" wine or beer uneconomic to tax.
Biodiesel is made from used fryer oil.
It can be, AFAIK currently most is made from ordinary vegetable oil. The reason being that no-one has worked out the logistics for recycling oil. The alternative would be to make everywhere which uses oil also act as a fuel station...
In US, I paid, at most, about $1.25/gallon. Here in Italy, I pay around 2300 Lira/Litre...or about $3.00/gallon. The really funny thing is that during the "Summer 2000 Gasoline Crisis" in the US, my price never went up...at all!
Most of the cost is in taxation. Production dosn't cost that much, before the invention of cars it was considered a useless byproduct of the fractional distilation process.
Actually Cannabis Sativa is not a very good choice for oil production. There are several plants that blow its doors off as far as efficiency at producing oil. The most common being soybeans.
What use is the rest of the plant though? Ever heard of using soya to make fabric, rope or paper? Let alone that soya dosn't have the alkaloids that protect against insect damage and have very interesting pharmacutical potential. Oh and it can make a good recreational drug too, but can't have that, must stick with prohibition...
The engine needed for a hybrid like the Insight has to be small and must start reliably; diesel isn't best suited for either.
Wonder why there are all those diesel fueled backup generators then if the engines arn't reliable...
There's a reason we have been weaned away from biodiesel - it means empowerment for the individual and power away from government & corps. - because biodiesel can be made by you and me.
Also the US government especially dislikes the plant Cannabis Sativa which is especially good for producting this product as well as many others.
From an agricultural POV a plant where the whole thing can be used for commercial product makes a whole lot of sense.
Trains can also haul a lot more stuff than a truck can -- there can be trains with dozens of cars, but a truck with dozens of trailers would be a real menace.
In Australia they have these things called "road trains". Effectivly they are a truck with lots of trailers (and a sign on the back to tell people not to try overtaking one.)
"So who're the morons in the Marketing Depts at the car manufacturers?"
:(
They're busy selling the Prius. Four doors, four cylinder, regenerative braking, and continuously variable transmission. $5K more you say? Well it turns out that they cost about $5K more than an Accord (~$20K).
Okay, it only gets fifty miles to the gallon. It's a start. And it's been selling in the US since summer of last year.
And no, I don't work for Toyota. But I've owned my Prius since November and it's great... Except for a lack of cruise control. That's on the 2002 models.
- I don't need to go outside, my CRT tan'll do me just fine.
"Recycled" cooking oil? I think you're talking about biodiesel. The last I heard, there was no recycling going on. They grow crops (such as the soybean) for the explicit purpose of making it. The only recycling going on is being done by Mother Earth.
It is cool though. Most people are using blends (part biodiesel, part standard diesel) because the fossil fuel is currently cheaper. Not by much, but more than enough to cut into trucking profits. Luckily, standard diesel and biodiesel mix well so the infrastructure can gradually get up to speed.
- I don't need to go outside, my CRT tan'll do me just fine.
Catalytic converters are indeed basically useless (and even counter-productive) for very short distances, but standard diesel fuel has higher nitrogen oxide emmisions due to the high sulpher content in fossil fuel diesel. The excess sulpher makes filtering the output (what a catalytic converter does for an unleaded fuel vehicle) for NOx harder.
Biodiesel lacks sulpher so making an emmisions filter for it is much easier. That and it's a renewable resource.
I must say that I agree with one of the other posts today; It's time for a hybrid diesel/electric vehicle. Just as long as it's biodiesel.
- I don't need to go outside, my CRT tan'll do me just fine.
I stand corrected.
Très cool!
- I don't need to go outside, my CRT tan'll do me just fine.
Last I heard about the Smart, they were having *really large problems* with the safety standards in the US... Until they solve some of those problems, it may be a while.
--
"It's tough to be bilingual when you get hit in the head."
Hehe, and I'm in Minnesota... every time I head back to the homeland (East Coast), I'm amazed at how much more in shape (and stressed out) everyone is...
--
"It's tough to be bilingual when you get hit in the head."
Yeah, the Suburban, Excursion, Ecscalade, etc are all "large" problems for little cars... my Jetta and I nearly got run over by one of those Escalades (driven by a cell-phone-talkin soccer-mom in a grocery parking lot... I think the bumper on that vehicle was about at my head level.
--
"It's tough to be bilingual when you get hit in the head."
Yes. I'm originally from southwest North Dakota... many of the pickup trucks my grandparents used on their farm were converted from diesels over to some sort of compressed natural gas (I have no clues as to what) in the late '70s, early '80s. Supposedly the conversions increased mileage substantially without sacrificing power (important for when you're actually using a pickup to haul things other than your ego) or increasing engine wear.
That was 20 years ago, and the retrofit could be done locally and cheaply. Give the technology the 20 years and install it from the factory---I wonder how good it would be now.
----
----
Am I the only one who thinks Microsoft is a misnomer? Perhaps Macrosoft would be a better fit?
500, 1000? The basic engine doesn't really have that many moving parts. Lawnmower engines have maybe 5 to 15 moving parts. 1 Crank/flywheel, 1 piston, 1 rod, 1 cam, 2 valves, 1 choke, 1 throttle, 1 PC valve and 2 crank bearings. Rotary's, diesel, and 2 stroke engines have even fewer. The rotary does away with the piston/rods/valves and on a power/weight scales does considerably better than most electric engines and has a pretty flat power curve.
Scaling this up for a modern 4 cyl, You might have 1 crank/flywheel, 4 pistons, 4 rods, 1 cam, 8 valves, 1 oil pump, 4 injectors, 1 fuel rail regulator, 1 throttle, 1 PC, and assorted bearings. Crank angle sensor and electronic ignition does away with the distributor. Then there are maybe a half dozen non critical emissions related parts, EGR valve, cold start bypass valves, etc. Then there are assorted other things, water pump, temperature valve, alternator, and fuel pump. After removing things you would want but don't need like the power steering, air conditioner, power brakes, etc you probably only have around a 75 to 100 moving parts on the average engine. 50 of these 100 or so parts could be removed if needed or replaced with non moving systems. Then there is the ...
drivetrain
What I was getting at is your numbers are more likely (if a little low) for the whole automobile. Saying an electric automobile has 2 moving parts and a normal automobile 1000 is somewhat misleading. If pure electric vehicles ever take off then you will discover a bunch of 'extra' parts for air conditioning, brake boosters, or maybe even water cooled electric motors. Its hard to predict which way the drive trains will go, but it is definitly possible that they will be relativily complicated and not look anything like direct motor to wheel couplings. Modern hybrids are pretty complicated and don't really save that much in the way of complexity. Complexity and reliability are related but there are lots of engines that are complex with very high reliability numbers, car engines arn't reliable mostly because they don't need to be.
Back in '87-'90, I drove a 1983 Ford Escort. My dad bought it new that year and gave it to me after driving it into a flooded road while driving to work (3:30am?). Because my dad commuted about 130 miles each day, he got possibly _the_ most fuel efficient vehicle at the time, getting 60 MPG.
Not in a typical Escort of the day...a 5-speed with a 2.3l diesel in it. I want to think it had a Mitsubishi engine in it, but it could have been a Suzuki. This engine, in comparison to the European Escorts of the time, just _looked_ more rugged. The European 1986 Diesel Escort engine looked like a sewing machine. Mine looked like a small Cummings from the side. I had to investigate parts, and found the difference in engine styles startling!
Not a turbo, but I'd thought about trying to do it when I was in Europe with the USAF, and had the car shipped there and back home. I can't remember how many miles it had on it, but the speedometer was pegged lots of the time.
So it needed a _serious_ valve job, so I traded it in for a Hyundai. :/
I now own a '93 Geo Metro with over 220k miles on it. Still gets over 40 mph, but not 55-60 when it was new.
Cleaner diesels, whether they burn bio-diesel or not, are a good choice, IMHO. I'd prefer a hybrid with a diesel over one with a gasoline engine, mostly for maintenance reasons.
Plus ca change, plus c'est les memes choses.
...major improvements in electric engines.
One of the big bitches of electric cars is (besides battery life) the poor power/weight ratio of the electric engine against the gas (petrol) engine. Also, even more damning, is the relative reliability of the gas engine. What we really need are people putting alot more effort into making a better, lightweight electric engine.
We already have the parts to build a really good hybrid gas/electric car (which, face it folks, is the only kind of low-emissions vehicle you will see for years). We have the following parts:
The Honda Inspire and the coming competition from Nissan and Toyota are OK, but face it, we need something about the size of a Honda Accord, not a Honda Civic CRX. I can't see any reason (technically) right now why someone doesn't mass-produce a converted Accord. I mean, you can use the exact same design (maybe cheat and use alluminium body panels), just with a new powertrain (with an electric engine, you should probably have a continuously variable transmission, rather than an "automatic", and definately not a "standard") and still get at least 70+ miles/gallon (that is, 30km/l).
Hell, with the $4k US tax credit for buying a low-emission vehicle, and gas here at $1.75 in the DFW Area, I'd spend $5k more for a converted Accord over a normal one, and still make out like a bandit. So who're the morons in the Marketing Depts at the car manufacturers?
He should've specified U.S. gallon, which would be 3.785 L. With about 1.6 km per mile, you get (100 km/1.6)/(3 L/3.785)=78.8 mpg, which is still more than 65.
(The first time through, I forgot to do the kilometers-to-miles conversion and came up with "~126 mpg" (really 126 km/gallon, which makes no sense). Remind me not to go to work for NASA. :-) )
20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
With €1=86, that's $3.78/gallon for unleaded (what grade--premium or the cheap stuff?), $2.38/gallon for diesel, and $1.92/gallon for biodiesel (you sell that out of gas stations over there?). Even with recent price hikes here, you're still getting bent over by comparison. It does explain why diesels are much more common in Europe than here in the States. (The cheapest I've seen locally (Las Vegas) in the past week is $1.63 for 87-octane (the cheap stuff), and we usually have higher prices here than most other parts of the country. I don't look at diesel prices much as I don't drive trucks, but the few times I've noticed them, they usually run about the same as premium, give or take a bit.)
20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
(I could've gotten an '80 Eldorado with a 350 diesel for about $3000, but I wanted rear-wheel drive. Besides, while both cars are powered by 350-ci (5.7L for the rest of you) Oldsmobile engines, the gas engine is good for at least a third more power than the diesel engine (that's just for a mid-70s smogger, not the higher-performance engines of the late 60s and early 70s), and it weighs less. Also, even a mid-70s A-body weighs less than any E-body ever did, AFAIK. The salesman said that the previous owner had been getting pretty good mileage out of the Eldo, though...)
20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
I've seen diesel Suburbans before; I think they were built up to sometime in the 80s or (maybe) early 90s. The three engines that are currently available are all gas-fueled, though.
The Hummer is available with a 6.5L turbodiesel, but you'll pay through the nose for one (and if you never take it off-road, you shouldn't be allowed to own one :-) ).
20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
Ford Excursion /GM Suburban
Chevy
Am Hummer
Mercedes G-Wagen
AFAIK, every American car should at least nominally work perfectly on gasahol (this was like mandated or something). However, where are all the gasahol pumps? I think there are about 100 in the whole country (something like that).
I hope you don't hold your breath for diesel or gasahol...or any not-standard petroleum.
By the way, did you catch the quote from the President's chief of staff:
So stop being such a damn commie and join your other red-blooded Americans in handing your tax cut right over to the oil industry. We can't waste money on alternative clean sources of energy, we have a "blessed" way of conspicuous energy consumption to uphold!!
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
Low sulphur diesel (so called "city diesel" in the UK) is now pretty universal. It's petroleum based diesel that has been treated, and while it is not as good as vegetable based fuels it beats petrol by a fair margin.
Furthermore, your colourful language and inventive gammar lends wonderfully to your stereotype. Are you sure it isn't a Camaro?
....in many European countries. It was a hot subject in the mid nineties, and heralded as a low pollution fuel** but the taxation in many places has increased to the point where diesel is now more expensive than petrol and thus mitigating some of the savings; fuel consumption differentials still ensure there's a chunk left though.
When diesel was hot, there was a move to increasingly high performance and larger diesels in small cars, thus eliding much of the economy value excpept on long trips - the Citroen ZX TD Volcane is a classic example - 1.9 turbo diesel, around 135 bhp in a small hatchback, makes 50 mpg* or so on the morotway but below 25 mpg* in traffic.
* Imperial gallons - US deduct 20% from those figures
** Ah yes, pollution - diesel produces a lot of unsightly smoke, but there is very little in the way of chemical pollutants, NOx etc in modern diesel exhaust. Diesel smoke is just that, smoke - it is much more environmentally friendly than the stuff you can't see that comes out of a petrol engine, cat or not - catalytic converters just don't work on short journeys. Ever smelled the (catalysed) car in front fart? That's hydrogen sulphide, and it isn't good for you.
Someone designed a wonderful system for dealing with the particulates from a diesel, which would involve placing a cotton wadding filter canister on the tailpipe - these would be washable and exchangeable at fuel stations, once per tank of fuel for a couple of dollars.
Another great thing is lean burn technology for petrol engines - great technology, no political will. There was so much political momentum behind the cat solution (not least because it came from America so must be cool) that superior alternatives got squashed.
I live in the aforesaid land of the free (Austin, TX to be exact) and yes, there is a long way to go in addressing pollution. OK, so they have cats here and people in Texas typically drive far enough for them to have an effect, but there's no emissions check whatsoever in what passes for an annual vehicle inspection in the lone star state. You can quite legally drive a 17 year old petrol Suburban (river barge disguised as a 4x4) that has the energy consumption of a small third world nation, blows more smoke than a badly tuned diesel under full load, and who knows what invisible noxious gases besides, and get away with it until the thing literally rusts apart.
The low fuel prices (petrol is literally half the price of bottled water, currently $1.35 to $1.70 per **gallon** depending on octane) and the local prediliction for having a huge-ass pickup truck as personal transportation don't exactly help - to set context for European readers, over here a Land Rover Discovery literally is a small, economical family car (and that's the 3.9 V8 petrol model, they don't even sell the diesel models).
Europeans just wouldn't understand - Texans really, truly do drive pickup trucks instead of cars, even if they rarely have a passenger and never haul a bigger load in them than a bag of grocery shopping; roughly half the *software dvelopers* in our company drive one (empty of course) to work every day. There is some concession to economy - almost none are 4 wheel drive, and a 3.8 V6 with a manual gearbox is more typical than the traditional 5.x V8 slush-o-matic, but moving a brick shape throuhg the air isn't cheap; 17 mpg US (21 mpg Imp) is considered *good*.
That's because those V8 are old-style diesel engines. Modern diesels, such as those made by VW, BMW or Peugot are very clean and efficients (thru the use of common-rail, particule filters, etc...).
Or at least, along the major trucking arteries. In the area I grew up (north central PA), EVERY filling station had at least one Deisel pump, no less. You were shooting yourself in the face if you didn't have one. They're not nearly as common in the city, but they're around if you know where to look for them- the big freight haulers and busses run off of Deisel for exactly this reason- mileage. And it's relatively cheaper. (As in,even if it IS more expensive, the mileage difference evens out to the gas costing less per mile)
Until diesel pumps are everywhere, I think I'll hold out for my solar/hydrogen-fuel-cell/flywheel hybrid.
But diesel pumps are everywhere, at least near where I live (Toronto), where would many trucks get their fuel? Not many specialized diesel stations around. Almost always cheaper than regular gas, although a bit worse for the environment.
Why? Because when it looked like diesel cars would get popular a few decades ago, taxes were raised on it so that those people who conserved energy using diesel passenger cars would'nt get any tax benefit from it! I kid you not.
You see, the environmentalist organizations don't really give a damn whether or not resources are conserved or CO2 emissions reduced. No, they want to see people suffer. Until they see people's lives being screwed up, these busibodies don't feel they've done enough to force other people to do enough. How dare people presume that they deserve to be comfortable, for goodness sake!
No, this isn't trying to be flamebait. Over and over, the agenda is given away when environmental radicals, with perfectly straight faces, respond to proposals for gathering energy from sources as clean as geothermal plants with whining that supplying more energy will just keep people from "conserving energy" as they should instead, totally missing the point that the idea is to conserve the resources used in producing the amount of energy needed by society.
Instead it's conserveconserveconserve to reduce the level of comfort and prosperity people should be allowed to enjoy - can't allow them to maintain the same lifestyle simply by using resources more wisely. It's never enough to replace that 75 watt lightbulb with a 15 watt florescent that puts out the same illumination - nope, to properly conserve you have to go to a 5-watt one and squint trying to read in proper uncomfortable twilight.
Yeah but my 20year old Merc is still original with no time in the shop other then normal upkeep and probably with 3X the miles then his trans-am he had to restore 3 times. And for the style comment, I guess thats a matter of taste -I rather have a gorgeous old MB then a cranked out, muscle head, grease monkey american car.
In the US you can buy a Brand Spankin New VW TDIGolf for $16K, half the price of Most SUV's
Same here in the netherlands and no doubt the rest of europe.
actually, I'm rather surprised it is not popular in the US.
---
Actually, I believe the largest percentage of waste products would be radioactive isotopes of rubidum and cesium- although there have been something like 70 different elements that have been found in the waste products.
-bugg
Mind you, there's a hemp store in the mall here sellling shirts and stuff made of hemp fibre, hemp-based foodstuffs, etc. Apparently the Canadian government doesn't care about hemp growing.
I've also seen a multi-fuel reformer or two that can be attached to a gasoline engine to make it run off anything. Looked really neat.
Why do you think that is better? In US, we use Miles/Gallon to calc fuel effeciency. The EU standard of Litres/100KM kinda threw me at first too. But, 100KM is about, what, 65 maybe 70 miles? And 3 litres is slightly more than a gallon. That gives your VW about 60MPG, maybe 65MPG at most.
What really chaps my ass though is this: In US, I paid, at most, about $1.25/gallon. Here in Italy, I pay around 2300 Lira/Litre...or about $3.00/gallon. The really funny thing is that during the "Summer 2000 Gasoline Crisis" in the US, my price never went up...at all!
I'd rather you do it wrong, than for me to have to do it at all.
You should not gloat. The Studebaker Avanti (R4?)(tubocharged) production model could do 180 mph off the assembly line.
That kinda beats your Trans Am. And it was a long time ago.
Keep dreamin.
actually both are being used - SF just set up a public filling station that uses both. The city of Berkeley claims to be running its entire curbside recyling fleet on recyled oil
Here in the Bay Area a numbers of cities are running part of their fleets on diesel from recyled cooking oil - it's really wierd you go past one and it smells like fries :-) Apparently its low polluting and cheap, and the main drawback is that you need to replace all the rubber parts in your fuel system with synthetics and be carefull about changing your fuel filter more often
You can't compare a truck motor with the diesel motor that goes into a TDI Golf (or Passat, which I happen to have), especially when it comes to particle emissions.
One problem is very low temperatures. Below -20 Celcius, Diesel can "flock" which prevents the engine from running (even with gas mixed for cold protections you don't get much lower than -20 celcius). Countries like Canada would require some external heating for the motor during winter.
What is also relatively new is that the TDI Diesels get as much horsepower per engine-volume, of course coupled with a much higher torque. My 2.5 V6 TDI has 310Nm torque, which is more than the 2.9 gasoline Passat.
I had a VW Rabbit diesel about ten years ago, and even though the car was a piece of junk, it got a reliable 50mpg, which is a big deal when you are in school. I lived in Indiana, and never had problems finding a truck stop that had diesel. Plus they were always open 24 hours, and had those ultra-high velocity pumps so the semi drivers could fill their 100 gallon tanks in less than a day. Made filling my dinky 8 gallon tank a quick job, and I always had plenty of hose on the pump in case I pulled in the island backward. :)
Micro carbon soot from diesel combustion in automobilies is a deadly carcinogeon and causes lung cancer. You know that lovely smell when a truck or bus drives by. Well, that's diesel. Diesel proponents say that magic "filters" can do the job, however, application of such filters reduces engine efficiency making such engines no more effiencent than gasoline. There are many new technologies on the horizon, including a high pressure combustion which works much like diesil but works with any hydrocarbon that are far better than diesel.
Someone you trust is one of us.
Well my Dad had a Mercedes-Benz 300D (D for Diesel) maybe 15 years ago or so, in New Jersey.
It was great, except for one huge problem. Diesel turns to jelly in the winter! Even plugging the thing in overnight didn't always work. You need a garage for the car, and maybe want to pour boiling water over the block.
Same problem with new diesel tech? Sorry didn't read the article...
I see these hybrid cars and how they advertise like 80mpg, but do they actally have any power?!
I drive a 1989 Cadillac Coupe DeVille, and it makes like 11mpg, but it BURNS. its supafast!
I really like the idea of deisel cars. They have better mialage, have much more power then these wacky hybrids do, and are easyer to maintain and work on.
The only person that doesnt win with diesel cars it seems is good ol mother nature. So why not invest a little resarch into makeing them cleaner? i have no doubt that diesel cars could get a lot cleaner then they are.
With gas prices at over $2 per gallon, and my car needing premium gas, im ready to start taking a go cart to school.
</rant>
A properly tuned diesel engine won't spew black smoke, even under moderate acceleration/load. It's when the really get on the accelerator pedal that the smoke starts rolling, especially under load. It can't be helped, but fortunately lasts only for a short time while accelerating.
Another thing to consider is the HUGE difference in power output between the diesel in a semi and most cars. 600ft/lbs of torque on up compared to less than 100ft/lbs of torque in most econo-cars these days. You're gonna have some smoke.
Diesel engines have their place. They're more reliable, more efficient, and less polluting than gasoline engines of equivalent power. They are horribly misunderstood in this country (USA), mostly due to the crappy diesel engines GM introduced in the late 70s and early 80s. Today's diesel engines are GREAT, import or domestic.
Now, finding a fuel station with a diesel pump in a major metropolitan area, AWAY from the highways might be a problem. That needs to be addressed.
Diesel will eventually replace our gas engines, specifically for use with bio-diesel style fuels.Diesel engines are much easier to maintain, due to less moving parts and no ignition system. Diesel engines are built heavier than gasoline engines, but they do tend to last longer because they generally don't run at high RPMs like gas engines do. Diesel engines work very well with turbos, which boost power and efficiency for relatively little money.
What flavor fumes you prefer is a personal choice, I suppose.
I welcome the thought of the rebirth of diesel passenger cars in the USA. We need more economic cars and trucks.
We really need diesel engines in all the SUVs! :-)
Every time there is a gas crunch, people go looking to alternatives. While diesel is a "cheap" alternative, it is far from being clean.
You see, people claim diesel is clean, and they are in fact correct if you beleive the clinical analysis of diesel output in a labratory environemnt where conditions are perfect. Diesel exhaust in the real world is far from clean. Most people cannot afford the cost to fix their vehicles' emissions systems, and diesel emissions inspection testsing in most US states are very lenient, and practically non-existant in the EU.
Diesel is the cause of the blackening of our ancient cities in Europe, increases allergies in children exposed to diesel exhaust in their youth, unhealthy to breath for adults, and just plain unsightly, and disgusting, not to mention noisy and smelly.
Unless diesel engine tuneups are strictly enforced, and the frequency of checkups are increased with HEAVY fines for ignorance, I don't think this is the direction the world should be going for our energy solution.
With just a little more effort, we can move to a cleaner, and (in the long run) cheaper fuels. Are we going to throw away our health for a few bucks?!?
Biodiesel is made from used fryer oil. Cheap, less polluting than petrol-diesel, radically non-corporate (you can make it in your garage), and recycled to boot! The best thing is the tailpipe emmissions smell like french fries!
I have a Passat TDI and I love it. It is a stick shift, but if you have to learn how to drive a stick, the easiest car to do it with is a diesel because of the phenominal amount of low-end torque. You also get a lot of practice shifting, because you have to upshift at about 15 mph (~23 km/h). Peak torque is at about 2k rpm, peak HP is at about 3k, red line is at about 5k rpm.
:-)
0-60 is not bad in this car, but 60-90 takes a very long time.
Anyway, more to the point of what I titled this reply about...
Just about all of the locomotives in the US are diesel-electric. That is, a diesel engine turns an electric generator and the electricity runs electric motors. This works well because (as I understand it) electric motors have the great advantages of having wide enough torque curves to not require transmissions and they can start from a dead stop and they can run equally well in both directions. They also optimize the diesel engine's performance because they can run it at a more-or-less fixed RPM.
What I don't get is why they haven't done this for cars yet. The only things that suck about electric cars, really, are the batteries. A diesel-electric car fixes all that.
Some people suggest that such a car should also have a battery and use the engine only when necessary. IMHO this just adds weight and expense. We've had more than 50 years of experience making diesel-electric locomotives. Why can't we do the same with cars right now?
Take a look at Future Energies. Their top article is "First Public biodiesel pumps open" which has happened in San Francisco. Lots of other articles there about fuel cell cars, electric cars, etc.
Phillip.
Property for sale in Nice, France
However, there is only one concern: price. If this biodiesel became the norm, how would its price compare to an equivalent amount of gasoline (in its norm)?
The Swedish word for gasoline is also 'bensin'
Yes, gas in europe is a lot more expensive and I can say two primary reasons. First, there is about 300% tax on gas in europe. Second, the octane level is generally much higher than in US. In usa I fill my car up with 87 but in europe generally the normal grade is 95.. It has to be more expensive to use something that you yanks call super extra hyper premium gasoline (I've yet to see 95 anywhere in usa, 94's been the highest octane) as your normal gas.. Price for 94 versus 87 is about 50% higher..
Lack of short term price fluctuations during rapid changes in oil prices is because of the high taxes that create kind of a buffer zone where you can regulate the price to some extend. US gas prices follow the actual price of oil very closely and with little delay.
But when was the last time you actually filled up in usa? Prices are now closer to 2$/gallon in the cheap places and expensive ones are way over.. I remember two years ago filling up for 0.79$/gallon. This was cheaper at the time than the cheapest gallon of store brand water at acme.. Now you get two gallons of water for the price of one gas gallon. Water still costs the same..
Sigh.. You got it off as much to the other direction.. 1 gal (US) amounts to 3.7854 liters. An imperial gallon is 4.5461 liters but that really has nothing to do with this..
This guy seemed to be referring to usa mostly and as such it is natural to assume US gallons when doing conversions. See my post above for a little more detailed discussion..
Just about nobody uses imperial gallons anyway, not with miles per gallons calculations in any case. Even the british are using mostly metric system excluding pub owners etc..
I've often looked at those signs at the gas pump that say octane calculated according to (ron+mon)/2 and wondered how it compares to europe. Now after some research on internet your figure seems about right.. I stand corrected..
Well, Diesel engines put more smog into the air than gasoline powered cars. However, there is actually something going on with diesel engines being able to burn natural gas... link
Buying a Dell computer is equivalent to dropping the soap in a prison shower.
Diesel is hideous. Yeah, you don't need spark plugs in the engines so you can slap a 300,000 mile warranty. Yippee. You just have to put up with the nasty fumes. *COUGH*
> High-speed Flywheels - easily the most
> efficient and compact way to store energy, a
> flywheel made of composites can be spun at up
> to 100,000RPM or more to store energy. And they
> don't lose energy much (you could leave one
> spinning overnight and probably only lose a
> couple hundred RPM, if that). Far more
> efficient than batteries, these are tre-cool, too.
Uch. Imagine what it'll do in the crash... how far it can fly... how much cars it can slice... etc, etc. Flywheel is a very bad idea.
The article is here.
This car has a 1000cc engine that makes 100hp
The US at least isn't on the right track to reducing emissions/pollution. A lot of pollution comes from smaller very very dirty gasoline engines used in things like lawnmowers and leafblowers. These should simply be powered by electric engines.
Buses in the US do often use diesel. This is also foolish at this point as Hydrogen works well as a fuel for buses and is infinitely less polluting. Munich, Germany already uses Hydrogen powered buses and they are being taken up in other European cities. I think a few American cities are exploring the concept as well.
Moan moan moan. Cry cry cry.
Nuclear plants have fuel changes once every few _Years_. You can build a whole new underground complex in less time than it takes a nuclear plant to need more fuel.
You're also not keeping very up todate with reactor technology (no doubt because you're just as clueless as President Carter).
Breeder reactors can do much to alleviate the pileup of un-usable radioactive byproducts...they can use non-uranium materials and if you put the right fuel in them to begin with, they'll create further fissionable material. Infact, i once read long ago that a breeder type reactor produces enough "waste product" after 10 years of operation to start fueling an additional power plant.
IIRC this works because breeders _dont_ start with U235*, which quickly turns into boring lead. On the other hand, if you start with an element (PU244?) that has a decay series with many many more fissionalbe isotypes, you get a longer run of fuel.
#define RANT
All I can figure is that opponents of nuclear power are just looking for something to cry about. You take more radiation from a TV, a brick building, or a flight in an airplane than you do from any man made nuclear plant (that functions correctly.. and the world has seen.. what.. _1_ serious nuclear accident ?)
And as far as where to put the waste we do have ?
Pave Africa and ship it over there. I'm sick of their diseases coming across the pond--not to mention all the commercials with fly infested kids that can be fed for just 4 cents per year or whatever it is. If I'm doing my math right, the TV airtime thats ruining my evening costs a boatload more than any possible amount of donations they could take in.
#undef RANT
*Now that i think about it, i can't remember if its U235 or U238 (or 236 even?) thats used in reactors.. i remember quite cleraly that 235 was needed for weapons...but i dont remember if reactor core material was more or less straight 238 or just less "pure" 235.
My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
I work for a pneumatics concern, and we were approachhed by a guy, in St. Louis I think, who built and is running a Geo powered by air. Something like a Stirling, maybe? The compressed air, stored in a tank, recycles between a couple of our valves (names withheld to protect ...well, everybody). The valves turn a flywheel, etc.
. html); can anyone provide more info?
I searched the web perfunctorily, and didn't find any current links, but there was an old one (http://home.hccnet.nl/jv.stap/technics/pneumocar
Regards, timf.
Gunnison CO was my first encounter with a diesel sedan. While walking past a VW Jetta, I tried to figure out where the truck was. Funny hearing a diesel idle coming from a snazzy car (instead of a semi.)
After reading about the phenomenal mileage (56MPG HWY) I got all excited about buying one. Then I realized I'm in college (have no money) so I got out my bicycle instead. Happy every since.
Also, regarding electric/diesel hybrids, checkout Electronic Valves For Diesel Engines from least year on slashdot.
my dad had a 1985 VW Golf diesel for a while, I loved driving the thing. If someone was following too close for comfort, I could just upshift, listen to those gerbils roar, and watch as the person behind me suddenly became much less interested in reading my bumper stickers... The huge black cloud of diesel smoke probably had something to do with their sudden change in attitude. :)
---
Learn the rules so you know how to break them properly.
www.teslabox.com
WRT your sig... some babies do actually need to be taught how to suckle at a nipple, so that takes us down to zero intuitive interfaces :-(
----
I hereby inform you that I have NOT been required to provide any decryption keys.
I remember being impressed and somewhat taken aback a few years ago when Mercedes brought out the previous E class. It had 3 litre engines in both petrol and diesel forms, the impressive thing being that the diesel cost less to buy, had a much better mpg and had better acceleration.
----
I hereby inform you that I have NOT been required to provide any decryption keys.
That's the first time I've seen "American car" and "sytle"(sic) in the same sentence! Assuming you meant good attractive design by style. And while this may not be of interest to many Americans I bet the Mercedes (Brabus) goes round corners rather better.
----
I hereby inform you that I have NOT been required to provide any decryption keys.
Those old Ford/IH 6.9L's were dogs. But faithful ones. They had two chronic problems: 1. The glow plug controller was junk. The fix was to wire up a relay and a pushbutton, and control them manually. The other was the high pressure fuel pump, which seemd to die every 80,000 miles like clockwork. The fix there was the real International "severe duty" pump, which lasted much longer, and had the notable ability of being about to run on jet fuel and kerosine without getting chewed up.
The modern 7.3L PowerStroke that Ford puts in these trucks nowdays has a huge turbocharger, and uses a computer controlled injection setup. They still have some lag, but once the turbo spins up, there's a truely vast amount of power available. But let's face it, if you want a Camaro, you get a Camaro. If you want a locomotive to tow your trailerable oceanliner, you get a diesel pickup.
Temkin
It's a colloquialism, get over it.
The only "intuitive" interface is the nipple. After that, it's all learned.
"The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than that of whether a submarine can swim" -EWD
Alas we don't have cars such as the Audi A2 entering the market - people who can afford to buy European cars tend to want higher-performance gasoline versions, so there is not much demand for it.
The funny thing is the Indonesian word for gasoline is 'bensin' - made for a bit of confusion for chemistry students (benzene=C6H12, gasoline is mostly C8H18)
Michel
Fedora Project Contribut
Not to worry, the EPA is planning to make the big oil guys produce low sulfer diesel which will clean up diesel emmisions. Which should be grat on paper, unless the long haul truck drivers go on strike in response to the cost spikes.
Have we all forgotten about the byproduct of nuclear power: radioactive uranium. After it has lost its usefullness at a nuclear reactor it needs to be disposed of. Disposing of it right now means burying it in the ground. If not properly sealed it will leak and contaminate the environment. By the way it remains a radioactive hazard for millions of years afterwards.
I suppose if you have a big state like Nevada you can dump it there but what about other countries that don't have bountiful dumping grounds like the USA. Would you like nuclear waste burried in your county? Suddenly nuclear power seems the dirty monster that it really is.
Euro octane ratings are higher because they use only the RON (?) method. But in US, we use the
(RON+MON)/2 method. So euro 95 and US 87 are about the same octane
The base models aren't so bad, but the Sis are really bad on gas. People generally get between 16-22MPG in daily driving because the VTEC power doesn't come until the RPMs are really high. Because of this, milage is only good if you accelarate slowly... defeating the purpose of buying an Si.
This post is brought to you by the letters T and A, and the number 69
Ok you stupid yankee's ,
come pay us a visit with your huge gasoline cars
like oldsmobile or chevy , here are some
numbers :
golf TDI (red D and red I) 0-60 mph 6.7 secs
topspeed is 240 km/hour
You guys will be needing some fresh air, when
taking on this car in a stoplight run. And thats
not because of exhaust pipe fumes. The newest
diesels are clean and very economic.
and then there's the audi's bmw and mercedes
diesels which have even more horsepower.
Robert
I'm not entirely sure why this article states it's a 'Growing Trend'.
:-)
In the UK, diesel cars tend to be just as popular as petrol. The old Diesel Peugeot 205 I had used to get at least 55 to the gallon.
I think this just goes to show how insular the States is when it comes to seeing viable alternatives to problems.
Another fuel on the increase is LPG (gas). My Dad, over 20 years ago, had an LPG car. The conversion was fairly cheap and easy. Effectively, you had a duel fuel car (petrol/ LPG), but LPG was half the price of petrol for more or less the same economy. After successive Tory goverments, the LPG stations disappeared (the Tories didn't care about viable fuel alternatives or public transport), but recently, they've started to come back, because the price of a gallon of petrol is now so expensive in this country. The quantity of LPG stations is on the increase.
Petrol, like everything, is a finite resource. No doubt, US automobile manufacturers will only consider an alternative until the last oil well dries up.
Of course, if anyone should put a good electric vehicle my way, I certainly won't object...
M.
Well, the diesel engine from it's start was meant to be more efficient and cheaper. The designer had studied the internal combustion engine, and wanted to improve on it. The fuel can actually be MANY things (according to the design that is, not necessarily in practice with prebuilt engines). The design is ingenious, one can see why it is more efficient merely by understanding how it works. The engine in american cars works by spraying a mist of gasoline into the chamber, and then sparking an explosion. But the spark can occur at the wrong time, causing misfires, the mix of oxygen and fuel can easily be wrong... Many things can happen. A diesel engine causes it's fuel to explode by rapidly compressing it, causing the necessary reaction for explosion. This solves MANY problems, and the fuels can even be a bit more friendly to the environment. The big part of why big rigs always used it is because it's so much cheaper than gasoline. It's hard to see why it wouldn't be a winner with more people... but I can see pumping as a problem perhaps.... There's always truck stops :-)
Eh...
I think that it has more to do with industry than the government. Just look at the DMCA, that was more industry and PACs, than the government. I think that as a whole, the government tries to cut down on the effects of these groups, but they only need to hit a few influential people to get what they want, or try a couple of underhanded things.
Eh...
You should drive one. I own a 2000 TDI Jetta, and everybody who has ridden in it has been surprised to find out it's a diesel. It only sounds like a diesel when it's cold, and when it warms up, there's hardly any noticable difference between a gas and diesel.
Besides, there's tremendous performance potential from the one TDI engine VW sells here in the US. I've added the Wetterauer chip and it's awesome. If you think the PC Overclockers are crazy, look at the TDI Club .
I just think it's too bad that the biggest reason we can't get the better (more efficient, more power) diesel engines in the US is that sulfur levels in our fuel are too high to run in these engines without damaging them. I'v love an Audi A6 with a V6 TDI!
-------------------------------
The Washington Times? Couldn't you find a more reputable source?
--
That doesn't really make sense, comparing a 20-years-old diesel car to a modern day petrol car. I never drove an American diesel, but concluding from what I read here, American diesels aren't nearly as good as their European colleagues. I was used to a petrol drinking car (Citroën BX, production ceased years ago, unfortunately) when I got my first company car, an Opel Corsa. Of course, equipped with a diesel engine. I admit, it was a little noisy, especially when cold, but it ran smoothly. I particularly liked the character of it: it's not as jumpy as a petrol engine. I'm sure my neighbours didn't like the car when I started it in the morning, after a freezing cold night, because of the thick blue-grey clouds that it threw into the air during the first 10-20 seconds. But as soon as the engine had the right temperature, no more smoke.
So far the old diesel. Now for the new ones. Of course you've heard of common rail technology, almost every marque has one these days, at least in Europe. Ford still doesn't have one in the new Mondeo, but that'll change soon, because the Focus already has one. Volkswagen's turbodiesels have been mentioned a few times already, and for good reasons. The Skoda Octavia uses a 1.9 VW turbodiesel, running an average of 20km per liter (ok, who does the conversions to imperial measures here *grin*) and even 25km/liter at 120km/h. And we're talking a 81kW/110hp engine here. And that's powerful enough for a 1250kg car, I don't need a dragster to go to work.
Famous are the HDi-engines of Peugeot. And, as said before, the more expensive cars of Peugeot (and therefore Citroën, which belongs to Peugeot, see the PSA site) come with a particle-filter, which makes reduces pollution to an extent never seen in diesel engines before. Believe me, I drove a Peugeot 406 diesel and it took a while before I realised it actually was a diesel. It was smooth, powerful and very silent (when I was waiting for a traffic light, I just had to check the rpm-meter to see if it was still running). And with the soot-filter, it's clean, simply check the data sheets of the engine and compare it to diesels without such a filter. And you can start right away, no need to wait for glowing spirals to become hot first. Even more silent was the Renault Laguna with 1.9 common rail diesel I drove some time ago. It's got 6 gears instead of 5 and when doing 120km/h in 6, the engine runs about 2000rpm. Now that's quiet and economic. Seems impossible to me to do that with a petrol engine, since those things don't perform that well at those speeds.
And now the reason why I think diesel engines do so well here in Europe. Statistics show that more and more cars are being leased. And what's interesting then is the cost per km. And in that regard, diesels have two important advantages: they run longer than petrol engines and they cost a lot (yes, a lot) less in fuel: consumption is less and the price of diesel is a lot lower (2.80 Dutch guilders for a liter RON95 petrol and only 1.70 for a liter diesel). Although I have to mention the efforts of our fine government to change that. For the sake of environment, they say, but more for the Treasury's sake I believe. After all, 2.80 (1.08 US dollars) for a liter of petrol isn't a normal price either. So maybe, if those bandits that call themselves ministers get their way, diesel engines may become less and less attractive. But until then, I'm happy to drive a diesel.
Woefdram, l'apprenti sorcier
Here in the Netherlands almost every station sells LPG too, but I'm afraid in the larger part of the world, it's not really popular yet. The only marque I know to sell cars with an LPG-installation is Volvo, they sell most of their cars in a Bi-Fuel-version.
Problem with LPG, apart from the availability, is the reach of a tank: 300km on one tank is about as far as you get (although Volvo claims their cars run as far on LPG as on normal fuel), while my Peugeot 306 diesel runs over 800km on a tank. Of course I'm talking about European cars, I don't know how things are Down Under.
Different problem is the place of the LPG-tank. Until recently, the only way to have your car breathe LPG was to insert a huge gas tank in your trunk. Now that's a very serious reason not to choose LPG. Nowadays, most cars can be equipped with a nicely hidden tank: usually in the place of the spare wheel. Which gives another problem: you can't drive without a spare wheel (at least, not here), so you need to store that one somewhere else. Sure, you can get such a small one with which you can't drive over 80km/h, but still...
So sure, LPG is a nice alternative, but I think it's a little far-fetched to state that it's the way to go. I'd rather have a fuel-cell in my car, or an engine that runs on hydrogen and produces nothing but water. But I'm afraid it's going to take some time before we see that kind of engines appear in normal cars.
Woefdram, l'apprenti sorcier
And the efficient according to the bus and/or train company usually means running on diesel. Why? Because diesel has a better mpg-ratio than petrol.
Woefdram, l'apprenti sorcier
..because they are extremely inefficient. The amount of energy you put into the batteries is like - I don't know the exact numbers, but - several times the energy you get out on the wheels.. Whereas in a gasoline/diesel engine atleast you can 'relate' to the numbers.. So (hypothetically speaking) if a fuel car has a 2:1 relationship in-out, a electric car would have a 20:1 or something thereabouts. And then comes the question - how much does it pollute to PRODUCE that electricity in the first place?? I'd be surprised if the total sum-up there would be any better than conventional gasoline or diesel cars (the ones we drive in Europe, not the american monsters... :P )
Love over Gold.
Breeder reactors can do much to alleviate the pileup of un-usable radioactive byproducts...they can use non-uranium materials and if you put the right fuel in them to begin with, they'll create further fissionable material. Infact, i once read long ago that a breeder type reactor produces enough "waste product" after 10 years of operation to start fueling an additional power plant.
Indeed this is probably the case. However, did it ever occur to you just what breeder reactors produce as fuel? Yes, you're quite right, plutonium, Pu-239. Lots of it, and high quality. And do you know which fissile material it is easiest to make nuclear weapons out of? Yes, correct again, Plutonium-239. It's a whole lot easier to separate the main contaminant of Pu-239 (Pu-240) than it is to separate Uranium-235 from U-238, and concentrations of Pu-239 in plutonium from breeder reactors is typically around 99% - plenty pure enough to build a weapon from. Compare that to Uranium, where typical commercial reactors require 2-4.5% pure U-235 (and the waste has a lower concentration of that), but weapons-grade Uranium is around 80% U-235.
Now, given the relative ease with which governments (and possibly terrorists too, but who knows for sure?) have got hold of Uranium for their weapons-building programs, some of which was weapons-grade from the existing nuclear powers, but most of which was orginally destined for commercial reactors, do you really then want to give them the opportunity to much more easily get hold of weapons-grade plutonium from commercial breeder reactors?
Supporting breeder reactors, no matter how noble your intentions, is tantamount to supporting nuclear proliferation. Do you really want that? Do you think the world would be safer if everyone had nukes?
i am a soviet space shuttle
i am a soviet space shuttle
I've got a 2000 2.0L Golf GLS (it's white, and I love it!). Just to see if I should indeed regretting not purchasing a TDI due to the 44/49 ratings, I computed the monthly payment on a TDI (on my current loan) and the 2.0L that I got because gasoline is far easier to find where I am and because the up-front cost was lower.
It turned out that the answer is no; there is no cost savings, at least on my 36-month loan, if I had done so. I pay about $490 a month; a TDI would have cost about $540 monthly. The extra $50 in monthly payments is about the same as what fuel costs, depending on how I drive and what the fuel prices are.
This goes to show that until diesels either sell closer to the cost of a standard gasoline engine, or the price of gasoline and the price of diesel diverge significantly more, many others will also decide to keep the utility and easy fuel availability of a standard gas engine. Furthermore, under current US laws, diesel fuel is higher in sulphur than the fuels available in Europe, so diesel vehicles do put out more pollution. This can be solved by better fuel-content regulations.
On the other hand, I hear the TDI gets a lot of oomph if you put an Upsolute chip in it. :)
Are you on the VWVortex.com forums? :)
i am a soviet space shuttle
This article is actually about Volkswagen's diesel technology history and how TDI (Turbo Direct Injection) came about and how it's changed over the past 25 years. After the history lesson, they go on to discuss what they're going to do with diesel in the next few years. Even though this revolves mostly around VW, they were one of the 1st companies to use it succesfully in non-commercial vehicles and they're an industry leader in the technology now.
... yes... But what about diesel cars? VW Lupo 3l that was mentioned so many times is so expensive that you'd have to drive about 60.000 miles per year that investment would pay off... That's sad. Because if diesel cars were cheaper more people would have them and then it would really matter... Right now... Who knows...
BigWhale!
---------------
I never wanted to go anywhere. I'm happy here...
The Sig, the sig
It just seems dirtier
Here in Oz virtually every petrol station has a LPG bowser. As all taxis & a good percentage of fleet cars are LPG or dual fuel (LPG/petrol) in Oz LPG is less than half the price of petrol & is cleaner too. All cars made in Australia (Holdens, Ford Falcons, Mitsibishi Magna/Diamontes & Toyota Avalons) are avaliable with factory LPG. & have engines with LPG compatible valve gear. BTW LPG is a by product of petrol refining, so its just wasted if its not used. Dual fuel cars loose about 5% of the power due to compromise tune, but when a petrol engine is converted to LPG only it looses no power/efficiency.
Until diesel pumps are everywhere...
Diesel pumps are everywhere! The entire North American goods transportation system runs on diesel. All you have to do is know where the pumps are (usually on main highways entering cities). With a little planning and thought, you'll never run out of fuel.
I [heart] my 1998 Mercedes-Benz E300 Turbodiesel.
3L direct-injection inline 6. Bought it in Harlingen, Texas at Cardenas AutoPlex. With about 50% highway miles I got about 38 MPG, not bad for heavy sedan. 0-60 acceleration is not too good, about 8 seconds, but that's a damn sight better than, say, a diesel pickup truck.
You have to remeber that the price of gas is crazy.
Something like $5 a gallon. Diesel is aroung $4 a gallon.
Also all the taxis are diesel.
hmm... for fun I enjoy launching DDoS attacks against 127.87.42.5
In 1983,my now late father purchased a Nissan Model 720 King-cab Pickup with the SD25 diesel engine.Unfortunately,cancer claimed him 18 months later and I wound up with the truck.I drove that pickup for over 10 years,had no major trouble until 1995,when the engine needed an overhaul.(Had over 600k miles then).After pulling the engine,I discovered that the frame of the truck had cracked.(Strip mine roads do that).Fixed the frame,pulled the 5-speed manual transmission and installed a gas engine & transmission,sold the truck. I later overhauled the SD25 diesel(costs less than $1000) and stored it and the matching transmission until I found a truck body that could handle the weight of the engine. Today,that engine is in a S-10 extended cab Chevy,using the Nissan transmission(took a lot of surgery on the S-10,with custom adapters.Works good) and I have been driving it for over a year. The diesel engine,if the routine maintenance is done,is just as reliable and cheaper to operate than a gas engine.(I have put over 150K miles on it and it is still going strong.)I just have to remember to plug up the engine heater during winter weather. Why,you ask? I had a few reason for keeping that motor. 1.Reliablilty 2.The engine serial number is 00001.(The truck it came out of was the very first US built Nissan diesel assembled in Symrna,Tenn.) 3.Personal resasons.It was my father's. 4.I like 50+ MPG with decent power.Great for those frequent trips to Dayton,Ohio and back,usually with a double-axle trailer in tow.Loaded) The advailablity of diesel fuel is not a problem,since EVERY gas station here has a diesel pump. Of cousre,the emissions of a diesel is much more dirty than a gas motor.(This is eliminated by good maintenance.) The main problem that most people have with a diesel is the noise.Me,I'm used to it. Purchase a new diesel-powered vehicle again,if I can afford it?YES. of course,the insurance companies are drove nuts by the Chevy-Nissan hybrid.(good) Diesels enjoy lower insurance costs here,adding to the advantages. Disadvantages:lower vehicle value(Blue Book),tend to be cranky in cold weather,noisy,less power per cubic inch of engine size. For my use,having a diesel is great. Your circumstances may be different,though.
Geek Hillbilly
There are no diesel SUV's in USA?
.....; but not in the USA.
One of my cars is a (wife's) 97 Jeep Grand Cherokee (4,0L inline 6) which gets almost 20 mpg. I imagine a nice common rail 3,0L diesel would get pretty much the same performance and get closer to 30 mpg.
Bmw has a nice 3,0L diesel; hm
-- www.globaltics.net
Political discussion for a new world
Yes, diesel is pretty common in North America because of trucking, farming, etc.
I haven't heard of any trucks (as in the big rigs, not pickups) that AREN'T diesel, and a lot of farm and construction equipment (espeically the bigger stuff) is diesel as well.
Pity the price of diesel has doubled recently over here, but with milage like that...
Dark Nexus
Dark Nexus
"Sanity is calming, but madness is more interesting."
On the other hand I wonder how optimized that Audio A2 is or if it is more along the lines of just above average, meaning it is the diesal equivelent of the 25mpg gasoline cars we have now. that would mean biodiesel could cost as much as 3x the gasoine price and still retain an equivilent price/mile.
If you can't be good, be good at it!
Actually, Rover did this in the 1950's in the UK. It worked, but was very expensive. Austin also produced gas turbines around then. See inside the back cover of (I think) March or Aprill 2001 Practical Classics.
Not mainstream yet but the more expensive models of Citroën and Peugeot have them installed
BTW, almost every engine (diesle and gas) can be fitted with a LPG-installation (the size of the spare-wheel).
Here in europe you can buy a Chrysler Voyager with a Diesel engine fitted. That's only logical because here in Belgium 90% of the voyager-like-cars are sold with diesel engines.
German diesels are great. But french cars have nice diesels too. Too bad you can't buy french cars in America.
I'm a Citroën enthousiast myself.
The latest (European) diesels have ooomph to spare and need less serviceing.
but they still make more noise
I'll repeat what others have said: This problem has been solved for quite some time; governments just haven't required diesel engines to have proper emmissions controls. What is taking longer to deal with is getting sulfur out of diesel fuel, but even that won't be a problem soon. As others have pointed out diesel engines can run on just about anything that will burn with enough compression. This opens the possibility of all sorts of renewable fuel sources.
And diesel engines have one advantage that appeals to me at least: if they are cared for reasonably they last a hell of a long time compared to gasoline engines. Also, diesel cars used to easier to work on for the home mechanic since they didn't previously have all the computerized stuff. (This latter point has probably changed with the new cleaner diesels.)
Diesel cars were very common in the seveties and eighties but were fazed out due to their inability to meet polution standards. The reason they were not as popular as conventional gas engines was performance. Americans have always had a greater fixation with acceleration than the europeans. The reason the europeans are showing such high fuel economy numbers has more to do with polution standards than the use of diesel fuel. If you look at their gas engines you'll see they are much more effiecent than their american counter parts. Another reason for the high effeciency of european destined cars is simply the fact that they spend $5 to $10 a gallon for gas. This makes you a lot more willing to put up with reduced performance to get greater economy.
They used to. The new generation of turbo-diesels are actually quite clean.
More interesting than the new A2 is the VW Lupo 3l in German or French - yes thats 3 litres of diesel per 100km!
VW proved their point by driving one around the world in 2000 and the average fuel used for the journey was 3 litres per 100km. Amazing
*** I am the real stylewagon
From VW's Lupo80Days site:
*** I am the real stylewagon
The best are yet to come.
The new generation of diesel cars, whether they be common rail, turbocharged or direct injection, can offer extremely high performance with very low fuel consumption. For example, the BMW 330d has bucket loads of torque 288lb-ft at a low 3,000rpm and 184bhp - that helps make it a genuine performance diesel - try 0-100km/h in 7.2s!.
Within the next few years BMW, Audi and VW plan to add high performance diesel cars to their lineups as well as to their upper-luxury models.
On a related note BMW have also just introduced the hydrogen powered 750hL. Cleaner even than diesel.
Stay tuned!
*** I am the real stylewagon
I think the reason why diesel-powered automobiles aren't common in the USA comes down to this one major issue: diesel fuel sold in the USA has way too much sulfur compounds per million, which can cause havoc with the high-tech diesel designs now common in Europe. What happens is that the corrosive effect of sulfur compounds in US diesel fuel can corrode and damage direct-injection fuel injectors and common-rail fuel-delivery systems. Also, it makes it difficult to control emissions from a diesel vehicle. Fortunately, help is on the way: the EPA is mandating soon that all diesel fuel sold in the USA have under 80 parts per million of sulfur compounds, similar to the California Air Resources Board standard for diesel fuel. This will finally allow the modern diesels sold in Europe to finally be sold all over the USA, and also makes it much easier for diesel cars to comply with LEV and ULEV standards for vehicle emissions since we can now apply more advanced exhaust catalysts and particulate traps, things that the high sulfur content in current US diesel fuel will render useless fairly quickly.
Now, I am one of those spoiled Europeans that can easily get those TDI you are talking about (they nearly give them away as goodies as company cars). I didn't choose one to get one. I drove VW and Audi 1.9TDI and 2.5TDI from friends. Yes, even the 150HP version. :-) ;-)
It is very nice, but on lower RPM's it is *just* a diesel...lack of response, and a truck feeling nevertheless. The acceleration, as soon as you hit the pedal hard and the turbo starts, is quite okay, but nothing I didn't have in a plain Audi 80 1.8 fuel.
If you drive as few kilometers as me (about 15000 per years), diesels are in fact more expensive. Well, that's what I read
Besides, the real kick are the turbo's in classic fuel cars, get a look at those nice 1.8T (the one I have, 225HP...funky) and 2.7T engines Audi makes...of course, you don't have to mind the mileage
Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
I converted a Rover 3.5L V8 in 1978 to LPG and could switch between petrol and LPG anytime. This was in Austria (Vienna) and the price of LPG was always half of the price of petrol (no or low tax).
Now i'm driving in Australia and you can buy the most popular large cars (Ford Falcon and Holden Commodore) ex factory with a dual fuel system for a very modest additional payment. Most petrol stations have a filling point for LPG.
LPG is only cheaper than petrol if you travel about 20.000 km per year and it works better with powerful cars, because you loose about 10 percent of grunt.
Rainer
Knapp vorbei ist auch daneben.
I just wish my Audi got 78 Mpg. It uses oil at about that rate though
Found this car a while ago on the web and was ready to sell my 2.8L V6 on the spot, but no sorry:
(Auditalk reply to my email)
Dear [my name deleted]:
Thank you for contacting Audi of America.
We certainly appreciate your interest in the Audi A2.
Despite rave reviews, we have no plans at this time to bring the A2 to North
America. Since Audi vehicles are designed to satisfy the wants and needs of
our public, we will refer to your interest in this model when future product
recommendations are discussed.
If we can help in any other way, please write again.
[customer rep. deleted]
AudiTalk
First off, you are probably confusing the power ratings of IC (internal combustion) engines and electric motors. IC engines are rated at peak power (the most they can produce, which is at a very limited speed range). Electric motors are rated at continuous power usually, which is anywhere between 7 and 8 times lower than their peak power.
If you check out AC Propulsion, they have a motor that produces 165 lb-ft of torque, and 200 hp. It weighs 110lbs. Unless you get into motorcycle engines, or some of Honda's high-revving wonders, you won't find a comparable power-to-weight ratio in an IC engine.
Electric motors are also much MUCH better at producing torque. If you look at the specs for any given motor, they will usually give two ratings, one from zero to a given rpm, which is its torque rating. How many IC engines do you know that can give 100 lb-ft of torque at zero rpm? None. You get a lot more grunt out of an electric motor than you could an IC engine, unless it's absolutely huge (Corvette? Mustang?).
As for reliability.... IC engines have, what 500, 1000 moving parts? How often do you have to change the oil? Spark plugs? Timing belts, fan belts, water pumps, etc., etc.? An electric motor has ONE moving part. DC motors have commutators, which are sliding contactors that can wear. But AC motors have none, just the rotor moving inside the stator. How is one moving part less reliable than 1000? Unless you have some good solid (or even believable generalized anecdotal) evidence to the contrary, I can't believe that any combustion engine is more reliable than an electric
Who says we need something bigger than a Honda CRX, anyways? How many people do you take to work with you when you drive? I don't take anyone... a 2 seater would be 100% too big! If you're thinking of using it as your primary vehicle, yes, you need something bigger. But right now the best place for EV's are as second cars, for commuting purposes.
Mr. Ska
I slit a sheet
A sheet I slit
Mr. Ska
I think the price tag on fuel has something to do with this. Oil prices have been high ever since the oil crisises in the '70s and '80s, and I think that in Europe a lot of folks started to choose diesel has a cheap alternative. Granted, the engine is more expensive, but in those days the fuel was so much more cheaper. These days, the diesel is a bit more expensive, but engine performance has gone up quite well.
Dave
check out the Rosen Powertrain, a series electric motor/gas turbine (very nice) and flywheel which has been tested and runs beautifully in a reworked saturn.
the secret is, the flywheel is suppoted on gimbals, which allow it to rotate in 3 dimensions, so it causes no precession relative to the vehicle.
plus, its made of carbon fibre, and is made such that if the flywheel does break, the rotor dissolves rather than flies apart.
---
---
Is this the MPAA? Is this the RIAA? Is this the DMCA? I thought it was the USA!
Nowadays, diesel engines are really not more pollutive than the average petrol engines. Especially since for instance the VW Golf TDI can run for more than 20 km on 1 litre of diesel oil (a smaller VW car exists, that can run more than 30 km on a single litre of diesel). The only fuel that is less pollutive, is LPG (Liquid Petrol Gas), a byproduct during refining which is only common in the Netherlands. BTW this year, again, the American gas companies have bought a lot of petrol in Europe to prevent shortage in North America, causing prizes in Europe to skyrocket. Europeans are simply forced to look for alternatives.
I am a huge fan of American sports cars.... as soon as I can get a diesel one that can go from 0-60 in under 6 seconds, I will consider getting one.....
East Bound and Down
Proud 2000 Trans Am owner
Black/Black leather
top speed 150+
top speed I have driven it at 120
Mustang owners.. keep dreamin!
Taxes and Lazy People are best friends.
Yes, thanks =)
There are a thousand forms of subversion, but few can equal the convenience and immediacy of a cream pie -Noel Godin
You say:
2. Diesel/biodiesel looks promising but a few problems remain - more polluting than normal gasoline, different performance issues, and such. However, they are more efficient overall. Paired with an electric motor, diesel engines could turn out to be cleaner and more effective than gasoline-only vehicles.
But the NYTimes article says:
At the same time, compared with Europe, the United States has much dirtier diesel fuel - used by heavy trucks and in a slightly different form, as home heating oil - with far higher levels of sulphur.
Please respond. If you're knowledge of the cleanliness of diesel is based on North American grade diesel, wouldn't a switch to European-grade change this problem?
There are a thousand forms of subversion, but few can equal the convenience and immediacy of a cream pie -Noel Godin
Anyway, this is one vehicle that's quite popular here: The Twike. It's a hybrid electric/muscle power vehicle. Not really a car, more a souped-up bicycle. Great for commuting and going around town though.
There are a thousand forms of subversion, but few can equal the convenience and immediacy of a cream pie -Noel Godin
Diesel is better suited, though, for interstate driving. It likes to get to a fairly high speed and stay there. Acceleration sucked! Light turns green, and you SLAM on the gas. Car looks around for a moment, then says "oh! You were talking to me!" and goes!
Pumps are not on every corner, but I never had to go out of my way to find one.
Newer diesel engines are as clean or almost as clean as gasoline engines now - especially the ones from high-end manufacturers like BMW and Mercedes. The problem with diesel is you'd have a hard time convincing most Americans you have to put "special" gas in their cars. Plus diesel never generate as much horsepower compared to similar gasoline engines - they do produce more torque but again most people don't understand torque. It just takes information and an open mind.
Consider riding a bike:
;-)
1) almost as clean as walking (there are lubricants involved obviously, but no pollution)
2) more effecient (in terms of fuel per mile) than walking, driving, mass transit
3) on urban trips of a few miles or less, faster than all other forms of transportation
4) Good for the body! ** 9/10 bicyclists do report though that bicycling is addictive behavior.
5) www.chainguard.org
smaller particulate doesn't become embedded in the lung walls - it is able to traverse further down into the lungs. Larger particulate get's stuck early on in the larger passageways, and gets cleared more readily, as it is closer to the top of the lungs. Smaller particulate takes longer to be cleared because is has a longer and more convoluted route out.
If you can't beat them, embrace and extend them.
Screw all the uproar over second-hand cigarette smoke (anti's make that out to be more harmful than actually inhaling the smoke first hand). I have heard theories that if you smoke, you actually have a slightly less risk of cancer, because the "tar" from cigarette smoke actually forms a protective layer that blocks out particulates from smog. But I don't smoke. Not because it's unhealthy, but simply because it stinks. And I change my oil regularly on my truck, which I bought new 10 years ago, but now has over 150,000 miles on it, and it doesn't smoke either.
The big draw of American(OK the F-bodies are Canadian built) sports cars is the price, for the same price as that Mercedes thingy, you could have 5 or more Trans Ams, or like 3 Corvetts. And if you went with the American car atleast you would have sytle, not the stale, 30 year old design of the Benz, ugly and expensive.
The slant (IMHO) was pro-diesel and how the US was potentially missing out on a big energy-saving technology. Fair enough, we need to look at anything that might work. But . . . here are some of the countering facts which the article was good enough to include:
Diesel fuel is cheaper in Europe due to different taxing strategies. In the US it's not nearly as pronounced. In the US in wintertime, when diesel refining is competing with home fuel oil refining, the price of diesel rises to about the price of gasoline -- in spite of the slight tax advantage. Increase diesel usage to the about 50% of the market, and watch the price rise even further.
US diesel fuel and European diesel fuel are two different beasts. The Euro fuel is `much dirtier', including much more sulphur. Further refinement will absolutely be required, and probably purchase of low-sulphur (and therefore more expensive) crude.
Take those two together, and the actual cost of diesel will almost surely be higher than gasoline.
Another point is soot emissions. Soot emissions from diesels have improved, but are still not anywhere near what US standards are. Let's leave aside for a moment whether or not those standards are rational (and just so you know my prejudices, I think they are rational). The article states ``Albrecht Schmidt, a top expert on energy issues for Germany's Green Party [said] "The big problem with diesel is the small particulates, but we think that problem can be solved with new particulate filters."''
That's an encouraging statement, but it also plainly says ``the problem isn't solved yet.'' In other words, like a lot of other technologies this looks good but still can't meet all the requirements we current have of gasoline IC engines.
The article makes a somewhat misleading point about European vs US fuel economy, saying ``the average new car [in Germany] has improved its fuel efficiency steadily since 1990 and now gets about 32 miles a gallon. The average diesel car gets about 40 miles a gallon. By contrast, the average efficiency of new vehicles in the United States has deteriorated steadily over the period as ever more sport utility vehicles have been sold, and was just 24.5 miles a gallon last year.'' That's certainly true, but it's not apples and apples. SUVs and trucks aren't considered cars for the purpose of mileage calculations in the US, and are permitted far worse mileage. If you only look at US cars, MPG has been pretty much flat the last few years.
SUVs/trucks need to be pulled under the same rules as everything else. Trucks were originally exempted for the same reasons diesels and diesel fuel were -- a desire not to drive up the cost of commerce (or to cater to a rich and influential business lobby, if you prefer). The end result was that consumers reacted by buying the cheaper vehicle that got poorer mileage. That almost inexorably led to the SUV explosion we see today.
Want to change this? Easy. Put SUVs and trucks under the same mileage rules as cars. In five years, you'd probably see a 25% or move improvement in MPG of the average US `car'.
Don't want to hurt the small farmer? OK, keep the gas mileage rules on *real* pickups the same (ie, put vans and SUVs under `car' rules), but require them to have commercial plates and pay commercial taxes.
My point here is not that diesel is bad or that we couldn't get some improvements from using it. It's that the article oversells it, and many of the selling grounds have more to do with tax and regulatory policy than quality of technology.
Back to the drawingboard then.
Personally, I have a very unpopular opinion on this subject. I think that we all need to get used to the idea that personal transport is a luxury, not a right. After all, mass personal transport has only been around for the last fity years or so. Not that cars should be banned, but the pricing needs to be vastly increased until the total environmental damage caused by them is reduced to acceptable levels.
I know this sounds like flamebait or troll, but it isn't. Yes, I can see why this will never happen, and why 99% of people will think it a bad or crazy idea in the first place. Mod me down if you will. Oh, you did already ;)
--
"I'm not downloaded, I'm just loaded and down"
The engine needed for a hybrid like the Insight has to be small and must start reliably; diesel isn't best suited for either.
too bad they dont have it in the online version http://www.sciam.com/2001/0601issue/0601quicksumma ry.html
a cH CCI-SCCI.html
k .h tml
a few links they had at the end of the article:
http://www.me.berkeley.edu/~mctai/hcci.html
http://www.ca.sandia.gov/CRF/03_facilities/03_F
http://www.vok.lth.se/CE/research/hcci/i_HCCI_u
my associative arrays can kick your hash - TCL
Homogeneous Charge Compression Ignition
H CCI-SCCI.html h tml
http://www.me.berkeley.edu/~mctai/hcci.html
http://www.ca.sandia.gov/CRF/03_facilities/03_Fac
http://www.vok.lth.se/CE/research/hcci/i_HCCI_uk.
my associative arrays can kick your hash - TCL
Your nuclear weapons were invented by GERMANS. Not ONE original invention has come from the USA by a native born American. It is always the USA buying the great ideas of Europeans.
I sincerely hope you are 'trolling', because if you really believe you Americans are safe when the whole of the rest of the world hates you to a man, then you really need to get a grip.
When the nuclear bombs fall on the USA, the rest of the world will shrug its shoulders and carry on, with the knowledge that the most hated race in the world (the Americans) are no more.
GE introduced the first diesel-electric hybrid in the 1920s in trains. That was the technology that allowed them to replace the steam engine. It turns out that only an electric motor could provide the tremendous starting torque necessary to replace the steam engine. The diesel engine acted as little more than a generator. Stop singing the praises of "new" hybrids. Chances are that you have been looking at them for years.
Also, CARB (California Air Resource Board) is comprised of a bunch of fucking idiots. They also want to rid southern California of the riding lawnmower and the outdoor grill. It was nice to finally see an article that did not completely kowtow to these environmental anti-scientists.
There's one big (by which I mean HUGE) problem with flywheels, particularly high-speed types. A flywheel is a large weight spinning around a central axis; it is a particularly efficient way of storing energy, if the bearings are good. Unfortunately, flywheels have another name: gyroscopes. Gyros are not used primarily for the purpose of storing energy, but they are functionally the same thing, a weight spinning around a central axis. Now, ask any pilot or physicist a few questions about gyros, and you'll hear the word "precession."
Precession is the tendency of a gyro react to an applied force as though the force was applied 90 degrees ahead in the direction of rotation; that is, if a gyro is spinning clockwise, and you apply a force at the top (12 o'clock) position, the gyro will react by moving in the direction of the force, but at the 3 o'clock (right side) position. The result of this precession in a car would be to induce a force 90 degrees away from an applied force. The applied force could be anything--a bump, a turn, or cresting a hill (changing directions in the vertical plane); cresting a hill is a particularly insidious problem, as it would reduce the weight on the wheels (if done at any significant speed, like on the highway), and thus reduce the traction between the tires and the ground. That processional force would tend to induce a roll, pitch, or yaw moment in the vehicle, depending on the applied force and the orientation of they gyro-flywheel. Such a force could be very strong indeed, as it is related to the mass and rotational speed of the gyro (related to stored energy); at 100,000 RPM, or even at lower RPM and significant mass, you are still faced with a potentially significant precessional force, which would tend to reduce the controllability of the vehicle. I, for one, would not want to be on the wrong end of that equation.
One possible solution to that problem is to use dual, contrarotating gyros, but that poses problems of its own. The gyros must be properly synchronized; loss of sync will result in one gyro having a stronger precessional moment than the other. Another is that a synchronization system adds weight, complexity (additional points of failure), and reduces efficiency of the system.
Lesser problems, also mentioned in other posts, include imbalance (a slight imbalance, rotated to high speed, will result in significant vibration, causing rough running and substantial bearing wear) and flywheel damage--the slightest imperfection in the flywheel, accelerated to 100,000 RPM, could easily result in flywheel failure, including the assiciated problems of shrapnel (ever see a rotating object come apart? pieces everywhere) and imbalance (lose a chunk, suddenly the balance is gone).
In short, while flywheels sound like a good solution, they are really quite impractical for automotive use. The drawbacks are far too significant, and have too much potential to be dangerous, to allow flywheels to be effectively used in cars.
(And yes, I know that cars do have small flywheels in the engine, but they are just that, small, and only spinning at a few thousand RPM's. They just provide steady energy for the engine between power strokes.)
"Make it ten--I am only a poor corrupt official."
--Captain Louis Renault (Claude Rains), Casablanca
But diesel cars and trucks are responsible for a huge amout of particulate pollution too.
Forget diesel, I want a grease powered car! Those fancypants Detroit automakers and Texas oil drillers may think they have a hold on the American market. They may think the American people are too stupid to convert to cheaper, cleaner, more efficient technologies already proven overseas, but we'll prove them wrong. Pull up to a McDonalds and siphon some fuel from the Fry-O-Lator, that'll show 'em.
My Karma is so good, I'm the Dalai Lama...or something.
Does anybody know of any companies doing research into powering an electric car with a stirling engine? From what I remember stirling engines have the best efficiency of any hydrocarbon type engine but they are limited in practicality because it takes time to speed them up or slow them down. It seems to me that they would be great to power a generator and flywheel storage device. Use the stirling engine to power the generator and use the generator to power an eletric motor. On startups and acceleration pull more power from the flywheel and feed it back on braking. While cruising or idling power the flywheel back up to account for power losses from friction. Internal combustion engines are not the only way to use hydrocarbon fuels and probably not even the best way. I would also bet that you could set up the engine to burn any kind of flamable liquid giving much greater options for fuel choice.
"If there is nothing you are willing to die for, then you are not really alive." Myself
At every service station.
I don't care if I get flamed for this, but we should be paying $3+ a gallon for gas because otherwise, people aren't going to change their driving habits at all. If people were really worried about the price of gas they would buy a car that got decent mileage instead of an SUV that has a high center of gravity, can't go off-road, and gets 10 MPG because the thing looks cool. I don't feel a damn bit of shame for people paying a ton for gas now, I do as well, and you know what, I just drive less. I drive myself to class, to the grocery store, and that's about it. I don't drive to someplace like Barnes and Noble anymore just to read books because it's going to cost me $2-3 in gas alone for the trip there and back, and I don't spend that money now unless I have to.
I don't think that semi's are bad, they are probably the most efficient way to move large payloads and do the least environmental damage of the options. Can you imagine the cost of food if they had to fly it in instead of trucking it? However, before people expect me to give a damn that they are paying $3 a gallon for gas, look at the car you are driving, look at the public transportation options, and try driving less.
A friend of mine in SF has a '01 TDI Jetta, I have an A4 Quatro, and we've taken a few trips in his car to Seattle and it's very nice to rarely have to stop and get gas, you can't notice any performance issues compared to my sister's '98 Jetta, and it's great. Incredible mileage, fine performance, though I really love my A4 Quattro and the AWD since it's usually rainy in the NW, but his Jetta is far cheaper for a road trip than buying Supreme for my Audi.
You know, in Twin Falls, Idaho (Farming town) Desil is very popular, though not for its fuel efficnency.. There are lots of huge V8 Super Charged desil trucks all over the place. One thing about desil is that its anything but nice to be near when its burning. The exaust on these things is a really thick black smoke and they smell absolutly NASTY!
Well I'm suprised you guys havn't taken to diesel. It isn't that bad these days, petrol engines do have better acceleration but less power but thanks to improved in car computer systems this isn't that bad as fuel and air regulated to ensure a good mix. I guess the problem is that in the states fuel prices are so dirt cheap that there is no point using diesel. In the UK, fuel before tax is cheaper than in the states but after tax is a lot more. Here it is approximatelly 80p ($1.28) per litre! That is £3.60 ($5.76) per gallon, making anything that is cheaper worth while. So all the goverment does is put less tax on diesel and then hey presto it is worth the reduced acceleration because it is so much cheaper to run. Arthur
Where do you think all those trucks that haul the majority of our nation's goods get fuel? Anywhere there is business, there will be Diesel. Unless you're a *long* way from the nearest highway, there is a Diesel pump nearby.
Check out the hemp car, a Mercedes Benz touring the U.S.A using hemp-based biodiesel. Hemp is such a great plant, it's a shame the D.E.A won't let us grow it!
Biodiesel could be the next great thing, outside of the US of course. Plus it helps out the farmers of this country that have been struggling to make ends meet.
It's time for the USA to take the lead in adopting new transportation technologies, and time to ditch the gasoline engine. Unfortunately, with the ExxonMobil Bush/Cheney team in command, it's gonna get worse before it gets any better.
~~+++ATH0 . . . END OF LINE
Go check out a Honda Civic HX sometime. They use a nice 1677 cubic cm engine (listed as a 1.6 Liter) Single OverHead Cam VTEC engine, push out about 120 HP to the wheels (stock), can really move, and get around 49 miles to the gallon depending on how you drive (This is first person experience)
Which are still way less efficient than a real train. The biggest thing that real trains have going for them in the efficiency department is the fact that they have steel wheels running on a steel track. Any sort of vehicle running on road has to account for rather large imperfections in the pavement. In the US, the Department of Tranportation OUTLAWED solid wheels many years ago because they were dangerous (hit a bump and you lose contact with the road), and because they tended to destroy the pavement (Experiment: How easy is it to destroy the asphalt pavement with a simple claw hammer? How much damage would that hammer do if it had the weight of your car behind it?)
Trains don't have to deal with this restriction. They also don't have to deal with the continous braking from compressing and bending rubber. Even at 90-100psi, truck tires do a lot of energy absorbing. In fact, leave out a little air so that the rubber bends even more, and truck tires will build up enough energy to catch fire. I've personally seen it happen. When I was a driver, the number one job of the day was to check tire pressure.
In summary, trains do indeed gain efficiency by consolidating a lot of carts behind one engine, but the major benefit comes from less impedence from bending rubber tires.
And if you're reeeeally in a bind, heating oil & kerosene are...the same damn thing.
I'm not even getting into the cooking oil or gasoline options. Yes Ive used gasoline in a diesel...its painful for you & the engine, but itll work in an emergency.
I loved the VW diesels...simplest car to work on I've ever experienced...once you get your head around the way the engines work.
Of course, GM is to blame for most Yankee's perceptions of diesel cars. Their 70s/80s attempt at diesel passenger cars & light trucks was abysmal & halfassed.... Seems fitting that they're the #1 opponent, at least in the article.
Forget trucks, Railroads are where it's at. Trains are orders of magnitude more efficient than trucking. Unfortunately, obviously railroads are dependent on trucking for the "last mile" delivery, and the trucking unions have entrenched themselves so that they either get an artificially enormous percentage of long haul traffic or nothing gets moved on the short haul, and thus railroads are ignored and we get to deal with the excessive pollution, deadly accidents, and torn up highways repaired at our expense.
Frankly, I don't give a rip if my TDI Jetta puts out more particulate pollutants than a conventional car. I average almost 50mpg. Compare that w/ some jack ass in an SUV getting 15mpg. Which one of us is harming the environment more? Which one of is using up more natural resources? And considering that a Diesel is basically a "Mr.Fusion" (Back to the Future 2), meaning that it'll run on just about any Carbon bi-product, the engines would probably burn cleaner if the refineries would bother to refine it to a level beyond Kerosene. And that they have the nerve to charge as much for this un-refined Petroleum just pisses me off. Supply and demand, right? Guess what, if it wasn't for Semi trucks, every city in the US would be out of food in under 2 weeks. How's that for supply and demand. Friggin' Oil companies. Damn OPEC. And for all you who hate GW, just remember, Gore helped open up the US Strategic Oil Reserve to a select few Oil companies, including one he owns an awful lot of stock in (no conflict of interests here, move along). Read his book to find out what else he thinks of energy issues. Try $3.50 at the pump for gasoline. And how about wanting to ban the internal combustion engine? How he managed to get the support of the United Auto Workers is beyond me.
I whole-heartedly agree, except for the "VW if you're on a budget..." I paid ~$21K for my '01 VW Jetta TDI. It's the most expensive car in its class, by several thousand. But I love it and I actually get better milage than the sticker says, even with a full load. The big reason Diesel has never been real popular in the US is because during the mid-70's(?) GM(?) tried to make a Diesel car. Anyone who knows anything about cars knows that the typical compression ratio for gasoline engine is ~11-14:1. Diesel's require ~18:1 compression. So what happens when you build a Diesel engine that uses gasoline engine quality parts? That's right, things blow up. So because GM has a bunch of morons in the penny-pinching department, Diesel's got a bad rap.
My dad had a 1994 Ford with a 7.3L with an aftermarket turbo. It was much better in terms of perfomance than mine was, but still had the teeth rattling diesel knock. And it was a beast, he hauled a chuckwagon on a trailer all over the state of Texas, and at one point put my 1980 Datsun pickup on a trailer behind his truck and pulled it down the highway at 70 miles an hour for 150 miles to get it to the mechanics from my college. Once that turbo kicked in there was more than enough power, but if your windows were down you were deaf whenever you got to your destination. I do realize that there are some pretty amazing diesel cars avalible in Europe, but that doesn't help me, sitting in Texas. As far as the whole volkswagen thing goes- I'm 6'3" and 215 pounds. Me and smallish cars dont work well. When I can find a Mazda 626 sized car, with a common rail diesel, thats quiet, gets good performance, and I dont have to think about any more than a gasoline car other than make sure I pull up to the right pump, then I'll reevaluate. I currently have not seen anything aproximating that in the States, even in the Mercedes diesels that I've ridden in.
No one expects the Spanish Inquisition!
I drove a 1980 Ford f250 diesel truck for a while. After having it, I think I'll leave the diesel for big trucks, and stick with gas for my cars. The problems I had with diesel were 1) fuel avalibility. Everywhere had a pump, but usually only 1, most of the time it was seperate and uncovered, and usually in bad shape. This was in Texas, where diesel trucks ARE common. If it rained, you didn't have the luxury of an island, but were stuck on some unlit corner of the station getting soaked. Those that did have a diesel pump in line with the rest of the gas pumps I often found it occupied by a car getting regular gasoline, and have to wait until they were finished to get my diesel. 2) Noise. My truck was freakin loud. I've ridden in diesel cars (most notably a Mercedes) and while they were better, still had a noticible diesel "knock." Nothing says "Hello Mom, I'm breaking curfew." quite like a diesel engine pulling into the driveway late. If my windows were down it was quite unbearable in towns where the noise would bounce off buildings. 3) Performance. My current vehicle is a Datsun pickup with a 92 horsepower I-4 engine. However, it feels like a racecar compared to the 6.9L V-8 diesel in my old truck. The truck had plenty of pulling power, but was slow as christmas. I like my cars to have ooomph, mileage be damned. Now there were some good things about that truck- we sold it with 240,00 miles on it 4 years ago, and it now has well over 300,00 on it, and the person we sold it to is still using it as a work truck. Other than a starter going out I never had any mechanical problem with it. However, until I can get a quiet car with acceleration more like my Camaro than my pickup, I'll stick with gasoline.
No one expects the Spanish Inquisition!
Wrt. fuel cells: People should be made aware of the big players that are jockying for position in the future hydrogen markets. The big oil companies are amoung them as they think ripping hydrogen from all those cheap hydrocarbons that they pump from the ground is a nice way to go. Most methods proposed for supplying large quantities of hydrogen to the car-fuel cell market is dirty itself. As such a large amount of CO2 is still produced and some of the metheds are almost as dirty as current gasoline usage. Readers should do a little research into this if they are truly concerned about the environmental side effects of modern transportation. Cheers, tius
Diesel cars were killed here in the US in the mid-1980's by a combination of design problems, improperly trained service technicians, and ignorance. No, the redesinged Oldsmobile 350 diesel did not suck, neither did the 4.3L V-6 diesel (designed from the ground up as a diesel.). Properly maintained, they have been known to last more than 300,000 miles. Some of the full-size cars of that time would regularly get better than 30 miles per gallon. My rust-bucket Buick Regal with V-6 diesel gets almost 40 MPG highway. No problem finding diesel fuel here either. And right now, I would rather pay $1.56 per gallon for diesel than $1.98 for regular unleaded gasoline.